Bill C-65 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying the involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for the following offences: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing death. It also provides for a mandatory driving prohibition order if street racing is found to be involved in one of those offences.
This enactment also makes a consequential amendment to another Act.

Criminal Code

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to BillC-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, because it considers it to be a step forward. Of course, some changes could have been suggested. We will do that when it gets to committee.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of BillC-19, the purpose of which is to impose tougher penalties on people who participate in street racing, in order to deter people from engaging in practices like these that endanger the safety of the public.

We are very aware that this bill will not be sufficient in itself to put an end to the tragedies that are caused by street racing. However, sending a clear message that street racing will not be tolerated and will result in severe sentences will perhaps mean saving lives, by persuading some individuals to give up this dangerous activity that puts other people’s lives at risk.

This bill provides an opportunity to steer speed aficionados toward legal racetracks that have been set up for this purpose, and to make them aware of the terrible tragedies that racing on public streets can lead to.

First, I must point out that the previous government introduced Bill C-65, in September 2005, and that in October 2005 we supported it at second reading. It will be recalled that it died on the Order Paper, at committee stage on the dissolution of the 38th Parliament on November 29, 2005.

Unlike Bill C-19, Bill C-65 did not create new street racing offences. It simply treated participating in street racing as an aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in cases involving dangerous driving or criminal negligence.

The present BillC-19 therefore goes farther. However, when we pass a bill, will it have an impact on provincial laws, for example? We must always respect jurisdictions. We know that each province and territory has its own motor vehicle and highway safety legislation.

In Quebec, the maximum fine for a driver who engages in street racing is $600. In Ontario, an offender convicted of engaging in street racing may have his or her driver’s licence suspended for a maximum of two years.

Bill C-19 does not infringe on provincial legislation, because it requires that there be criminal intent. Criminal law is clearly under federal jurisdiction.

It appears that Bill C-19 will do nothing to alter the power that Quebec and the provinces have to regulate street racing. Here is an excerpt from an analysis of the bill by Dominique Valiquet of the Law and Government Division of the Library of Parliament:

An act during a sporting event may lead to criminal charges, even though the sport is provincially regulated. A parallel can be drawn with hockey. In Quebec, a regulation has been made, under the act respecting safety in sports, about hockey safety. Such a regulation does not prevent criminal charges from being laid against a player who committed an act that is an offence under the Criminal Code. An example would be assault causing bodily harm.

In the case of street racing, the act of a driver (even during a regulated event) can give rise to criminal charges if:

the driver has the required criminal intent;

the act represents a hazard that goes beyond the acceptable risks of the sport.

Dominique Valiquet continues:

However, it is important to note that Bill C-19 applies only to street racing in a public place. The first clause of the bill uses the wording “on a street, road, highway or other public place”.

Consequently, Bill C-19 does not apply to car races held on a track to which the public does not have access. However, in that case, criminal charges could be laid under the provisions of the Criminal Code on dangerous driving or criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death.

This opinion from Dominique Valiquet of the Law and Government Division of the Library of Parliament is clear as to the legal aspect of the bill.

We can summarize the bill by saying that it amends the Criminal Code by defining street racing and creating five new offences related to street racing. This is what distinguishes it from Bill C-65, for example, which was introduced by the other government. For three of these new offences, Bill C-19 provides for maximum sentences that are stiffer than those currently in effect for dangerous driving or criminal negligence while operating a motor vehicle. It introduces mandatory orders prohibiting offenders from driving for a minimum period, with a gradual increase in the duration of the order for repeat offences.

There is a huge difference between this bill and Bill C-65, because Bill C-19 goes further.

Let us take a closer look at this. For example, under current legislation, the courts must turn to the provisions related to dangerous driving or criminal negligence to punish those who engage in street racing. At present, the Criminal Code specifies four offences that could apply to street racing in case of death or injury: criminal negligence causing death, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

Under current legislation, the fact that criminal negligence or dangerous driving was committed in the context of street racing has no bearing. That is what we hope to change.

As for mandatory driving prohibitions, the Criminal Code currently compels judges to suspend the driver's licence of any individual convicted of impaired driving. For offences of criminal negligence and dangerous driving, such a suspension is currently at the judge's discretion. The difference under the proposed legislation is that it would not be left to the judge's discretion; rather, there would be mandatory minimum sentences.

Let us first look at clause 1 of the bill. The bill defines street racing as:

—operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place.

The expression “operating a motor vehicle in a race” does not seem to include a timed race involving only one motor vehicle. That would have to be added and defined at committee.

The definition of “motor vehicle” is found in section 2 of the Criminal Code. It includes motorcycles, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. This is very important because races often take place among these kinds of vehicles.

The definition of street racing applies to organized street races as well as those improvised in inappropriate locations not intended for this purpose.

As for offences pertaining to street racing, it is important to talk about the five new offences created by this legislation. In addition to participation in street racing, an element of negligence must be present. What is the difference between criminal negligence and dangerous operation? What defines dangerous operation is that the driver's behaviour must be markedly different in terms of due diligence compared to that of a reasonable person in the same situation. In the case of criminal negligence, the driver must be found to have acted with wanton and careless disregard for the lives or safety of others. There is a distinct difference. Also, it must be shown that there was criminal negligence or dangerous operation in order for the participant to be found guilty of one of the five new street racing offences.

Whoever assists or encourages a street racer may also be considered to have participated in the offence.

This is important because there are promoters of these races on the Internet, who will not be charged unless they are included. Those who organize such races, not just the participants, must also be held responsible.

Bill C-19 adds the five following street racing offences to the Criminal Code: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; dangerous operation causing bodily harm; dangerous operation causing death; causing bodily harm by criminal negligence; and causing death by criminal negligence. This is very clear.

For three of these new offences, Bill C-19 provides maximum sentences that are longer than those currently set for dangerous driving or criminal negligence in operating a motor vehicle. In the case of dangerous operation causing bodily harm, the sentence is 14 years compared to 10. For dangerous operation causing death, the sentence is imprisonment for life compared to 14 years. The difference in sentencing and the new offences being added are significant.

Judges can also order driving prohibitions. The Criminal Code currently requires the judge to suspend the driver's licence in cases where an individual is convicted of having the care or control of a vehicle while impaired.

For criminal negligence and dangerous driving offences, such an order is currently at the judge's discretion. When an individual is found guilty of criminal negligence causing death, the licence may be suspended for life. Bill C-19 removes the judge's discretion by setting out a one-year mandatory minimum driving prohibition the first time an individual is convicted of dangerous driving or criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death while participating in street racing.

The bill provides that the minimum driving prohibition period will be increased for subsequent offences. It is important to read the driving prohibition provision very carefully. It prohibits the offender from operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, highway or other public place for a minimum period plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. This is in addition to any other sentence the court may impose. An offender may appeal a driving prohibition order before the National Parole Board to cancel or vary such an order. Driving during the prohibition period is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. This bill would make major changes to the Criminal Code.

Bill C-19's proposed system of gradually increasing the length of prohibition for repeat offences would have to be reviewed. For dangerous driving that does not cause bodily harm, the increasing length of the prohibition is identical to the provisions in the Criminal Code for offences involving drinking and driving. This seems reasonable to us.

However, the minimum lengths seem more problematic for repeat offences of dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing death. For example, if a person has already been found guilty of dangerous driving cause bodily harm and they cause another person's death as a result of dangerous driving, they will automatically be banned from driving for life. In that example, the fact that a judge is forced to ban the offender from driving for life could create adverse effects, effects we have gone over a number of times during discussions on minimum sentences.

Let us review the reasons that have always prompted us to be extremely cautious in using minimum sentences. Minimum sentences restrict the judges, who are in the best position to determine the most appropriate sentence in light of all the facts in each case.

The Bloc Québécois defends a model of justice based on a personalized process, with a case-by-case approach and with the principle of rehabilitation in mind. Minimum sentences can have adverse effects and lead to plea bargaining by lawyers wanting to have their clients charged with offences that do not have minimum sentences.

Minimum sentences could also compel a judge to acquit an individual rather than impose a sentence that he or she feels is too strict, in light of any particular circumstances. For example, a suspension for life, while the appropriate sentence might be a suspended licence for five years. Hence, the amendments and questions proposed by the Bloc Québécois regarding this bill.

I would remind the House that my colleague, the hon. member from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, gave an eloquent address regarding Bill C-65 and I would like to quote from it:

The message we want to send to our young men and women is that there are places to engage in racing. That is what race tracks are for. So we do not want to discourage them or deny them the full enjoyment of their vehicles. Many young people put time and money into fine vehicles which are often very powerful. This is very much the fashion, and we do not want to discourage them from it.

What we are saying to them is that, when they do this, there are places for running their automobile trials. It is quite obvious that, for a young person who has spent a lot of money, it is always important to determine in the field whether the goods have been delivered. The message that we want to send our young people is that the only way to do this is on the race track and in those places where this type of racing is permitted.

I will also quote the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who had this to say about the Montreal police forces:

The Montreal police forces have gone to considerable lengths to try to prevent this while maintaining a respectful posture. There is station No. 24 in Montreal...which has done wonders in this regard. I think now, though, that the law needs to be toughened. These sentences, which used to be at a judge's discretion, need to be made mandatory

In closing, I will also quote the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who said, “Efforts have to be made in terms of prevention, education, information and so on”.

In his speech, the hon. member talked about the need to go further. The discretionary powers of judges have allowed this phenomenon to expand over time. It is spreading more and more in cities, but also, as the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine said, “in rural and other areas in Quebec and Canada”.

In closing, I will quote the Library of Parliament again:

Although there are supervised locations where speed lovers can test their vehicles completely legally, street racing is still popular. Street racers are often looking for thrills, and some feel that the thrills are heightened in the street, in traffic, where the unexpected may happen and racers risk meeting a patrol car.

Street racing is becoming a new challenge and is expanding, according to the research by the Library of Parliament.

Indeed, a variant of this activity has been invented — the “hat race” or “cannonball run”: money is put into a hat, which is put in a location that is kept secret until just before the race starts, and the first participant to get there wins the money. No holds are barred: the drivers run red lights and ignore stop signs. These races are a clear reflection of the general attitude of recklessness that prevails among street racing participants.

That is what the Library of Parliament researcher has to say.

In my opinion, this is one more reason to vote for this bill, which is a step in the right direction. We have to put an end to street races and put them back where they belong: on race tracks and in places that are legally designated for racing.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege today to speak to Bill C-19 respecting street racing.

Today I of course will be speaking in favour of the government's Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We have heard members opposite say there is some magic formula that can be used as a cure-all, but I think Canadians and certainly my constituents in Fundy Royal, contrary to those members, find it extremely refreshing that we finally have a government that is taking criminal justice seriously. We know that for too long there was a Liberal revolving door to the criminal justice system. We saw a lot of fluff come out. We saw programs that did not work.

Frankly, my constituents say to me that they find it refreshing to have a government that takes seriously protecting them, protecting society, protecting their lives and protecting their property. Quite frankly, they were fed up with the talk from the opposite side and are pleased to see some action.

As we know, and as has been said in other speeches, the matter of street racing was one of great importance to the late Chuck Cadman. Chuck was a member of Parliament for Surrey North and had twice brought forward a private member's bill on the issue of street racing, but each time the bill died on the order paper.

The previous government, as was mentioned, also brought forward a government bill, Bill C-65, during the 38th Parliament. That bill, too, died on the order paper. Like Mr. Cadman's bill, Bill C-65 took the approach of making street racing an aggravating factor for the offences of dangerous driving and criminal negligence that involve death or injury. Unlike Mr. Cadman's bill, Bill C-65 did not propose higher minimum driving prohibitions for repeat offences.

The government's Bill C-19 does follow Mr. Cadman's approach of bringing in mandatory driving prohibitions that escalate with repeat offences. We know that it is the few who are creating the problem. It is the recidivism and the repeat offenders who need to get the message that we are not going to tolerate serious street racing on Canada's streets.

In order to ensure that police and prosecutors can determine that a person is a repeat offender through the Canadian Police Information Centre, it is necessary to enact a street racing offence rather than simply create an aggravating factor of street racing. This is because CPIC does not record aggravating factors.

Some would say that past proposals to enact a requirement for judges to take into account acts of street racing as an aggravating factor in sentencing were very modest, given the fact that judges, and this is an important point, are already required to take into account all aggravating and mitigating circumstances when sentencing an offender. In this sense, enacting an aggravating factor provision would simply codify what judges already do and what they are quite rightly required to do. If a judge does not consider street racing an aggravating factor in sentencing, one would certainly expect the prosecution to appeal the sentence.

New street racing offences carrying mandatory driving prohibitions will send street racers a very clear message. It is a message that has to be sent on behalf of all Canadians. Racing on public streets is not going to be tolerated. I would point out that I am not, of course, speaking here of officially sanctioned road rallies but about those who commit the offence of dangerous driving or criminal negligence coupled with street racing. We did hear some members speaking today about legal racing, racing on racetracks, which is perfectly legitimate and which the bill does not touch on.

To those who do not heed the message sent by these new offences, Bill C-19 will deliver serious consequences.

Let me speak for a minute about those who engage in street racing. In many cases, they risk not only their own lives but the lives of others and pedestrians, innocent third parties who have in no way consented to any form of speed contest on the streets of our cities and towns.

My hat is off to police officers and others who work very hard with motorsport shops and organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving to find safe, closed circuit venues for drivers to experience the thrill of racing. Those kinds of efforts, along with strong federal and provincial legislation, are exactly what is needed to eradicate street racing in Canada.

In my view, specific federal legislation on street racing is needed now more than ever. The evidence is quite clear on that. The existing dangerous driving and criminal negligence offences that can apply to street racing go some distance to preventing street racing by right thinking drivers, but there are still too many that will risk the lives pedestrians and other motorists in order to engage in street racing on busy city streets.

Where Parliament can do something more than what is already in place to improve the Criminal Code measures directed against street racing or any other serious offence for that matter, it ought to do so. Bill C-19 gives parliamentarians the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way to the combined federal, provincial and municipal efforts aimed at street racing.

Bill C-19 will enact five new offences related to street racing. Three of these relate to the existing offence of dangerous driving. The other two relate to the existing offence of criminal negligence. For all five offences within Bill C-19, the key distinguishing feature will be the commission of the underlying offence plus the act of street racing on a street, road, highway or other place to which the public has access.

Another distinguishing feature of the five street racing offences is that they will each carry a mandatory prohibition from driving in Canada. These Criminal Code driving prohibitions will escalate for repeat offenders.

I will ask the indulgence of my colleagues in the House while I briefly sketch out the mandatory driving prohibitions.

For a first offence of dangerous driving with no death or injury accompanied by street racing, the minimum driving prohibition will be one year and the maximum driving prohibition will be three years.

For a second offence of dangerous driving with no death or injury and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition will be two years and the maximum driving prohibition will be five years.

For a third offence of dangerous driving, again with no death or injury and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition will be three years and the maximum driving prohibition will be a lifetime driving ban.

Where there is a first conviction for dangerous driving with injury and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition will be a minimum of one year and a maximum of 10 years.

Where there is a second conviction for dangerous driving or criminal negligence with injury and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition would be two years and the maximum driving prohibition 10 years.

Where there is a third dangerous driving or criminal negligence with injury and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition would be three years and the maximum again would be a lifetime ban.

Where there is a first conviction for criminal negligence with death and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition would be one year and the maximum would be a lifetime ban.

Where there is a first conviction for dangerous driving with death and street racing, the minimum driving prohibition would be one year and the maximum driving prohibition would be 10 years.

On a second conviction involving dangerous driving and street racing or criminal negligence street racing involving death or injury, and either the first or the second conviction involved a death, there would be a mandatory lifetime driving ban.

I hasten to note that these driving prohibitions are in addition to a driving ban during any period in which drivers are imprisoned. There will be no case where convicted drivers are sitting in jail, not prohibited from driving or having the driving prohibition period running down while they are incarcerated.

I turn now to the provisions in Bill C-19 for imprisonment.

For dangerous driving with street racing where there is no death or injury, the prosecution has the choice to proceed summarily, where the maximum period of incarceration is six months imprisonment, or the prosecution in a more serious case may choose to proceed by way of indictment, in which case the maximum period of imprisonment is five years.

For dangerous driving or criminal negligence with injury and street racing, the maximum period of incarceration is 14 years under Bill C-19. The current Criminal Code provisions do not speak to street racing and the present maximum for dangerous driving or criminal negligence with injury is 10 years imprisonment.

For both dangerous driving and criminal negligence with death and street racing, the maximum period of incarceration is life under Bill C-19. The current Criminal Code provisions again do not speak to street racing and the present maximum for dangerous driving with death is 14 years imprisonment and for criminal negligence with death the maximum is currently life imprisonment.

I think that Bill C-19 is a balanced approach to dealing with the dangers posed by street racing. The ranges of imprisonment and mandatory driving prohibitions that escalate with repeat offences reflect the serious nature of the proposed street racing offences.

Although there may be the very rare case where there are drivers who repeat a street racing offence that involves bodily harm or death, the police information system, CPIC, will track the repeat offence and it will be certain that these persons will receive harsher sanctions. This is an improvement over prior street racing bills given that the police information system does not show that there was an aggravating factor of street racing in a prior conviction, but would show prior street racing offences that are proposed by Bill C-19.

I also want to set the record straight on a couple of issues. Some media articles have suggested there is nothing useful to be found in Bill C-19 or that it is simply politically motivated. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is clear that the bill will bring in mandatory driving prohibitions that will escalate with repeat offences. The existing driving prohibition in dangerous driving and criminal negligence cases is discretionary. It is hard to imagine that even some legal commentators do not seem to grasp this very significant proposal for change.

With the number of street racing offences involving death or injury, there will be an increase in the penalty range from that which exists for the current offences of dangerous driving and of criminal negligence. This is not a cynical political attempt to grab headlines. It is a valid response to a real problem which does what the Criminal Code can logically do in order to contribute to existing combined efforts of provincial governments, police, municipal governments, and other stakeholders to eliminate street racing and its attendant dangers from Canadian roads.

While it is true that higher maximum penalties under Bill C-19, like all maximum penalties, are reserved for the worst offender and the worst factual circumstances, raising a maximum penalty is Parliament's signal to the courts that Parliament sees the problem as more serious and that a shift to higher sentences is warranted even in those cases that do not involve the worst offender and the worst factual circumstances.

Some critics have even suggested that prosecutors would shy away from a dangerous driving street racing charge and prosecute a dangerous driving charge instead. This is nonsensical. The street racing offence will carry a mandatory driving prohibition while a conviction for dangerous driving without street racing carries a discretionary driving prohibition. There is a clear advantage to the street racing charge and with the passage of Bill C-19 an additional tool for the prosecutor's toolbox.

Finally, some critics charge that the problem is one which is either small or trifling. Try telling that to ordinary Canadians who experience street racers dodging in and out of traffic, putting road users at risk, or to families who are attending funerals and hospital emergency rooms as a result of a street racing accident. We cannot give street racing the ostrich treatment and simply stick our heads in the sand saying it is not a big problem.

No member of the government side of the House is saying that Bill C-19 alone is going to end street racing. However, it is an important part of the combination of countermeasures that are needed to confront the problem. Not to bring forward these measures would be irresponsible.

Where Parliament can do something proactive and logical about street racing, it ought to do exactly that. Bill C-19 proposes measures that are logical and that can be implemented by police and prosecutors. The measures proposed are neither pie in the sky nor Draconian. They are balanced and measured. They are calculated to contribute to the elimination of dangerous driving and criminal negligence combined with street racing. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong in their assessment of what the bill proposes.

In closing, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice for fending off unjustifiable criticism in bringing this bill forward. I think it builds on the work done by the late Mr. Cadman and even on the street racing bill of the previous government. It does so in a very non-partisan way.

Bill C-19 is not about locking offenders and throwing away the key. It is balanced but it is firm. It is not a single solution to street racing, but it joins in the combination of measures that are needed to eradicate the dangers on the street.

I will be supporting Bill C-19 and I invite all members of the House to put aside partisan politics and pass this bill at second reading to send it to the legislative committee review stage.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we know that under various motor vehicle statutes in the provinces there is the local power to regulate, so to speak, what can be done to a vehicle and what cannot be done.

Clearly at the municipal level there are bylaws and policies that could be enacted, but both of those examples, to answer the hon. member's question, come down to a matter of resources. All police forces will tell us, as the hon. member knows, that problem oriented policing is the wave of the future. This is what police officers now want to do. Rather than deal with a crime that has happened, they want to prevent crimes from happening. They want to get into the schools. In this case, they want to be out on the streets to prevent street racing events from occurring, more by their presence in a deterrent way rather than a “cover the whole area” way.

My hon. friend is absolutely right that resources to communities have to be allocated. Municipalities are the third level of government. They were doing extremely well under the Liberal-led infrastructure program. They sought and received mandates for programming of all sorts that made our cities more viable.

Instead of just trotting out a bill that has a catchy title and leads the public into a false sense of security, we have to ensure that in the future we back it up, that the government backs it up, perhaps at our urging, with the sufficient resources to enforce it and make the deterrent effects in it real, because if we are only relying on the definitions in a section of the Criminal Code, then these people, given their disrespect for judges generally, would be the first to say that is not a sufficient deterrent factor.

What has to be done is more vigilance in the community. I would think that a new government with any sort of freshness might have said, “Let us continue on the path of Bill C-65. Let us continue on the infrastructure program. Let us make our communities viable.” I would think it might have said, “Let us not cut funding from public safety and emergency preparedness. Let us not cut $1 billion of funding to the social fabric that keeps this community together”.

I would have thought that would have been one of the first orders of the day, but that is not what has happened here. The money is not flowing. Bills are being presented so that they can shock the public into an awareness of crimes that in certain cases are not as bad in prevalence as is advertised. Then there seem to be the white knight cure-alls by very poor, hollow and shallow legislation, which I believe Bill C-19 is.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly in an area where there is a $13 billion plus surplus, to bring in this bill and not bring in any measures to educate the driving public, and the youth public, frankly, about the dangers of street racing, and where clearly resources to the RCMP are being cut for a cutting edge prevention program, it shows that the right hand and the left hand of the government do not know what they are doing. Or worse, if the government members know what they are doing, they are more interested in laws that do not necessarily make sense.

As a member of the last Parliament, the hon. member would know that Bill C-65 did attempt to address these issues, in a more organic, more intelligent and, more important, more efficacious way. I am not talking about the subsequent prohibitions later on, but in terms of sentencing and sending the message out, the mandatory aggravating factor would work. This would give judges the hammer they need in order to fashion the appropriate sentence for a convicted street racer or a person who, in my terminology, does dangerous things with vehicles. That is really what this is about.

I think the government is off the mark here. This bill is hastily drafted. It is sensational in character. It will not get to the root cause. The people of Canada are being lulled into a false sense of security by the nightly news bulletins from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first intervention in the House since the election campaign in New Brunswick, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Liberal government in New Brunswick and Premier designate, Shawn Graham, and his team.

As partners, we will represent New Brunswick in a new era of relations between the three levels of government.

It is my pleasure today to speak on Bill C-19. It is another one of the bills presented by the new Conservative government.

Once again, with the introduction of this proposed legislation, the Minister of Justice does not address the real issue. While he and his government might be playing to another audience, an audience in large municipal centres of rich population, dense population and voters who did not support the government, they are playing to the issues that affect people very much. While the purported message in the bill is to prevent crime and keep communities safe, the real objective of the bill, like all other bills the Minister of Justice has led through the House, is political gain.

Like the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh said earlier, we must look at the issues involved and the real merits of the bill and compare it to other bills, which have been presented in Parliament's past, to give a good review of where we want to go. I submit that this matter be sent to committee for procedural as well as substantive review.

The real issue is the saving of lives before lives are put in danger. Instead of investing time and energy into creating new offences that have a catchy title, such as is the case with Bill C-19, we as a responsible nation and as responsible parliamentarians need to invest in prevention and education to prevent street racing from happening, rather than dealing just with the victims and deaths once street racing has occurred.

It occurred to me that this would be an appropriate time to bring forward the fact that, under the public safety and emergency preparedness cuts of last week, the RCMP cut from its budget $4.6 million to do with the elimination of drug impaired driving programs through its training budget. It seems remarkable to me that on the one hand the government is suggesting our streets will be safer. On the other hand, it takes money away from a program that would have made the streets safer.

I am proud of the fact that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a Canada-wide organization. It has probably met with every member of Parliament. It is very focused. I am very proud that the president of MADD currently is a resident of New Brunswick. It would not be particularly pleased that the first focus of the government, when it comes to driving offences, is street racing. For some time, it has been lobbying for measures such as those cut in the recent budget. It would like to see the penalties meted out to drunk driving offences, which have a long history in the Criminal Code, as severe as those for street racing violations, and they are not under this bill.

We can all agree that street racing is a dangerous activity and has no place in Canadian communities. I am tired of other parties in the House being castigated with the brush, that we are not for the protection of our citizens. I make a non-partisan statement that every member of the House is for public safety and safety in our streets. We will differ on how to get there. My remarks are about that.

How to address this problem is the real issue. The Minister of Justice believes that by creating a new series of offences that reference the existing Criminal Code offences, we will have a panacea. Because it is called a street racing bill, I am very concerned that members of the public will now think it will eradicate street racing. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The truth is there are in existence a number of harsh and severe offences, which have to be meted out by the justices and for which this very Minister of Justice has absolutely no respect. The Minister of Justice has showed that he does not even know how judges get appointed. He has to know what colour they are in political allegiance, but he has no idea how they get appointed. He has shown so little respect for judges and their discretion that he has held up a long overdue pay increase to them. He has criticized judges as Liberal judges. Today he might have argued that judges have no political stripes. We are waiting for a lot of answers from the Minister of Justice on his view and his level of respect for the judiciary of our country.

Clearly, by these amendments, he has no respect for judicial discretion. This is in a long line of bills that the government has presented. I am not sure the minister has read them all but they all represent one thing: no discretion to be left in the hands of judges, who are probably all Liberal judges, but of course that will gradually change appointment by appointment. The minister has no respect for the discretion of these judges. That is the case with this bill as well. It would take away discretion.

Mr. Speaker, unlike my hon. friend, I am used to the courtroom and there is decorum in a courtroom.

This bill, like Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, takes away the discretion that judges have and instead of sculpting what could be taken from the late Chuck Cadman's bill and Bill C-65 as presented, where these factors would be taken into account on sentencing, the Minister of Justice, in his marquee cinema like world, wants to name something and pretend that all citizens of Canada will now be safe from street racing. However, that is not the case. The bill, on a technical aspect, would further cloud some issues by creating these new offences.

The definition of street racing itself has been talked about so I will eliminate that from my speech. It is something that can be cleaned up at committee. As members have said, the definition as it relates to at least one other motor vehicle can be made to make sense because there are races that include only one vehicle.

There are also problems with the definition of “public place”. While the bill is primarily oriented toward an urban environment, the Minister of Justice and members of the House will know, whether or not they are lawyers, that public places and motor vehicles have been defined and they may include snowmobiles on icy surfaces of lakes in rural Canada. This may be of concern as we go forward in looking at this bill.

On the solo race, the race against time and against oneself, the bill does not address that behaviour. This may be more dangerous than the actual one-on-one racing that occurs in some municipalities.

Bill C-19 creates another confusion. There is a lot of confusion in every Conservative bill because the Conservatives are in a hurry to leave a strong impression in Canada. It has been well established in law that objectively the offence of dangerous driving is not as serious as criminal negligence. However, this bill establishes an identical system of imprisonment for both offences. That does not make much sense.

It is respectfully submitted that the proper approach to deal with this dangerous conduct is simply to make street racing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing.

I heard talk in the House about whether people need to be lawyers but surely they do not. They need to have good sense. However, it does mean that the lawyers in this House need to have common sense too. It does not excuse the lawyers from the requirement for good common sense. The good common sense from having street racing as a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing means that while we trust judges, and on this side of the House we do, to make proper decisions, we are saying by way of public statement that they shall consider street racing, when it is present, as an aggravating factor. This would remove the issue of having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a street race has occurred.

One could imagine, in very serious circumstances, that the lawyers would spend most of their fighting over the definition of street racing because it has not been provided in the bill. The hon. Minister of Justice says that there is a lot of common law on this but common law on racing in Canada would probably be more tuned to horse racing than street racing because Canada has not had a law on street racing, which leaves it as a dog's breakfast. We probably have a whole bunch of Liberal lawyers trying to figure it out.

Instead, we would like some Liberal legislators to make it inevitable that we will not need to deal with the definition of street racing. The Minister of Justice and his cohorts can still go out on the bandstands and say that they have cured the issue but the technical aspect is that aggravating factor in sentencing would ensure the judge is just dealing with whether he thinks there was a race, whether there was dangerous operation of a motor vehicle or whether there was criminal negligence. Those are the standards that have been used. Those terms have meaning in law. They have been considered in cases. Those are judicial decisions that judges write.

This would remove the issue of having to deal with street racing, which has not been defined, just as the Liberal's Bill C-65 and, as I said before, private member's Bill C-230, proposed by the late Chuck Cadman, proposed to deal with this. I think it is the right way to go. Preferably we will deal with it in committee and, if not, by amendment at third reading stage.

It is suggested that by providing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing, the message to the public will be as serious as the marquee name “street racing” and the message would be heard loud and clear. It would be easier at a sentence hearing to argue that the aggravating factors existed.

Members will note in the material supplied by the Library of Parliament that a number of the cases showed that there were other aggravating factors, not mitigating factors. The Minister of Justice likes to speak about mitigating factors, the people who got off because of circumstances. We have had plenty of cases where there are multiple increased aggravating factors, such as the use of alcohol, criminal gang activity and lack of remorse. These are aggravating factors that can be combined with the mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing that was in place in Bill C-65.

The difference between a dangerous driving offence and a dangerous driving offence involving a race will be a dog's breakfast before the courts. I think we need to be careful that, while we agree on a goal, which is keeping the streets safer, we give, not only the judges but prosecutors, the tools they need to succeed in getting convictions and not give them loopholes with undefined terms, all for the purpose of political gain.

The bill would increase the available maximum prison terms. Once again, it is a well-established legal principle that the maximum sentence is usually reserved for the worst offender in the worst case. This might give people who are very concerned about street racing offences the false impression that every street racing offence will be charged under a maximum or asked for by charging the maximum.

We know that there are summary conviction methods of proceeding here, which give prosecutors discretion in the way they wish to proceed. We also know that maximum terms are not meted out that frequently.

It is important to tell the truth to the Canadian public, that even this bill, in its form, does not guarantee that every street racing offender will get 10 or 14 years. It is time to be real with the Canadian public. The bill would provide for mandatory orders of prohibition from driving.

At this time I would like to mention again the spectre of MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Driving might very well be at our doors next week or the week after, should we move this on or pass it relatively quickly, to ask where the tough mandatory orders of prohibitions are for longer periods on continued, excessive and repetitive drunk driving offences. The bill is harsher than those infractions are and those infractions were built up over a long period of time.

Though it should be easy to support this initiative with respect to the mandatory orders of prohibition, the manner in which it is addressed is inadequate, specifically when dealing with repeat offenders.

It is important to know the distinction between dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. Let us take ourselves to a situation in an area not unlike the area that my friend from Fundy Royal represents, a countryside where there is a known repeat offender with respect to racing. This person is dangerous to the public and to himself or herself. The person is convicted the first time of dangerous driving because the prosecutor and the police, in that case the rural RCMP, say that this will show that person and this will be a deterrent. Hopefully that person is meted out the proper sentence and the proper time is served.

On the second conviction, the police might very well charge that person, because it is a repeat offence, with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In both cases there could be bodily harm, the same modus operandi, the same facts, but the police authorities and the prosecutor have said that, for deterrent's sake, they must charge the person with the worse offence because the person will get more time.

Under this bill as drafted, and I hope we can sort this out at committee, I submit that the repeat offence will not be caught by the mandatory prohibitions and the longer sentences. The reason is that the definition of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, if amended, with or without a street race, is not a repeat if it is charged under criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

These definitions and these legal words certainly have to be worked out at the committee level but there is more than that. It is not good enough for the chief law officer of this nation to sign off on a bill for which homework has yet to be done. It is not fair enough to say that we can fix this at committee. It is a trend. It is trend of the government to present ill-conceived, ill-drafted, hasty and sensational bills to this House, known more for their titles than their substance, and expect the hard-working members of the committee to set it all right.

If I could send one message to the government members it would be that they read the bills, consider them and consider that the Criminal Code of Canada is holistic, it is organic and it should be taken in this context.

When a person is charged with criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, it begs the question of whether this is a repeat offender. Is the criminal negligence a second offence? We would not know. The bill fails to answer those questions. I can tell members that every doubt will be cast in favour of the accused in our courtrooms, as they are constituted.

Many if not all studies have shown that there is no link between more severe, longer and harsher sentences and the diminution of crime rates. While I, as a member of society, might be very willing to go with the government on longer sentences and try the principle of sentence that says deterrence is important, I would need to know and I would need to be able to tell my constituents that it will work, that the thrill-seeking street racer will be deterred by a harsher sentence.

It goes back to our first point. Through education or funding in law enforcement and more cooperation with the provincial law authorities, I think more could be done than just simply getting it out on the five o'clock news that we will cure street racing now because we have a three page bill. That is not good enough.

If the minister uses the word “holistic”, then let us put it into action. Let us work together to make sure that as Nicholson, Rob he convenes meetings with provincial attorneys general and that he sees the good work being done in cities like San Diego and Los Angeles and, if I may for local advertisement, the city of Moncton in enforcing its bylaws, in preventing drive-throughs, and in preventing people from circling certain locations on a habitual basis.

Let us work together with these various levels of government, because the cities and municipalities in this country are the third order of government, and let us try to make a better bill that would save the government money, but more important, would save lives.

Bill C-19 would create a new offence punishing people for street racing just as they are already being punished now for street racing. This is already covered in the current Criminal Code. This bill would allow us to arrest people only after they have put other people's lives at risk. We have to look at the big picture. We have to work with other members of other governments to make sure that we make a better law.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19. As we have already heard in this House, this bill addresses a marginal yet important phenomenon, namely, street racing on public roads, streets and highways. This problem is very worrisome. According to statistics provided by the Library of Parliament, since 1999, 35 people in the greater Toronto area have died as a result of this practice.

Furthermore, in the course of this year, which is drawing to a close, there have already been approximately ten people who have unfortunately lost their lives because of this practice. I do not know what drives people to engage in street racing. Are they seeking thrills? Are betting, material gain or jackpots involved?

The government certainly has reason to be concerned. I have been a member in this House since 1993 and I remember very well the work of the hon. member from British Columbia who, sadly, has since passed away. That member introduced a bill in this House on three separate occasions. I understand that he became aware of this issue as the result of a tragedy in his own life, since he lost his own son in an incident involving street racing. I am referring of course to our late colleague, Mr. Cadman.

The Bloc Québécois therefore supports this bill's referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Of course, it still needs some work, but we agree with the principle that the Criminal Code should be amended to add a distinct offence to punish those who engage in street racing, especially in urban areas. This bill is somewhat different from the bill introduced by the previous government, since the previous bill proposed the use of all provisions in the Criminal Code concerning dangerous driving or criminal negligence to make street racing an aggravating factor.

With respect to the principles of sentencing set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, there are aggravating factors in cases where, for example, someone commits a crime, infraction or assault by intentionally beating someone up because of their sexual orientation. If we interpret section 718 of the Criminal Code correctly, a judge would have to take this principle into account when sentencing.

According to section 718 of the Criminal Code, the principle of proportionality must apply in all cases. Clearly, a person who commits a horrific, violent crime that causes death cannot receive the same punishment as a 15-year-old who steals something for the first time. Clearly, the principle of proportionality is central to section 718 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, you practised criminal law, so you must be familiar with these concepts.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that the bill before us should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill does not take aggravating factors into account. The bill focuses on five infractions that already exist, redefining them and assigning specific penalties when they are committed in a street racing context. I would like to list these infractions to ensure we all understand. Bill C-19 says that dangerous driving that does not cause bodily harm, as set out in section 249.4 of the Criminal Code, when in a street racing context, must be subject to a specific charge.

A second new offence is created. Dangerous driving causing bodily harm—when someone injures someone or the car hits another car and causes injury—which is covered by subsection 249.4(3) of the Criminal Code, will give rise to a separate charge when street racing is involved.

There is a third offence. The punishment for dangerous driving causing death, which is obviously more serious, will be much more severe and can go up to life in prison. This is the third separate offence created in connection with street racing.

The fourth new offence that is created is criminal negligence causing bodily harm, which is covered by section 249.3 of the Criminal Code. When street racing is involved, this offence would give rise to a separate charge.

The fifth offence is criminal negligence causing death. This is not dangerous driving causing death, but criminal negligence causing death. It is the fifth new offence. It is already covered by section 249 of the Criminal Code and will give rise to a separate charge.

As an aside, hon. members know how prolific this government is when it comes to creating new offences. This government clearly wants to address a number of social problems by creating criminal law. But we must always ask ourselves whether a given problem warrants creating new offences.

In some cases, obviously, we do not agree with this approach. Penalties and sentences already exist. For example, I am very concerned about Bill C-9, which amends section 742 of the Criminal Code. This section was created in 1996, when Canada's current ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, decided that the judiciary would have the option of a new alternate sentence, which was the possibility of serving a sentence in the community, at home. However, very specific conditions that we are all aware of applied to sentences under two years and cases where there were no minimum sentences. Clearly, the judge had to be convinced that the person serving the sentence did not pose a threat to the community.

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel knows that this is one case where it is certainly not helpful to take this tool away from the judiciary.

In the case before us, the Bloc Québécois is prepared to engage, in committee, in the serious exercise of considering whether it is appropriate to add specific provisions to the Criminal Code to put an end to the practice of using the public roadways for racing, which, marginal though it is, can have tragic consequences.

I am going to speak a little about the options that will be available to the courts when they sentence people convicted of street racing. Obviously, the entire question of sentencing is a sensitive issue in criminal law. We must know that there are very entrenched schools of thought: the “retributionists” and the “utilitarians”. Some people say that sentences have exemplary value, that they have deterrent powers, and accordingly that the more severe the sentences, the less people are likely to engage in that type of offence. Obviously, that reasoning is not immune to criticism, because it starts from the premise that individuals, ordinary mortals, are familiar with the Criminal Code and therefore with the type of offence and the type of sentence associated with it.

Obviously, we might doubt that this is so.

Some people say that sentences have very limited deterrent powers. It is not so much the sentence that matters, it is the efficacy of the sanction, because people will be arrested by the police and locked up, put in prison. Regardless of what school of thought one belongs to when it comes to sentencing, BillC-19 proposes the following sentences.

Speaking still of street racing, no minimum sentence is provided for dangerous driving that does not cause bodily harm or death—simple dangerous driving—but there is a maximum sentence of five years. When dangerous driving causes bodily harm, the maximum sentence is 14 years.

It is interesting to compare this with the previous bill. This is not a pointless exercise. When the Liberals were in power and Bill C-65 was introduced in this House, for the same offence, the Liberals proposed that there be a maximum prison term of 10 years. The Conservatives had—let us admit it—a more right-wing vision, one that took a more law and order approach, and they wanted the maximum to be 14 years.

When it comes to dangerous driving causing death—an extremely serious offence—nothing more needs to be said about the maximum sentence, which is life in prison. The judge can decide to impose a lesser sentence.

For criminal negligence causing bodily harm, the bill provides for a term of 14 years in prison, while in Bill C-65 the Liberals provided for a term of 10 years.

For criminal negligence causing death—also an offence that is of great concern—the proposal is for life imprisonment.

There are two approaches. The current bill proposes that a specific offence with specific penalties be established. The Liberals had proposed that it be treated as an aggravating circumstance, as per section 778, which must serve as a reference when considering the issue of sentencing. It is never easy in a society to know how to handle these cases. In fact, at the end of their mandate, Brian Mulroney's Conservatives—and this will be a pleasant or unpleasant memory depending on the allegiance—had established a commission of inquiry on sentencing, headed by Mr. Justice Archambault, which had dissected the issue of sentencing. The commission recommended that there be no minimum sentences. Since then, minimum sentences have been introduced for all offences pertaining to impaired driving; there are about forty. Minimum sentences have been added to all pornography offences and offences of a sexual nature.

Another clause of the bill deals with a mandatory order prohibiting individuals found guilty of street racing from operating a motor vehicle. At present, drivers' licences can be suspended. In some cases, the judge does not have the option of suspending the driver's licence of the accused before him. I am thinking of all those cases where an individual is found guilty of having the care of a vehicle or driving while impaired.

In other instances, power was more discretionary. The judge could, according to his or her discretion, order that a driver's licence be revoked for a minimum of one year, for a first offence in particular, for reckless driving causing bodily harm.

In Bill C-19 before us, it would be mandatory to revoke the driver's licence.

I can appreciate the logic, since having a driver's licence is not a constitutional right; it is a privilege. It is only natural for the legislator to provide that a driver's licence holder must exercise the privilege of using a car on the highway with extreme caution, vigilance and prudence.

It will also be possible to revoke driver's licences when people are fined for street racing and judges will be able to give a ruling.

And with every additional crime, the harsher the punishment. I will give you some specific examples. For reckless driving without bodily harm or death the judge can give a ruling at his or her discretion, as I was saying. The government would like to withdraw this discretionary power from the judge. For a first offence, it will be impossible to get a driver's licence for a year; for a second offence the suspension will last at least two years; and a third offence will result in a minimum suspension of three years. Maximums are also added to that.

We understand the logic. I am sure my colleagues understand it. We can agree with this, knowing that it is a matter of context and that judges will have to weigh the evidence accordingly.

For reckless driving causing bodily harm, again the judge will no longer have discretionary power. This discretion is being cut back. Let us be frank, the Conservatives have been using every power at their disposal in every bill presented so far to challenge this prerogative.

Are you indicating that I have one minute left or two, Mr. Speaker?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of bills targeting street racing have been placed before this House over the past few years.

Most Canadians will remember the work of a former member of Parliament, the late Chuck Cadman, on the subject. Mr. Cadman, a respected and respectful parliamentarian, submitted private members' legislation three times. The former Liberal government also introduced Bill C-65 to amend the Criminal Code regarding street racing. Mr. Cadman's private member's bill and the proposed legislation of the former government died on the order paper when on November 29 last year the government fell.

Today we are talking about another variation on how we as a society will attempt to deal with this serious scourge on our streets, something that can and does end tragically for some individuals, both the participants and, even more tragically, the bystanders who are innocent.

Bill C-19, unlike both the prior government's Bill C-65 and Mr. Cadman's private member's Bill C-230, includes new street racing offences. Also differing from the former government's bill, Bill C-19 now includes a graduated increase in the length of the driving prohibitions for repeat offences.

In the first half of 2006 in Canada, 10 deaths can be attributed to street racing. More and more we have been alerted to the menace on our streets. Over the past year, street racing, with its deadly consequences, has affected communities across the country.

As many would realize, education is an important tool to help alert the public, especially younger Canadians, to the dangers of street racing. I do not believe that education of itself will be sufficient to effect the necessary change in this dangerous behaviour. I do believe, however, that education on this matter should continue to be used in schools and other media, such as movie theatre trailers, to counteract the increasing sensationalization of street racing now found in some video games and movies.

Not all street racing is a spontaneous event, though this is the type of thrill-seeking activity many would immediately think about when the words street racing are used. Some street races are spectator events, with people being alerted in advance and police lookouts. Therefore, I am not talking about the supervised venues where racers test vehicles on closed tracks. I would also say that it is not only young people who are engaged in street racing, although many of them are, unfortunately.

Bill C-19 and predecessor bills are attempts, using the Criminal Code, to further address the problem of street racing. Members may ask how this has been dealt with in the past. Obviously and unfortunately, street racing is not new. Most would understand that the provinces and territories are involved with their own legislation and statutes respecting the operation of motor vehicles and road safety, and some even have some street racing offences. However, the provincial legislation applies, for the most part, to the less serious offences.

This is in contrast to the federal Criminal Code's more serious offences of criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. These Criminal Code sections have been successfully used to charge and prosecute serious street racing offenders in the past throughout Canada and may in fact continue to be the most efficient choice for prosecutors.

In Bill C-19, proposed clause 1, street racing is defined similarly to the previous bills:

“street racing” means operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place;--

Thus we see that two or more motor vehicles must be involved, not a lone vehicle speeding. Since motor vehicle is already defined in the Criminal Code, the definition in Bill C-19 would capture motorcycles, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. If two or more of them were racing in public places, this would include, for instance, public lots, frozen public waterways, as well as streets, roads and highways that we normally would think about. Bill C-19 would create five new street racing offences which would all require the same fundamental elements in law: a criminal mind and a criminal act, mens rea, actus reus.

These are the same elements that are required to obtain convictions for the existing offences of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. Both the previous Bill C-65 and Bill C-230 were more focused on street racing as an aggravating circumstance to be taken into account in sentencing by the judge after conviction.

The five new offences created in Bill C-19 would require the same constituent elements as do dangerous operation and criminal negligence, in addition to the new element of street racing.

In other words, the five offences will apply if the offence can first be categorized as criminal negligence or dangerous operation. To clarify for those who still have difficulty with this, the five new sections are new subsection 249.4(1), dangerous operation of motor vehicle while street racing; new subsection 249.4(3), dangerous operation causing bodily harm; new subsection 249.4(4), dangerous operation causing death; new subsection 249.3, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence (street racing); and new subsection 249.2, causing death by criminal negligence (street racing).

Thus, one can easily see that we have a referencing of a new element to existing Criminal Code sections. Is this really a serious attempt to underscore the denouncement of street racing, as the Minister of Justice has just suggested, or is it, as some critics have stated, merely something to show that we are serious, the denunciation just by the statement?

Note that the offences that are needed are already in the Criminal Code. How difficult will it be to prosecute the new element of street racing on top of the two elements already required? Therefore, will it be used more to obtain conviction or be used to plea bargain on the included offences? Will the charges still be laid under the old offences despite the options now provided in this new bill, if passed?

These are important questions and some critics have gone so far as to say that this is a totally unnecessary or window dressing bill. However, I do think that the subject area is one that all Canadians are concerned about and the previous government was also acting in this area. I do not think that anyone believes street racing is a good idea, rather it is dangerous and a menace to public health and public safety. There is an appetite in the land to address the problem and stem the occurrences.

I should also address the other elements that this bill has added to the debate. Bill C-19 adds, where street racing is proven, the mandatory driving prohibition minimum of one year whether or not bodily harm has been caused and where it was discretionary in all charges before.

The bill does propose higher maximum terms of imprisonment in three of the five street racing offences. The bill does not make any minimum terms of imprisonment. Currently, we know that conditional sentences have been utilized under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. Judges are permitted and in fact encouraged to utilize, under the sentencing principles of the Criminal Code, less restrictive punishments than incarceration where other factors are not in play.

Case law has developed across Canada on point, going both ways I might add. I raise this because we are currently having a conditional sentencing bill which is now before the justice committee. If enacted as is, it would impact on Bill C-19 if it were passed as is. Essentially, there would be a consequential effect if the higher maximum penalties were passed in this Bill C-19, with the exception of dangerous driving not causing bodily harm or death. Unfortunately, mid-process this is speculative, but I do flag the potential now, as has the Minister of Justice.

It is not entirely clear the intention or message to the courts of how Bill C-19 has been set out. On a scale of seriousness, criminal negligence is considered higher than dangerous operation. The difference between the offences is the degree of carelessness or recklessness in the offence. This is one area that needs to be properly examined if this bill ends up in committee after a vote in this House, which I believe will end up happening.

Bill C-19 puts street racing that constitutes dangerous operation and street racing that constitutes criminal negligence on the same footing. Fine tuning is required here, as has been pointed out by some others. When we try to limit judicial discretion, as would appear to be the pattern of this new Conservative minority government, it creates other, perhaps wholly unintended, consequences. Many authorities, some would say, consider criminal negligence more serious than dangerous driving and we will look at this.

Bill C-19 also holds that when a person is convicted of street racing, the judge would prohibit the offender from driving. This is a mandatory order for a specific period of time. Also different from previous bills and the current Criminal Code is the introduction of a minimum period of one year in the case of each of the five street racing offences. This is driving prohibition.

Under Bill C-19, the maximum and minimum for driving prohibition orders would increase each time a subsequent street racing offence is committed.

Bill C-19 would provide a prohibition of driving orders of the same length or longer than periods now in the Criminal Code of Canada. Further, new subclause 259(3.4) proposes the creation of a mandatory life prohibition on driving. This would apply when the offender has two or more convictions of street racing where someone was injured or killed and one of the street races resulted in a death.

I should note that the driving prohibition order will come after the period of imprisonment. I should also note that the maximum and minimum for driving prohibition orders increase in a very similar fashion as the rules governing driving prohibition orders in cases of drinking and driving.

There is a lot to digest in the details of this bill. This is the initial stage of discussion. It is not the place for any of us to come to firm conclusions. There is obviously agreement that street racing needs to be dealt with by Parliament. The fact that there have been two different governments and continued private members' bills, underscores this to all of us.

Always it is a question of degree. Is one approach better or more practical than another? Can the officers on the ground, the judiciary and the system of justice be given better or more flexible laws for Parliament to utilize? Do some of the clauses in Bill C-19 go too far? What is most important is will this help with community safety? Those are the questions that need to be answered.

We should also examine whether there are some situations that are captured that were not intended. I have already heard from the Canadian Association of Rallysport with suggested amendments since it is concerned that this will negatively impact on its sport activity held across the country.

What about when roads are closed for major professional racing events which normally occur annually in cities like Toronto and Montreal? Would we need to consider specific exemptions or exceptions or do we rely on the charging officer's discretion and judgment, as has been done in the past? Do we really intend to capture racing snowmobiles not close together traversing a frozen lake, for example?

I would like to listen to the comments of other parliamentarians in the House. I believe we come here to do positive work for our electors. We can do the measured work required of us in a respectful manner I would hope.

I am personally inclined to send the bill to committee for further discussion but wish to hear from my colleagues. It is a bill that is not perfect and has some issues that need to be addressed. Not all of the provisions will help the situation and may in fact cause some confusion. The stages for amendments in this House and in the other House are available to us to clear up any of these ambiguities, whether they are real or just misunderstood. Also, we will have the benefit of our witnesses and, hopefully, some experts.

I know from the short briefings I have received from others that there was no wide consultation on the bill. I asked if there were formal studies but was told by officials that none had been done. I am also aware that on January 25, 2005, at the federal, provincial and territorial meetings of all justice ministers, they had agreed to study the matter of Criminal Code amendments affecting the theft of motor vehicles, as well as penalties for those who steal vehicles and drive recklessly.

Bill C-19 is before us now with a limited priority area of street racing and does not address these other issues. However, it is important that we all do our job, as I know we will, and I look forward to working on this bill with my colleagues.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to lead off the debate on this important government initiative, Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Canadians want a law-abiding peaceful society. They believe in secure streets and neighbourhoods where children can play in safety and where families can go for evening walks. In doing our part to protect our communities, roads and highways, the Government of Canada is taking the issue of street racing head-on.

There have been far too many examples of Canadians being injured or killed because of street racing. On a regular basis there are reports of deaths across the country relating to this dangerous activity. We have seen horrific deaths recently in Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg. These risks, injuries and deaths are senseless and do not need to occur.

The criminal law seeks justice, the protection of the public and the establishment and maintenance of social order. Ultimately the purpose of the criminal law is to contribute to a just, peaceful and safe society through the establishment of prohibitions, sanctions and procedures to deal fairly and appropriately with blameworthy conduct that causes or threatens serious harm to individuals and society. Street racers must be explicitly subject to such sanctions and prohibitions.

The criminal law can be, and in this case should be, a tool for shifting public perception. In this regard the message needs to be made clear: street racing is not a game, it is not carefree and it is not harmless. Pure and simple, it kills.

In establishing such a system we must first examine the existing legal scheme on which Bill C-19 would build, namely the way the Criminal Code currently deals with street racing.

The Criminal Codes does not specifically identify street racing as an offence, although certain of the code's offences can apply to fatal and injurious collisions where street racing is involved. These offences are: criminal negligence causing death, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, which currently carries a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment; criminal negligence causing bodily harm, with a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment; and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, with a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. In addition, the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, with a five year maximum imprisonment on indictment, can be applied in cases where a street race has occurred but no one was killed or injured.

In addition, under the Criminal Code, if convicted of any of those five offences, currently the court may order a period of driving prohibition of up to three years in the case of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, of up to 10 years in the case of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In the case of criminal negligence causing death, the court may order up to a lifetime driving prohibition.

Despite these existing provisions and the discretionary driving prohibition orders, street races are still occurring and Canadians are still being injured, and tragically, killed.

For this reason the government is doing its part in reinforcing the criminal law in this area and sending a strong clear message that street racing is a crime with real and significant consequences. Creating a separate offence in the Criminal Code will specifically denounce this form of crime. In addition, these proposed amendments permit increased punishments with regard to minimum driving prohibitions and increase periods of imprisonment in street racing situations.

Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act proposes the creation of a specific street racing offence in the Criminal Code based on the offences of dangerous driving, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death. The bill proposes key reforms that would increase, in street racing situations, the maximum punishments for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years, and for dangerous driving causing death from 14 years to life.

The government is taking a holistic approach to criminal law reform. In this regard, it is significant to note that the government's conditional sentencing bill, Bill C-9, if passed as is, will eliminate the use of a conditional sentence in those street racing cases where someone is either injured or killed. As we know, conditional sentences are essentially house arrest.

The street racing reforms would also provide minimum driving prohibitions that would increase on each subsequent offence, instead of the present discretionary prohibitions. In particular, the mandatory driving prohibitions range from a minimum of one year on a first offence, all the way up to a maximum of a lifetime driving ban. The minimum driving prohibitions increase to two and three years for subsequent offences.

Of note is the proposed mandatory lifetime driving prohibition. This mandatory lifetime minimum driving prohibition will apply if an offender has two convictions, where someone is injured or killed as a result of street racing, and at least one of these offences causes a death. For example, if someone is convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm while street racing and then convicted of criminal negligence causing death while street racing, the lifetime mandatory driving prohibition will apply.

Therefore, Bill C-19 would provide judges with discretion in setting the appropriate length of prohibition, in some cases, all the way up to a lifetime ban, but in every street racing offence, the offender would have a period of mandatory driving prohibition.

Following the introduction of Bill C-19, some have asked, What is street racing and how will the courts interpret such a definition? Clause 1 of the bill defines “street racing” as:

--operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place;

The term “race” is an undefined term in the bill and is therefore meant to be applied by the courts, based on existing common law principles, after an examination of the trial evidence. The courts will turn to context in which the term is used, dictionary definitions of a race, as well as Canadian jurisprudence defining this term. At the end of the day, all sources of interpretation generally point to the common theme of a race amounting to a contest of speed, which will be determined on a case by case basis on the evidence presented at trial.

By the structure of the proposed reforms, the prosecution will be required to prove a race; that is a contest of speed plus dangerous driving or criminal negligence. This construction responds to fear that revving one's engine would amount to an offence. The driving must also meet the existing standards of dangerous driving or criminal negligence in order to attract criminal liability.

Furthermore, by the design of the scheme, if the court is not satisfied that a street race was involved, then the law of included offences would apply. Therefore, if the prosecution has not proven a street race but has proven all the essential elements of either dangerous driving or criminal negligence, then the offender may be convicted of these included offences.

It is important to note that the Criminal Code contains an offence, at section 259, prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle while a person is disqualified from driving. This driving while prohibited offence would also apply if a person drives during the prohibition period imposed for the offences in Bill C-19.

Many provinces have used provincial highway traffic legislation to combat street racing, including provincial fines, licence suspensions and vehicle impoundment. In British Columbia, for example, the province introduced legislation that gave the police the authority to impound, immediately, any vehicle used in a street race. In some matters, there can be federal and provincial constitutional authority, and each level of government may properly enact legislation. In the matter of street racing the provincial legislature has constitutional legislative authority to enact highway traffic and driver licensing legislation against street racing. Parliament may enact legislation against street racing, using its constitutional legislative authority for criminal law.

There have been a number of earlier bills directed at combatting street racing. During the 37th Parliament, the late Mr. Chuck Cadman, M.P., introduced private member's Bill C-338 and reintroduced it as Bill C-230 in the 38th Parliament aimed at this form of crime. These bills provided that the existence of street racing was to be an aggravating factor in sentencing and provided for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions, increasing on second and subsequent offences. I think the Prime Minister said it very when he described Mr. Cadman as “a selfless man who devoted his years in Ottawa to fighting for safer streets”.

Mr. Cadman's bill was built upon the existence of a repeat aggravating factor. However, the dependence on the aggravating factor in the sentencing hearing that involves a prior conviction, in order to trigger an increased penalty for a subsequent offence, raised some concerns. First, there is no reference to street racing in the substantive offence. Second, the CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, does not report the existence of aggravating factors. Therefore, the Crown would have no consistent way of knowing that a prior offence had involved street racing.

In the 38th Parliament, the previous government introduced Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code, street racing. It also provided that street racing, if found by the sentencing judge to be present, was to be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing and included mandatory driving prohibitions, although repeat offenders were not subject to increasing driving prohibitions. All these bills eventually died on the order paper. However, given the efforts made by Mr. Cadman and by the former government's response, we are now counting on everyone to support Bill C-19.

The government's bill, Bill C-19, unlike its predecessors, proposes the creation of separate offences and would increase driving prohibitions for repeat offenders. I believe these are necessary components to deliver the message that street racing threatens the safety of Canadians and criminal law consequences, therefore, will be serious.

The frequency of and the conviction rate for offences involving street racing are presently not available at a national level as there is, currently, no systematic way to identify the cases that have involved street racing. One of the indirect benefits of the reforms proposed in C-19 is that the creation of separate offences will allow such data to be captured and monitored in a systematic national way.

As I have noted, in some matters, and street racing is one such matter, there can be federal and provincial constitutional authority and each level of government may properly enact legislation. The provincial legislature has constitutional legislative authority to enact highway traffic and driver licensing legislation against street racing. Parliament may enact legislation against street racing under its constitutional authority for criminal law.

The complementary provincial and federal tools would provide a strong and effective response to the scourge of street racing on Canadian roads and street. I, therefore, compliment the efforts of local police forces in getting street racers off our streets on to closed race tracks. These efforts will no doubt contribute to public safety on Canadian roads and highways.

Safe streets and safe communities are a hallmark of life in Canada. The government is doing its part, through a number of important bills currently before Parliament, to ensure that this fact remains true. The government has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to work toward a safe and secure Canada. This Canada is one in which its citizens can walk the streets without fear of being struck by reckless street racers.

I conclusion, Bill C-19 is a targeted, measured and balanced response to the numerous tragic incidents of street racing occurring on our roads and highways. Although not in and of itself a panacea, this proposed reform will send a clear message that driving is a privilege and that street races are not acceptable. Bill C-19 would also ensure that those prosecuted for street racing would not be permitted to drive for a significant period of time.

I urge all hon. members to join me in support of Bill C-19 and to work together to put an end to this dangerous phenomena of street racing on Canadian roads and highways.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-65.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to speak to Bill C-64.

A little later in my speech I want to talk about Chuck Cadman, about some of the things he stood for and about some of the things that were important to him, but I first want to talk about an issue in the bill that I find important.

My colleague who just spoke said that it was not really an issue with the bill but I still want to make people aware of it. There is an entire subculture or industry of rebuilding and restoring vehicles such as motorcycles, cars and those kinds of things. My colleague reassured us that they would not be caught in the bill but I am not quite as confident as he is about that.

I want to make people aware of the fact that there needs to be some exception for people who are doing that kind of business. Obviously, we are not talking about people stealing cars off the street in the middle of the night, stuffing them in trucks, taking them to chop-shops and either chopping them down or changing the VINs on them.

It is important for people to understand that an industry has arisen dealing with restoring older vehicles. That industry is not just something that is being done in people's garages any more. It is a multi-million dollar industry. These restored cars are worth anywhere from zero dollars, which is probably the one I have in my shop at home right now, up to $500,000. I think of some of the late sixties' Corvettes, the Shelby Cobras and those kinds of things that are worth a lot of money. Those cars are getting older and their bodies have been wrecked. People want to restore and rebuild the vehicles. They have the frames and the drive trains. We can actually buy new body parts for many of these vehicles.

I have a concern that those people do not get caught in the legislation. I am not confident that it gives that kind of exception. It talks in the bill about having a lawful excuse. I do not see it in federal legislation. I hope it would be included in provincial legislation when it comes to the licensing of vehicles, which is covered by the provinces.

It is typical of the NDP-Liberal government's legislation. So often it comes forward and it does not seem to work. It restricts regular Canadians and allows the people who it should cover to escape from the law.

Chuck Cadman, as we know, was a fairly ordinary guy. He was a veteran MP when I arrived here but he was one of those folks who was going to be himself and was not going to change, and he did that. He stayed true to what he believed. The issues that brought him here were the issues that stayed important to him right to the end of his time here.

Just on a personal level, one of the reasons I got to know Chuck Cadman was because of his music. He was a former musician and played in a lot of different bands over the years. My son was 13 when I was first elected. When we came down here, Chuck was one of the guys who really fascinated him. He had played with the Guess Who and other bands. My son, Andrew was very interested in music. I always thought it was interesting that there were a lot of people around here who had power and prestige but it was actually Chuck Cadman who really appealed to my son and with whom he felt he had some connection.

Chuck was an ordinary guy doing extraordinary things. The things he focused on really were the prime issues, one of which we partially dealt with last week and the other we are dealing with this week, that being street racing and vehicle theft. He dealt with these issues in a very practical and realistic way. It was typical of him that he would not come forward with something that would not be effective, so the bills that he brought forward were effective.

This letter was read into the record a couple of times last week but I want to reinforce it. Someone who was close to Chuck Cadman, a man by the name of Dane Minor, wrote that one of the things that drew Chuck into the political arena in the first place was a visit by a former justice minister to supposedly discuss the Young Offenders Act with Chuck. The man blew into town, spent five minutes getting his picture taken shaking Chuck's hand, and went back to Ottawa saying that meetings with victims showed his government cared about victims and the faults of the Young Offenders Act. Chuck was disgusted. It was incidents like these that led him to become an MP and try to truly change things.

I would suggest that the government, as that justice minister did, has failed to respect Chuck and what it was that he wanted to take place.

I believe that these two bills that we have looked at, Bill C-64 and Bill C-65, are a dishonour to Chuck's memory. They have been watered down and do not cover the issues that he wanted to cover. It is no wonder Canadians get more and more cynical about the government and what it says that it stands for.

Last week we talked about Bill C-65 which addresses street racing. Again, we wanted amendments which held true to Chuck's intentions with the bill. For example, we wanted Chuck's increase in scale of punishment as offences mounted, which was taken out by the government. His bill read:

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life:

(c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years...and not less than two years;

Those mandatory minimum sentences were important to Chuck.

The fourth part of Chuck's bill read:

(d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

We see some of the same things happening in Bill C-64. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with vehicle identification numbers and once again we see a watered down version of Chuck Cadman's intent. The Liberals are basically making a mockery once again of what he wanted and what he stood for.

Auto theft is a growing problem in this country, particularly in western Canada. It is a large problem in Regina. I am from a rural area in southwest Saskatchewan so it is not as big a problem there, but it has been a problem for a number of years in Regina. At one point I was talking to a policeman who said that it was really frustrating to deal with the Young Offenders Act because of the way in which it has been set up. They had a young man in custody who was getting out before his 16th birthday. They said that the young man's goal was to steal 250 vehicles before his 16th birthday and because he was getting out a couple of months before his birthday, they actually thought he would probably make that goal. It is good that young people have goals but that probably was not one of the more laudable ones. Auto theft is expensive to Canadians as well. It costs up to $600 million and at some point we need to deal with it.

Currently, the act of changing, obliterating or altering a vehicle identification number is not a specified criminal act. Section 354 of the Criminal Code treats tampering with a VIN in a context establishing that “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a tampered VIN is proof of property obtained by crime”, but there is no law dealing with the direct prosecution of a person engaged in the physical act of tampering with that VIN tag. This creates a major loophole for organized crime and it needs to be closed. An effective VIN tampering provision would aid significantly in dealing with organized crime and in the prosecution of organized crime rings, but we do not think this bill would do that effectively.

One of the changes that took place in the bill over Chuck's bill concerns section 377(1), which reads:

Every one commits an offence who, wholly or partially, alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.

It is important to note that the last phrase,“under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”, was added to Chuck's bill and really does water it down. Chuck had put the onus of proof for lawful excuse on the person who is indicted, not on the crown.

Once again, we have a bill where the Liberal government had a chance to do the right thing and it has been watered down. It is frustrating. It gives criminals the out they need and it does not give leeway to regular citizens who have legitimate reasons for dealing with VIN numbers. It reminds me of a lot of other legislation we have seen. I think back to the gun registry where a law was made that really has not accomplished what it set out to do. It has left criminals free to operate and has caused nothing but a great deal of expense, time and problems for regular folks.

In conclusion, I would like to read one more statement by Dane Minor in a letter about Chuck. He states:

If the Liberals truly want to honour Chuck Cadman I suggest they pass his laws as written and actually give the police the resources to find out how many previous offences there were. If they don't have the courage to do that, at least have the decency to stop using his name in a self-serving bid to gain political points.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine. Mr. Cadman was a crusader of criminal justice system reforms under the Young Offenders Act, street car racing, vehicle identification numbers and many other issues which he brought to the floor of the House. He came up with two bills, which we are now debating as government bills, Bill C-64 and Bill C-65.

On the vehicle identification numbers he came up with Bill C-413 and then reintroduced it a couple of times in the form of Bill C-287. Why did the Liberals oppose those bills? The subject matter was there. They were effective bills. A person who had experience in and passion for the criminal justice system reforms drafted those bills. However, the government opposed those bills, but after the confidence vote on May 19 suddenly it became evident to the Liberals that they should come on board and support the bills.

I sincerely doubt the intention of the government. It has no integrity when it comes to its track record on these issues. When my late colleague came up with the bill, the government opposed it. Now it suddenly wants to support it. There is some sort of a catch. I cannot understand what that catch is, but my senses tell me that the Liberals are after political opportunism. There may be a byelection in that riding very soon.

If the Liberals were really sincere about honouring the legacy that Mr. Cadman left behind, they would adopt the bill as it was written by Mr. Cadman. Rather, they are only using the name and the shell, but they have changed the content and have completely watered it down.

I can only imagine from talking to Dane Minor who was a close friend of Chuck Cadman. I worked with Chuck Cadman for almost eight years in the House. We shared so many things together during our campaigns. In our ridings we had joint town hall meetings on crime and other issues.

I could say that he would be disappointed. I am very sure he would have voted against Bills C-64 and C-65 as written by the Liberals.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-64, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to vehicle identification numbers.

Bill C-64 would make it a criminal offence to alter, remove or obliterate the vehicle identification number, commonly known as a VIN, on a motor vehicle. The current Criminal Code has no offence that deals specifically with VIN tampering. However, under section 352.2 of the Criminal Code, a tampered with VIN can be proof of property obtained by crime.

Auto theft in B.C. is epidemic. As the member who spoke before me mentioned, we had 37,500 vehicles stolen last year. The RCMP has labeled Surrey, British Columbia, the car theft capital of North America. On a per capita basis, more automobiles are stolen in Surrey than in any other North American city, more than Toronto, more than Los Angeles, and even more than New York City.

Over 6,000 cars are stolen each year in the communities in Surrey. Sixteen cars will be stolen by the end of any given day. Since the time we began speaking on this bill today, some cars have probably already been stolen in Surrey.

Local newspapers jokingly refer to car theft as Surrey's fastest growing industry, but it is no joking matter. Almost all the vehicles stolen are used to commit other crimes.

Stealing a vehicle is one thing, but the thieves then involve that vehicle in other crimes or sometimes in joyriding, often with fatal consequences. So far this year seven people have died in British Columbia as a result of auto theft.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia estimates that auto offences cost Surrey drivers $13 million annually.

The RCMP claims that it has done all it can to stop car thieves and now it is up to the courts. We have a court system that is a revolving door. The car thieves take advantage of our weak laws, our laws without teeth, and of the loopholes that exist within the system.

The courts refuse to treat auto theft as a serious crime. The RCMP auto theft task force complains that thieves receive virtually no punishment but a slap on the wrist. In fact, when the punishment is not severe, that becomes a motivation to commit the same crime again. There is no deterrent in place.

Meanwhile, the same individuals are arrested over and over again. One man arrested last summer in Surrey was already facing seven separate trials for auto theft. Another thief was pulled over while driving a stolen car to his court hearing on auto theft charges; he was going to court on auto theft charges and he stole a car to get there. In fact, once a thief stole a car and another thief stole his stolen car.

This crime is so rampant that about half of the 13,000 cases handled by Surrey provincial court last year involved car theft. Ninety per cent involved repeat offenders.

Most car thieves are supporting drug addictions. This was graphically displayed earlier this year when an RCMP bait car equipped with a surveillance camera caught a Surrey car thief on film. The thief was high on crystal meth, which is a serious problem in Surrey. According to a survey, 10% of school students under the age of 18 have used crystal meth. The government is sitting on its hands doing nothing to prevent it or stop it.

The thief, high on crystal meth and waving a gun, sped through our city streets. The image was later seen on news broadcasts across the country.

My former colleague and neighbour in Surrey, member of Parliament Chuck Cadman, sought to address auto theft and assist police by introducing Bill C-413 in March 2003.

He reintroduced his private member's bill in February 2004 and then again in November 2004, as Bill C-287. These two bills, neither of which moved beyond first reading, sought to make it a criminal offence to tamper with vehicle identification numbers.

Now, in introducing Bill C-64, the justice minister invokes the name of Mr. Cadman, saying that the bill is intended as an appropriate tribute to his legacy.

I would like to mention what happens when private members' bills are introduced. Of course we have made some progress in the House, in that at least one private member's bill or motion is votable in the House, but during the days when I was a member of Parliament representing the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance, when a good idea used to come from a private member, the government would completely mitigate it, reducing the volume, criticize it and oppose it vigorously.

Then, after opposing it, the Liberals sometimes had the audacity to reintroduce the bill if they thought was a good idea. The Liberals have stolen many of my bills, including those on foreign credentials, protection for firefighters and whistleblower legislation. They opposed the bills, but when we continued to raise our voices they stole the bills.

In this case, the government opposed the bill, which they now try to own on their own terms. First they criticize and oppose and then they steal the bill, mess it up and reintroduce it.

However, there are two major differences between Mr. Cadman's bills and the government bill. Bill C-413 and Bill C-287 put the onus on the person charged to explain why he has a vehicle with a stolen vehicle identification number. In contrast, Bill C-64 requires the Crown to prove that a person caught with a stolen vehicle knows that it was stolen.

Bill C-413 and Bill C-287 amended section 402 of the Criminal Code, which deals with fraudulent transactions. In contrast, Bill C-64 amends section 377 of the code, which deals with property offences. It is the same section which now indirectly covers vehicle identification number tampering.

Like Bill C-65, the proposed legislation is a watered down version of Mr. Cadman's initial proposal. In order to better reflect Mr. Cadman's initial desire to create a useful tool for our law enforcement agencies to tackle auto theft and organized crime, the legislation should remove part of subsection 377.1(1) so that the onus is placed on the people caught with an altered vehicle identification number to explain themselves, as was the original intention of Chuck Cadman.

While the Insurance Bureau of Canada is pleased that the government is finally moving on vehicle registration numbers, it is seeking specific amendments to the Criminal Code that would impose tougher penalties for auto theft, including mandatory minimum prison sentences, to send an even stronger message that auto theft is treated more seriously than property crime.

According to an Insurance Bureau spokesperson:

Right now, auto theft is seen by criminal organizations as a relatively low-risk, high-profit activity to raise funds for additional activities. Far from being a victimless crime, auto theft is an inherently violent criminal offence that has a devastating impact in communities right across the country in terms of fatalities and injuries, not to mention the cost to insurance policyholders. The evidence of the impact of auto theft is clear.

Statistics from the Insurance Bureau show that the rate of car theft is 64% higher than it was a decade ago. I do not know how the Liberals can stand there and say the crime rate is falling. Either they do not know the figures, they are manipulating them or the calculations are done differently over there. Statistics from the Insurance Bureau show that the rate of car theft is 64% higher than it was a decade ago.

While the rate of recovery of stolen vehicles in the early 1990s was 95%, today it sits at 60%. The decline in the recovery rate can be attributed to the proliferation of organized vehicle theft.

Organized criminal groups make a profit by exporting stolen vehicles to foreign countries or selling their parts. Because the parts of a car are sometimes worth more collectively than an intact car, many stolen cars are delivered to chop shops. These shops specialize in stripping cars, disposing of identifiable parts and selling others through a national network. Chop shops can meet the demands for parts more quickly and typically more cheaply than legitimate parts dealers.

Like the most recent trend in human identity theft involving frauds such as credit card fraud, bank fraud or other financial frauds, the trend is the same in auto identity theft. A VIN is just like DNA, but the thieves can remove it skilfully.

It is hard work. Thieves know that the vehicle identification number is unique and different on every car. First, they copy the vehicle identification number from the Internet, from car dealerships or from cars in malls or junkyards. They make perfect duplicates of the vehicle identification number plates and paperwork. Finally, they steal a similar car and replace its VIN with the copied one. Now the car has been cloned. The stolen car can no longer be identified as stolen; it has a new identity. This crime is highly profitable and very low risk and the chance of getting caught is slim to none.

Experts estimate that there are currently about 50,000 cloned cars in North America, but the number is growing by leaps and bounds. This type of crime only further emphasizes the need for a vehicle identification number tampering law.

I will conclude by saying that it is time this Liberal government did something about auto theft. The Conservatives have consistently supported the efforts of Chuck Cadman in tackling this issue by supporting him on this bill. The Liberals, on the other hand, did not support his bills when he was a caucus member of the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance or the Conservative Party. They only decided to support the legislation after Mr. Cadman voted to save the Liberal government in the confidence vote on May 19 of this year.

My riding is next to the Surrey North constituency. My constituents are mad. They are very upset that the Liberals are trying to gain politically by using Chuck Cadman's name while watering down his legislation. If the Liberals really wanted to honour Chuck Cadman or his legacy, they should have introduced the bill with the same wording and with the same intent that Mr. Cadman had in mind.

I have a friend, Dane Minor, who was a very close friend of Chuck Cadman and is still a good friend of the Cadman family. He worked with Chuck from the beginning when Chuck helped to found CRY. He had known Chuck for a long time and knew him well. He said in a letter, and I do not have a copy of his letter with me, that he was encouraged when he first saw that the Liberals were reintroducing Chuck's bill in the House, but when he saw the content of the bill, he said that he was mad as hell. He is disappointed that the Liberals are using Chuck's name on a watered down version of the bill.

Legislation making it a criminal offence to tamper with a vehicle identification number could provide law enforcement with another tool to use in its battle against auto theft. It would also serve as a deterrent to criminals. Other countries have had similar legislation in place for years. It is about time that we did the same, but in the right way.

Bill C-64 is not as good as the private member's bill on which it is modelled. I recommend that it be amended suitably. If it is, the bill should help tackle organized crime and auto theft by giving enforcement agencies another tool.

I used to be a member of the subcommittee on organized crime. I had the opportunity to have lots of meetings with the Vancouver Port Authority, the RCMP, the border patrol and many other law enforcement agencies. They told the subcommittee that organized crime is on the increase to the extent that if they have 10 leads on different organized crimes, they do not have enforcers to even follow up with one of those leads.

The criminals have state of the art technology, whereas our law enforcement agencies are struggling to maintain their old equipment, thanks to the cuts made by the Liberal government.

We have to give our law enforcement agencies the tools, resources, manpower and the equipment so that they are light years ahead of the organized criminals. Unfortunately, they are light years behind the state of the art technology that organized criminals are using. Whether it is a marijuana grow op, crystal meth, ecstasy or any kind of drugs that infiltrate the younger society, the government has absolutely no control over it. The hands of the law enforcement agencies are tied. As my colleague mentioned, the Liberals have taken the handcuffs from the criminals and put them on the hands of the judges.

I urge the House that until the bill is amended, we should look into it and make every effort to make it strong. Again, the Liberals should use the original bill the way it was designed if they really want to honour the legacy. Otherwise they should stop using the name of Chuck Cadman.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to speak to Bill C-64, an act to amend the Criminal Code on vehicle identification numbers.

Auto theft is a Canadian problem. According to estimates, over 170,000 cars are stolen each and every year. The costs are also enormous, with auto theft costing Canadians over $600 million. Auto theft ends up costing everyone high insurance rates and facilitates other crimes such as elicit drug trafficking. As well, some people inadvertently buy stolen property, which ends up costing unsuspecting victims money.

Auto theft ends up empowering criminal organizations. Cars are cheap to steal and in British Columbia they are easy to transport because of our close proximity to the American border and the Vancouver port.

Criminal organizations are drawn to auto theft because of the enormous profit potential and the relatively low risk of detection. This is clearly a booming industry and the government needs to act before it gets even worse.

Auto theft does not just result in property loss. Vehicle theft contributes to over 56 deaths a year in Canada. In Surrey, the police videotaped one car thief in a bait car. The driver was on crystal meth, a drug the government continues to not take seriously despite the ruined lives.

This driver exhibited erratic and wild behaviour. He was screaming, flailing his arms and clearly not paying any attention to the road. He put his life and the lives of Surrey residents in danger. We are blessed that such a man did not kill anyone on the road that day. Unfortunately, 56 Canadians were not so lucky and paid the ultimate price as a result of vehicle theft.

Chuck Cadman originally decided to combat auto crime with his two private members' bills. It is too bad the Liberals do not.

Auto theft is a major problem in my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells. Surrey has had the unfortunate title of being the auto theft capital of North America. Over 8,000 vehicles were stolen in 2003 alone. That is almost one in 50 people in Surrey who have a car stolen per year. At this rate, everyone in Surrey will have their car stolen once in their lifetime. While much work has been done by local and provincial governments to curb auto theft in Surrey, the federal government has lagged on this issue.

In Surrey, municipal and provincial governments instituted the bait program. Bait operates throughout the greater Vancouver area and has been credited with lowering auto crime in the lower mainland. Police officers, like the name suggests, bait criminals with cars that can be easily stolen. The police then arrest the car thieves by electronically shutting off the engines when the cars are at low speed or at a stop light.

In Victoria, the program has had great success, lowering auto theft by almost 36%. In Surrey, the program is credited to lowering auto theft by 13%. I would like to congratulate Surrey and the lower mainland cities for their own aggressive actions against car thieves. The same congratulations cannot be given to the federal government. It has been soft on auto crime and it continues to be so.

Currently, there is no law that makes altering, removing or destroying vehicle identification numbers illegal. This bill supposedly seeks to fill that legal void, but for reasons I will shortly explain does not. Bill C-64 is another one of the sham Cadman bills. Along with Bill C-65, today's bill is an insult to the legacy of Chuck Cadman. The Liberals did not support Mr. Cadman's private member's legislation when he was in the House as a Reform, Canadian Alliance and Conservative member. They have now cynically brought back legislation that may be similar in appearance but not similar in effect.

The Liberals in the past have tried to paint him as cruel and unsophisticated on the issue, saying that we need nuance in the law. Chuck understood the victims and understood criminals. Repeat offenders do not deserve the legal system's mercy. They deserve jail, so that good Canadians are not subjected to violent criminal actions.

Bill C-64 seeks to make it a criminal offence to alter or destroy vehicle identification numbers. Vehicle identification numbers are serial numbers placed throughout a car to identify it. It is a kind of car genetic code. Insurers and police use vehicle identification numbers to track cars that have been stolen and also to prevent stolen cars from being sold on the black market.

The idea behind vehicle identification numbers was to prevent thieves from easily reselling stolen property. Because vehicle identification numbers had to be registered with insurance companies, they could be cross-referenced with stolen vehicles. This essentially made it very difficult to resell stolen merchandise with the original vehicle identification number.

However, by altering or destroying vehicle identification numbers, thieves have found a way around the practice. It also makes stolen cars easier to transport across borders and through ports. Vehicle identification numbers would be effective if they were not easily destroyed.

In Chuck's original bill it read: “Every one commits an offence who, wholly or partially, alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse”. However, the Liberals have now amended that clause to read: “—and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”.

The Liberal amendment adds an additional burden of proof on prosecutors and law enforcement. Thanks to liberal judges, such clauses are routinely interpreted to establish a burden of proof on the prosecutor and have been used so in other circumstances.

We must be clear with what type of criminality we are dealing. We are not simply dealing with joyriding teenagers which is also problematic. Rather, we are dealing with sophisticated criminal organizations who know how to avoid the law at all costs. To think that criminal organizations and their lawyers will not exploit this loophole is naive at best.

Criminal organizations are becoming a problem all across Canada. Increasingly, they are also developing ties to international terrorist organizations. The nexus of crime, drugs and terrorism is seen in places like Afghanistan. To combat these groups we need tough laws that will actually act as a deterrent. Bill C-64 will not act as a deterrent. It will be very difficult to actually prosecute people under this law. Without jail time staring them in the face, these criminals will not be deterred.

I have grave issues with the Liberal amendment to Chuck's bill. It will undoubtedly prevent prosecutors from actually using the law. The high burdens of proof contained will provide an easy loophole for criminals, criminal organizations and their lawyers to exploit. Let us send a message to the criminals. Let us vote for Chuck's bills, not these Liberal fakes.

I am hoping that members from all parties will join with us in the Conservative Party in amending these bills to reflect Chuck's intentions. In that way members of the House can honour the true legacy of Chuck Cadman. The residents of Surrey, including those in my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells, demand nothing less.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to do something truly good about protecting citizens, then Chuck Cadman would have been leading debate in the House on his own private member's bill and it would have sought unanimous consent to pass it at all stages so Canadians would have been protected. That would have been a fitting tribute while he was living. That is what it should have done in the House. Instead it brings forward a watered down bill.That is the worst argument I have ever heard over there, that it is somehow doing some on behalf of Canadians to protect them.

I rise on behalf of the people of Essex to speak to Bill C-64. I am here also with thoughts of my former seat mate, Chuck Cadman. I have to be honest, I miss him terribly.

Chuck's brought forward his private member's Bill C-287, on the alteration and obliteration of vehicle identification numbers, because there was no provision for the direct prosecution of a person engaged in the physical act of tampering with a vehicle identification number, a loophole that has been masterfully exploited by organized crime. Instead what we have is Bill C-64, a partial attempt by the Liberal government to address that loophole, which is insufficient.

Also, I am here to talk about what the Liberals have been falsely claiming as a fitting tribute and honour to the late Chuck Cadman, member of Parliament. The only fitting tribute to the memory of Chuck Cadman would be to take his private member's bill, ironically unaltered, and pass it in the House. Instead what we have is the Liberals trying to fulfill a promise they made to Chuck after he gave the government life in that crucial May 19 budget vote.

I was sitting in my seat next to Chuck after that vote. It was interesting to watch the long lineup of Liberal members of Parliament eager to shake Chuck's hand. I thought the most interesting moment of that whole night was when the justice minister was face to face with Chuck. If we can believe it, he looked him in the eyes and said that he did not know why Chuck came to this Parliament, but that he would do something about the issues that were important to him.

It is very interesting that our justice minister did not know that the reason Chuck Cadman came to the House for eight years was because of the death of his son and the fact that the criminal justice system did nothing about it. Shame on the government.

What has the government brought forward instead of bringing Chuck's bill forward and passing? We have a nice little add-on to the bill, and will read it. First I will read the words in Chuck Cadman's bill. It states that every one commits offence who, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse.

The government decided it wanted to make an ad-on to that. It states, “and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”.

That is a substantial change from what Chuck wanted to achieve. Chuck's intention was that we would have a justice system that would get tough on criminals. He was a tireless crusader of rights for victims over the rights of criminals. Chuck's previous private member's bill on the issue put the onus of proof for lawful excuse on the person indicted, on the accused criminal. That tilts the balance in favour of the Crown on behalf of the victims of crime.

What the Liberals have done with Chuck Cadman's idea is change the onus now to put a double onus on the Crown.

It was Chuck Cadman's intention that someone caught with an altered vehicle identification number would have to explain themselves. It is not a great demand to put on somebody who is caught with a vehicle that has an altered VIN. If I were working at a wrecking yard and, as part of the normal process of business, removed a vehicle identification number, I would have a lawful excuse why that vehicle identification number was altered and removed. That would have sufficed under Chuck Cadman's bill. Now, the Crown, on behalf of the victims of crime, has to prove an additional burden that the vehicle identification number was altered or removed to conceal the identity of that vehicle. I can hear the criminal defence lawyers laughing already. Those are the people who the Liberals consulted, between talking to Chuck Cadman and bringing the bill forward.

I was thinking a little about lady justice earlier today. I think we all remember the lady justice symbol of her holding up the two scales, literally weighing the evidence, with a blindfold across her eyes to symbolize her impartiality in the weighing of that evidence.

Under the Liberals there is a new lady justice. Her arms are thrown up in the air in a show of helplessness as criminal after criminal gets soft treatment, or gets day passes to amusement parks or gets house arrest, while victims in our system get re-victimized.

This new lady justice has dropped the scales at her feet because the evidence seems to no longer matter. Witness a lot of the court decisions. The evidence suddenly does not matter any more. This new lady justice still has her blindfold on, not to reflect her impartiality any more but because she needs to shield her eyes from the injustices that are committed. This new lady justice has been brought on by 12 years of Liberals being soft on crime.

Let the numbers speak for themselves. Already this year there have been 64 murders in Toronto, 44 violent crimes committed with guns. The Liberals say that the gun registry that is supposed to protect people. It is their answer to everything, like Kyoto is their answer to everything in the environment. They have a gun registry to protect everybody. It has not. People are being gunned down in our streets.

James Caza has 42 convictions. He is roaming the interior of British Columbia. I am sure the people in British Columbia feel real safe these days.

Serial rapist Larry Fisher was surprised himself that he was let out of jail so quickly. While out on parole he raped and murdered.

Liberal Senator Larry Campbell wants a soft approach on hard drugs like crystal meth.

Legal counsel from the Liberal government testified before the justice committee that mandatory prison terms for criminals would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

A parole board handed out day passes to pedophiles to attend children's theme parks. I have four young kids. I will rethink how I spend my summers. Will we go to Canada's Wonderland? I have no idea who will be roaming around there and who will be a threat to my children.

This is wrong. Canadians should not have to restrict their freedom from operating in society because they do not know what criminals are lurking there, criminals that the Liberal justice system has let go.

The Liberal government opposed Bill C-215, a bill sponsored by my Conservative colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings, which proposed mandatory minimum sentences on indictable gun crimes. The bill has gained support from the victims of crimes and from those who enforce the laws in the land, our police. They know the bill makes sense, but the government does not support it.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to consider the case of Dean Edmondson who was convicted of sexual assault for trying to have sex with a 12 year old girl. Instead of a prison term, he got house arrest.

It brings me to the obvious question. What is the Liberal priority? The Liberals want to solve overcrowding in our prisons. They want to solve our court backlogs, the mountain of cases that have clogged up our courts. They want to do it by making it easier to stay out of jail, even though these people wreak havoc on society. The Liberals want it to be easier to make bail. They want to make it easier for the courts to give the criminal house arrest and to give concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. God forbid if one were convicted of multiple violent crimes that one would have to serve sentence after sentence. Why not get a group discount? That is what the government approves.

The Liberal priority is to make it easier for a Liberal patronage appointee filled parole board to give day passes to fun parks to convicted pedophiles.

With Bill C-64, Liberal so-called justice means to get the handcuffs off the criminal and put them on our crown attorneys instead. That is what the bill proposes to do. Once again the Liberals are siding with the criminals. They are not standing up for victims of crime. They are siding with the criminals and the Liberal defence lawyers who donate to their election campaigns.

I think we all remember that Allan Rock was the Liberal justice minister for a time. He gave us the failed long gun registry on which the government has spent $2 billion. For what? It is not serving its purpose. It is allowing the criminals to continue wreaking havoc on society. It goes after law-abiding farmers and duck hunters instead.

Allan Rock gave us the Liberal policy of conditional sentencing with no direction to the courts as to which serious violent crimes should be exempted from the concept of conditional sentencing. What is the result? Liberal appointed judges rightly interpret that the Liberal government's desire is to let violent criminals get out of jail free. That is the Liberal priority.

Bill C-2, the Liberals so-called child pornography legislation, is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. It has the legitimate use defence in it. It used to be called the artistic merit defence. We can dress it up, paint it up or call it whatever, but it is a loophole one could drive a truck through. It leaves our vulnerable children unprotected.

The Liberals voted against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. That is not much to ask to protect our young adolescents. Instead, the government wants to keep it legal for a 40 or 50 year old man to have sex with a young adolescent.

I think it is clear that the Liberals are soft on crime in general and on vehicle crimes specifically. Our Conservative colleague, my seatmate, had his private member's bill, Bill C-293, a bill I spoke in support of in this House, a bill that proposed mandatory minimum sentences for vehicle theft.

The other so-called Cadman bill, Bill C-65, the companion to this legislation, dealing with street racing, does not honour Chuck. The Liberal government this time left out something very important from that legislation, which was the scale that Mr. Cadman had built into his bill of increasing punishment for repeat offenders. Apparently those who continue to threaten the safety of our communities get a discount for their anti-social choices.

Mr. Cadman was on a crusade for eight years to get tougher on criminals in crimes involving vehicles before his premature demise. During those eight years, seven were under Liberal majority governments, not a minority government like it currently is. The Liberals, if they were serious about vehicle identification number alteration, could have passed Chuck's bill quite easily. They could have rubber-stamped it post-haste. They had majorities for seven years in this House and instead they reserved the right to fast-track things for political pork-barrelling to Liberal cronies and friends. The talk of Liberal concern for Chuck Cadman's crusade is hollow, quite frankly.

The least the Liberals could have done this time around, if they truly wanted to honour Chuck's memory, would have been to bring forward his bill unaltered. I find it a curious irony that we are talking about altering vehicle identification numbers and yet the Liberals altered the bill of the late Chuck Cadman, an honourable and distinguished man, for their own political purposes. It is a moral crime, a crime against Chuck's memory, to allow the Liberal government to alter a good bill.

The Liberals can talk about Chuck's memory all they want but they are waxing poetic. They did not listen to Chuck Cadman at all. The loophole in Bill C-64 is proof of that. The Liberal government listened instead to Liberal defence lawyers and now defence lawyers and organized criminals will have a great time watching the crown frustratingly try to prosecute under this legislation.

I would contend that the Liberals, with their loophole in Bill C-64, have dishonoured the memory of Chuck Cadman. I do not say that lightly. I sat next to the man for my short time in this House and I spent my time getting to know him. He was one of the most decent men I have ever known, a good family man, a devoted husband and devoted father. He was not planning on being a member of Parliament. That was not his design, but he made it his crusade because he loved his son that much, to come here and ensure we had the laws and the direction to the courts that society wants criminals to be prosecuted to the fullest, that they should pay for their crimes, that Canadians should be protected and that they should not be revictimized in this process. Chuck was here to do that. I can say proudly that Conservatives have always stood for the principles in Chuck Cadman's original private member's bill.

Conservatives will continue standing up for safe streets, for healthy communities and on behalf of victims of crime and say, “No way”. The rights of Canadians should be respected in this country.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for two days in a row I have had the pleasure to reflect on Bill C-65 and now Bill C-64. The government claims these bills to be representative of what Mr. Cadman, the former hon. member for Surrey, was trying to accomplish during his tour here.

As I said yesterday with respect to Bill C-65, Bill C-64 has been altered with a few words that reflect the mushy, soft on crime Liberal attitude. The bill probably will be supported by my friends to the left, the softy Bloc. The Liberals have watered down both bills because they appear to be too harsh for their souls to comprehend.

Many years ago Mr. Cadman recognized how serious auto theft had become. It is a major problem in many cities all across Canada. Close to 200,000 vehicles are stolen every year. This bill is supposed to make it an offence to alter, or remove, or obliterate vehicle identification numbers, or VIN, on motor vehicles. That was the purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill, which he presented quite some time ago in the House. However, in the opinion of the Liberal government and other softies in here who support being soft on crime, the bill was too harsh.

The government has taken Chuck's bill and added a few words. Section 377.1 states, “everyone commits an offence who wholly or partially alters, removes, or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse”. Chuck Cadman's bill would have made the onus on the person indicted. It would not be up to the Crown to try to justify the altering of the VIN in any way, shape or form.

The government added, “and under circumstances that give rise to reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle”. That sentence destroys the entire purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill. It has changed his bill completely, even to the point that a number of people who were very supportive of his initial bill are not supportive of this one.

Members of Chuck's family and his campaign team back in Surrey are livid with Bill C-64. I understand that letters have been written by the campaign chairman of his committee to editors of various newspapers. Those people are livid that the government would dare change these things, water down the bills and say that Bill C-64 is in memory of Chuck Cadman. By making these alterations, the government has strongly dishonoured his memory by saying that this is Chuck Cadman's bill when in fact it is not.

It is pretty clear in people's minds that Bill C-64 will put the onus on the Crown to prove someone caught with an altered VIN intended to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle rather than to explain themselves, which was Mr. Cadman's original intention. That is a very strong point.

I was here during Mr. Cadman's tenure. Over the years Chuck fought so hard for these kinds of bills and amendments. The government consistently rejected any form of mandatory licence prohibitions similar to the type that Chuck constantly proposed.

The government ignored the recommendations related to VINs. It ignored the recommendations related to street racing. It continued to soft pedal on all of these efforts to confront crime. Mr. Cadman was definitely committed to seeing that crime fighting efforts were made law in this great country to bring more emphasis to the value of victims rather than constantly seeing perpetrators receive a lot more attention.

Today in question period even the answer that I received regarding the constant idea that the rights of perpetrators seemed to override the rights of victims in all cases indicated that there was an imbalance and that there were efforts to do something about it. When a bill on some very stringent issues regarding Chuck Cadman's ideas is watered down, that is just the opposite. Once again the focus is on the predator and not the victim. The government needs to wake up and realize that is the case.

What is even more disturbing is if this bill were amended, if it passed and became law, where would it go next?. I am really disgusted when I look at some of the things that have happened in regard to decisions that are made in the House of Commons. Let me provide some short examples.

Last week, while visiting my constituents in my riding, I ran across three people who were suffering from hepatitis C. One of them does not have very long to live. I believe some time around April the House concurred in a motion put forward by our health critic, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, that would implement the recommendation in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health that called for compensation to all victims of hepatitis C. It was passed in the House and all victims of hepatitis C were to receive compensation.

When these three people asked me when they would get their money, I was shocked. I knew it had been approved long ago by this place. What is going on? The House of Commons made a decision that all hepatitis C victims would be compensated, yet to this date they have not been. In other words, the government of the day is refusing to take any action. It is ignoring the decision of the House.

Let me talk further about that to illustrate my worry about these kinds of bills that may pass, and even if they are amended, but do not go anywhere.

Bill C-2, the child exploitation act, has been approved by the House of Commons. It has gone where it is supposed to go. It is supposed to be implemented and become law. This is about child exploitation. Where is it? It is my understanding it is still sitting on the Prime Minister's desk and is not going anywhere. The House of Commons passed that law and it is supposed to happen. Why has it not?

We need answers to these kinds of questions. The decision on hepatitis C was unanimous. Nobody voted against it. Everybody in this place was in favour of giving the victims of hepatitis C a cheque. Today they still have not received them, and I would like to know why. After eight months, the government cannot achieve that? Are the Liberals waiting for everybody to die and then they will not have to bother with it? That is extremely disturbing.

On November 30, 2004, the House approved another motion by the leader of our party which called upon the government to take appropriate measures to sell 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose lands were expropriated to build the Mirabel airport. Guess what? The government has refused to comply with the wishes of the House. It has not done that.

On April 5 the House adopted a motion by the member for Red Deer, concurring in a committee report disqualifying Glen Murray's appointment as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Today, Mr. Murray still continues to chair the round table. Once again, the government completely ignored the decision of the House of Commons.

On February 15, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 were defeated in the House of Commons. The trade minister shrugged off the defeat of these two bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He said that the two branches of government would continue to operate independently, even though Parliament did not give its blessing to do so. Even though they were defeated, the two bills were implemented. I find this amazing. Bills that are defeated are implemented and bills that are passed are not, because they do not suit the attitude on that side of the House.

Bill C-2 on child exploitation was approved and is laying dormant. Will the Liberals get on with it? Is it too harsh? It might be.

I was at committee on Tuesday and one of the witnesses was from the justice department. Guess what one of his statements was when the department objected to a private member's bill, which had been brought forward by my colleague, regarding the penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime? What did the official of the justice department say loud and clear? The bill was opposed because it was cruel and undue punishment. The punishment was too severe for people who would dare break the law in the commission of a crime using a gun. Yet the victims of these crimes never get to cry out about the harsh impacts on their lives from the actions of these perpetrators.

There is way too much of that going on, and it is no wonder. Every time a bill is brought in like Bill C-64, the outfit over there has to water it down because it is too harsh on the perpetrator. Never mind the guys who lose their cars to theft. Let us not get too harsh on those who steal them. How nonsensical can they get? Common sense does not prevail anywhere in the House of Commons. Decisions do not prevail in the House of Commons. It does not matter whether a motion passes, it does not get done.

I do not know if members would like more examples, but I have a ton of them, examples where the Liberals refuse to accept the decisions of the House. I do not know contemptible they can get.

Our health critic also had a motion in regard to the funding required to fight cancer and a few of the other serious diseases we are facing. He introduced a motion calling on the government to fully fund and implement a Canadian strategy for cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders. That was approved by the House, but there has been no action. Nothing is happening. The government refuses to give any effect to the motion. Why?

I am glad to see two or three Liberals here. I hope they are listening closely. Do they know of all the decisions that they took part in making but are not being done? Do they not care about the fact that hepatitis C victims are not being compensated, even though those people over there had a voice in that and voted yes to having it done? Does it not bother those members a little bit that people living in their ridings who have hepatitis C are not being compensated? Are they not bothered that the House is being ignored by whatever little group of individuals who do not care about decisions made here and that they will do it anyway?

Does it not bother those members that two bills designed to split a department were defeated and yet the government went ahead and created the two departments? Does it not bother those members the slightest little bit that these undemocratic, dictatorial decisions are going on right under their noses? Does it not make them squirm in their seats just a wee bit? If it does not, then it ought to make it really hot to sit in those seats. It is absolutely shameful.

And to hear the answer to my question today, that the government realizes there is an imbalance in our law and order and fighting of crime. That was the government's own admission in the answer. Why are we not doing something about it? We have an opportunity to get tough on crime. When we have a chance to get tough on street racing as Mr. Cadman wished, on the stealing of automobiles and the removing of VINs, why do we not do it?

When the Liberals make a statement that there is an imbalance, why does more favour always go toward the predators rather than the victims? This is constantly happening. When they make those statements, why do they allow it? Why do they want to amend those bills to make that happen again?

Why do the Liberals not fess up and look to the people in their ridings? How many people in their ridings are happy that we have a law in the land which says that adult men can have sex with 14-year-old girls? How many people in their ridings are happy about that? About 99% of the people in my riding are not happy about that at all, but that is the law and there is not the courage to change it because somebody over there does not want it to happen. Some soft, mushy idealist over there says that it would be too harsh, that we could not do it because it would make it difficult for those adult men who like to prey on young women who are kids. Like it or not, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are still kids. They are young girls just coming to the point of life where they can enjoy things, yet we dare allow the possibility of endangering them.

I know that questions are going to come up after this speech but boy, I would like some answers to come out of the mouths of those people over there before they ask the questions. I would like them to explain to me why they do not honour democracy, that when a decision is made in the House it is done. If they doubt it, I will give them a copy of the 14 things I know about that have been decided on but which have not been accomplished. They could take it up in the Liberal caucus if they wanted to, but it would not make any difference because they are puppets of a regime that refuses to honour the decisions of the House. That is what has to stop.

Then above all things, the most absolutely ridiculous, the most undemocratic decision I have ever heard of was to stifle the opposition by coming back in the fall and saying that there will be no opposition days. What a shameful, undemocratic disgrace the government brings to the House of Commons.

The Liberals ought to be apologizing to their constituents on a daily basis for their inaction on decisions made here and for their unwillingness to come down hard on criminals and help victims to a larger degree than they ever imagined. That is what a Conservative government would do and I would love to be part of that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I was at Chuck's funeral. I believe these bills were brought forth to honour him. I know that promise was made. That is why we have these bills before us.

A month ago for the first time I experienced having a private member's bill voted on. Everybody on this side in the Conservative Party supported my bill to have auto crime dealt with as it is a serious problem. My bill would give a sentencing guideline to the courts so that there would be increased penalties for repeat offenders, so that there would be consequences. Each time a person steals a car, the sentence would become a little more severe. It is a concept that we believe in. We believe in accountability, honesty and truth in sentencing.

Unfortunately, the justice minister gave direction to the Liberal caucus that it was not to support my bill. Chuck experienced that. I had a taste of what it felt like. Now we are presented with bills from the government to honour Chuck, yet his family and his campaign manager are saying that these watered down versions dishonour Chuck, they do not represent what Chuck wanted, and his family and his campaign manager do not support them.

I would ask the government to do the right thing: to amend and reintroduce these bills in the House the way Chuck wrote them. That was the promise that was made. In presenting Bill C-64 and Bill C-65 as the government has, it has watered down Chuck's bills. Actually, Dona Cadman said it best when she said they protect the criminals. That is not what we are here for. We want to see justice. Let us honour Chuck Cadman and allow his bills to be here, not these Liberal bills.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Langley for his very informative speech. I learned a lot. We do not always learn a lot from some of the speeches we hear, especially those from the other side.

Quite apart from the details of the bill, I think we all agree that there is a problem with auto theft and particularly with organized rings of auto thieves, which this bill is going to try to address. I think that was Chuck's intent in all of this.

There is something that I am curious about. We looked at Bill C-65 earlier today and now we are looking at Bill C-64. Both were intended to be tributes to the legacy of a great parliamentarian and we are going to miss him around here. What puzzles me, and perhaps the member could comment on this, is that both of these initiatives were pretty significantly opposed by the Liberals. The government was not going to allow these things to get through committee or to even be amended or anything like that.

I am curious about why there has been the change of heart. Not that long ago, just a couple of years ago, the government did not like these things. Now it brings this legislation here. I wonder why.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in the House and speak to what is being touted as the government's bill to honour our former colleague, Chuck Cadman.

I remember a few months back being at the funeral honouring Chuck. The Prime Minister was there along with many of us to honour and remember Chuck. There was a promise made at his funeral that the Prime Minister would bring Chuck's bills before the House to honour him. That made many of us very happy because Chuck had introduced numerous bills over the years. Of course his wife, Dona Cadman, and his family were there, so it was wonderful to hear that the Prime Minister was going to do that in Chuck's memory.

Chuck in dealing with auto crime had presented some bills in the House. Bill C-413 was introduced in March 2003 and then was reintroduced in February 2004 and Bill C-287 was introduced in November 2004. Unfortunately the government never did support those bills of Chuck's regarding VIN altering.

Today we have been dealing with Bill C-65 on street racing and Bill C-64 on vehicle identification altering. However, our excitement that the Prime Minister was going to do the right thing was short-lived. There was a comment made by the justice minister that these bills were invoked in the name of Mr. Cadman saying that they were intended as an appropriate tribute to his legacy.

Chuck Cadman worked very hard to make Canada a safer place and to fight for victims' rights. He did an incredible job. Some of us here still have that passion to work for Chuck. It is unfortunate that Chuck did not see those bills passed while he was with us.

On October 1 a local newspaper, Now , ran an article titled “Chuck's bill likely to be law”. The community was excited that Chuck's bills were going to become law, that the Prime Minister was going to keep his promise. People were excited. Then we looked at the bills and found that they were not Chuck's bills at all. The government was using Chuck's name and had altered and watered down his bills. We became very disappointed.

Dane Minor was Chuck's campaign manager and worked for years with Chuck. He wrote a letter to the editor about Chuck's bills becoming law. It stated:

I read this article with a growing sense of disgust. Several weeks ago the prime minister announced on the front pages of national and local papers that his government would pass Chuck's private member bill into legislation as an honour to Chuck. My immediate reaction was a positive one. It would be a fitting memorial to Chuck. Then the justice minister announced his watered down version. This isn't Chuck's bill in either intent or design. It is a cynical attempt by the Liberals to use Chuck's good name while doing little or nothing to change the existing laws.

One of the things that drew Chuck into the political arena in the first place was a visit by a former justice minister to supposedly discuss the Young Offenders Act with Chuck. The man blew into town, spent five minutes getting his picture taken shaking Chuck's hand and went back to Ottawa saying meetings with victims showed his government cared about victims and the faults of the YOA. Chuck was disgusted and it was incidents like these that led him to become a MP to truly change things.

This “new” legislation from the Liberals is the same type of political stunt. [The] Justice Minister...said his government tweaked both bills to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and address “operational deficiencies”.

There is a word here I will not repeat.

Chuck had one of the best legal advisors in Ottawa on his staff and his bills were well within the Charter. The ultimate ridiculousness of [the justice minister's] version was the reason for removing penalties for repeat offences: “because the police across this country don't have tracing or tracking records so we would know if it was a first, second or third tracking offence.”

If the Liberals truly want to honour Chuck Cadman I suggest they pass his laws as written and actually give the police the resources to find out how many previous offences there were. If they don't have the courage to do that, at least have the decency to stop using his name in a self serving bid to gain political points.

That was from Dane Minor's letter. I phoned Dona shortly after that. I asked Dane if it was okay to read the letter in the House and he said yes. I asked Dona if she was okay with that and she said yes too. She asked the House not to present Mickey Mouse watered down bills but to pass Chuck's bills the way Chuck had written them. They were good bills. If we pass the Liberal bill, all it does is protects the criminals. That is what I heard from Dane and Dona.

For years I was involved with dealing with auto theft. Like Chuck, I spent a number of years working for ICBC and I dealt with crashes and auto crime.

I found some very interesting statistics on auto crime. The typical auto thief is a 27-year-old male. He is addicted to crystal meth. He has 13 prior criminal convictions and he is stealing the vehicle to commit another offence.

There are auto thieves who are stealing the car for a joyride. Some steal cars for transportation to get from point A to point B, some to their court hearing. There are some kids who steal vehicles. There are vehicles being stolen by organized crime. Primarily the number one offender is the typical thief who is addicted to crystal meth and is stealing it to commit another crime.

The bill presented by the government as a bill to honour Chuck, this watered down version which I do not support because of why the Liberals have done it, is to deal with the changing of the vehicle identification number. That can be done in a number of different ways and it is connected with auto crime, with organized crime.

It is a small minority of the vehicles that are being stolen. Last year there were 170,000 vehicles stolen. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that it is costing Canadians over $1 billion a year. When we include the police costs and the loss to Canadians it is $1 billion a year for auto theft. A portion of those are vehicles that are being stolen to change the VIN. What kind of theft is that? What do they do with the vehicles? Why are they changing the vehicle identification numbers?

Some of them steal the car to sell it for parts. We have heard that. That is a percentage of them. They will take the car apart and sell the pieces. A lot of the new vehicles, in fact most of them, have a VIN attached to every panel and every fender. Every component in the car will have the VIN hidden on it. That is something we may want to consider.

If we are talking about amending the bill to make it a bill that would work, we are talking about altering on a vehicle but it could be a vehicle or components of a vehicle. That is a big problem. The car is stolen and then parted out because the thief thinks that the parts are not traceable. Another way that organized crime operates is to steal an expensive vehicle, alter the VIN and then sell it.

I have constituents in my riding of Langley who bought a motor home. It was their dream to buy a motor home. They bought it from a reputable dealer, or so they thought, and it turned out to be a stolen vehicle, a vehicle that had an altered VIN. My constituents had taken out a mortgage. They were going to sell their house. The motor home was going to be their home. It was a beautiful $140,000 motor home. It turned out to be stolen. It was taken from them.

The province of B.C. refunded the PST because of the fraudulent VIN. My constituents had done the due diligence. They did a check on the vehicle and everything was fine. They had it checked out, but it turned out to be a stolen vehicle. The VIN had been changed to the legitimate VIN of a vehicle that was not stolen.

This is all too common. Thieves will steal the registration from another vehicle. The registration has a VIN. The thieves will put that legitimate VIN from a vehicle that is not stolen onto the stolen vehicle so the buyer does not realize it is a stolen vehicle. My constituents bought the vehicle. Unfortunately, it was taken back. The police found it.

I wonder if I am going over my time, Mr. Speaker, because I am getting some heckling from my honoured colleagues across the way. I would ask them to be patient.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of that excellent deferral until Monday, there have been discussions among all the parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded division just requested on Bill C-65 until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, October 25.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate this issue today. It certainly is timely in my case.

The distinguished member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl a minute ago referred to the crime situation as a run away rampant situation in cities. I represent an entirely rural riding in Nova Scotia. We have seen an incredible increase in vandalism, minor crimes, repeat offences, issues that make people's lives miserable. It prevents them from enjoying their own properties, and they feel insecure in their homes. I feel this.

I have been here for quite a while. I did not feel this until just within the last two years. It is coming to my riding and if it is there, it is everywhere.

However, I want to speak to Bill C-65 today and acknowledge the contribution that Chuck Cadman made on these issues. He had several issues of which he was a tireless supporter, always in the interest of other people's security and safety. He brought this concept to the House through two bills, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230. One was on misidentification of VIN numbers on vehicles a crime and the other was on street racing. At the time the Liberals opposed these bills, making all kinds of statements about them. They blew them away and said they were not appropriate.

I have a quote from the minister of justice at the time, Martin Cauchon, who in speaking to Mr. Cadman said:

Your proposed bill would result in a mandatory driving prohibition....As you are aware, the Canadian criminal justice system is premised on the notion that sentences should be individualized for each offender... Research indicates that mandatory minimum penalties do not work from the point of general deterrence and recidivism.

That is exactly what we need. The other part that has been watered down in Bill C-65, as compared to Chuck's bill, is the penalty for repeat offenders.

In a recent incident in Halifax, a young woman was killed and the driver of the car had something like 15 or 20 outstanding offences. Despite repeated offences, he still drove and he was the cause of a fatal accident. It has had a profound impact on the community. Bills like those proposed by Chuck Cadman, not like this one, would have helped prevent that.

I want to go into other issues that affect my riding in northern Nova Scotia. As I mentioned, we have seen an increase in criminal activity such as theft, vandalism, damage, cars stolen and break-ins. I want to go through three little communities in my riding that have experienced virtual crime waves for the first time in their history.

I went to a meeting in a community hall in Stewiacke, Nova Scotia about a month ago, and 80 people attended. I could not believe the stories of vandalism, theft and break-ins. I could not believe the number of people who now were scared to stay in their own homes. I also could not believe the fact that they would call the police and there was no response. Most of these people know many of the criminals and they are already on the list of offenders. However, because of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, they are repeat offenders and the police have very few tools to rein in these criminals.

Stewiacke has a lack of RCMP officers now, although they used to be present. I then found out their building had been shut down because of a mould problem and nobody had done anything to resurrect the building so Stewiacke lost its RCMP presence. I raised it in the House and as a result of that, a temporary building is under construction now. Now Stewiacke will have a building and hopefully an RCMP presence to deal with these issues.

The Liberals seem to be turning the other way on all these criminal justice issues.They do not seem to be interested. It is puzzling to us why they do not care and why they allow these issues to go on and on.

Earlier this year we had an issue in Truro. It was rumoured that the northeast drug section, the most successful drug enforcement operation in the region, was to be shut down. We raised the issue in the House and I think we slowed it down and perhaps stopped the elimination of the drug enforcement section. However because the RCMP officers have been moved around it is hard to tell whether they are there or not. However senior RCMP officials have told us that they do not have the number of officers they need to provide the minimum level of law enforcement in Nova Scotia.

The other thing that came out was that when they do have a number of officers and one goes on maternity leave or sick leave, there is no allowance for the replacement of those officers. Therefore, even though they can show an allotment of officers on duty and available, they are not really there. This is another issue we raised in the House and hopefully the Solicitor General or the Attorney General will deal with this.

Another small community in my riding is Debert. We have had all kinds of vandalism there. People are afraid to go out on the streets. They are afraid for their homes and businesses because of the buildings that have been burned. They are afraid of property damage. They are afraid of threats and intimidation. The RCMP came back and reported to us that they do not have enough manpower to have the RCMP presence there to deal with these issues. They tell us that they do not have the types of vehicles they need to apprehend the criminals. They tell us that they just do not have the equipment or the people.

This is not just about street racing. It is a whole attitude on behalf of the Liberals, and I do not understand it. They are looking the other way. They do not care about these issues which are going to grow and grow, as street racing is in my riding, and then soon, hopefully, they will deal with the issues. However if they do not, we will.

Street racing is a growing issue and it is right across the country but it is not just about street racing. It is the lack of RCMP officers and the support they have. The government does not give them the support or the resources they need to hire replacement officers and new officers when they are needed. They do not have the money for the proper facilities. Stewiacke has a perfectly good building but it is empty because it cannot be maintained. People in Stewiacke are demanding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act be strengthened and that stiffer sentences for repeat offenders be applied.

This is exactly where the bill falls flat. It does not allow for stiffer sentences for repeat offenders and that is the single biggest reason why I will not be supporting the bill.

Yesterday almost all of our questions were on justice issues. It was amazing to hear the number of issues that come up around the country. We represent the whole country and everybody is experiencing these problems. We heard no answers and there was no indication that the Liberals want to deal with these issues. They are turning a blind eye to this issue and it will come back to haunt us all if we do not address it.

The RCMP needs the tools to work with. The justice system needs the tools to work with. The youth justice system needs to be strengthened. Certain crimes need mandatory sentences, as we have advocated for years. This is not just about one or two little issues. This is a whole attitude toward justice and it must be increased and strengthened.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a while since I had the opportunity to rise in the House and speak to certain issues. I am very pleased to do it in respect for one of the finest men that I have had the opportunity to meet in Canada since I came to this place, and that is Mr. Chuck Cadman whom I met in 1993 when I was first elected.

At that time, Mr. Cadman was very active with various victim groups throughout the country. The organization was called CRY at that time in the British Columbia area. I was very pleased to see him arrive in Ottawa as a member of the House to work on justice issues because I knew where he was coming from and it was on behalf of victims of crime.

I am also very pleased to have listened to various members of my party who have risen and spoken to this issue. In particular, I think of the member for Fundy—Royal, Regina—Qu'Appelle, Palliser, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, and Kildonan—St. Paul. I believe the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is the mother of a police officer. I want to commend every one of these members because they are speaking from the heart and strongly in favour of victims' needs and rights. That is something that has been lacking from the federal Liberal government for a long time.

I recall talking to Mr. Cadman on first arriving here about the rights of victims and how they seemed to be so blatantly ignored, while the rights of criminals were exaggerated in so many ways. At that time, I shared with him the story of a death of a five year old girl in the Calgary region who was murdered by an individual whom was later captured. He kidnapped her out of her backyard, assaulted her, cut her throat, and threw her in the garbage. It is the sickest story one could ever hear.

It had a major impact on her family members, but the one who received all the attention and had all his legal process paid for was the criminal. He received all the psychology, all the treatments by psychiatrists, and all the benefits afforded to him by the taxpayers of Canada to ensure he was treated fairly. Yet the siblings and members of the family of the five year old girl never received a penny toward any kind of assistance. That entire family received a life sentence because of this tragedy, yet the individual who committed the crime will be eligible for parole in the very near future and be back on the streets.

This did not make sense and it was not making sense to Mr. Cadman. When we talked about various issues, and I know that street racing was one of the latest ones, he was trying to put an emphasis in the hearts of the people in this place on the importance of addressing the will of the victims, the need to go all out with all strength, to put a stop to a very dangerous activity, and in order to do that, it required severe penalties and serious deterrent sentencing. What has been proposed in Bill C-65 has dishonoured Mr. Cadman's memory, by moving forward with this watered down version of what I know Mr. Cadman was fighting so hard to achieve, not only on this bill but on a number of other bills.

We sat side by side in the justice committee for a long time on many issues. I remember the conversation we had one day regarding some individuals who were sent to jail. These individuals were handcuffed, put in leg irons, taken out of court in front of their families and went directly to jail. Does anyone know what the crime was? These were farmers who had taken a bit of grain across the border without a Wheat Board permit. They were going to be made an example of. This government and its legislation sent those vicious farmers to the penitentiary.

Mr. Cadman would ask, “Good grief, what is going on?”. At the same time, this government, as we heard today in question period, was leaning toward sentencing people who abused, attacked or assaulted children to house arrest or community service. I think what Mr. Cadman wanted more than anything else was that the punishment of any kind of crime in this country should fit the crime that was committed. There should be a matchup.

To send farmers to jail at that time was mind-boggling to all of us, as to why this severe action had to be taken when we were putting other criminals who were violent and dangerous to society on the streets, under house arrest, or doing community service. Today we are still mind-boggled by this Liberal government when we constantly see in courts across the land, such as a person being convicted of 15 counts of fraud, virtually stealing $1.5 million and being sentenced to house arrest, I think he has to be home by 9 o'clock, and having to teach business ethics in certain schools across the land.

Can anyone imagine? That is a very lenient sentence. Yet those farmers who took the dab of grain across the border, which they owned and should have a right to move and sell as they see fit, went directly to jail because they did not obey the law. Can anyone tell me where any of that makes one bit of sense?

In 1994 Mr. Cadman was involved with these victims groups very strongly. I remember a very strong lady. I cannot recall whether it was 1994 or early 1995, but it was in those early years. Priscilla de Villiers was the president of this victims association. The numbers were growing by the thousands and that organization under her directorship brought over 2.5 million signatures on a petition to this place. I know you, Mr. Speaker, will remember the day that petition was brought to this place demanding that the House and the government get serious about crime in this country and do something about it.

It is now 10 years or 11 years later. Let me assure everyone that all the victims who belonged to this and other organizations across this country have worked very hard to achieve some good law and order, some good sense that would truly bring justice to this land. This government has ignored those 2.5 million signatures just as sure as the day is long and it continues to ignore the crime petitions from victims all across the country who send them to every member of the House as we table them.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why any Canadian would continue to have a group of people in charge of this government who do not recognize that victims mean a heck of a whole lot more than the criminals who perpetrate crime.

We have to start recognizing the seriousness of those crimes and the effect that they are having on our children. We have to start addressing them in the manner that Mr. Cadman wanted to do with the street racing bill. Instead the Liberals continue to water everything down, making everything so soft while the victims are growing in numbers.

Do members believe we would have victims' organizations if we were doing our job in this place? I think they would not be there. We have to start doing our job.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, street racing is a matter of serious concern in my riding of North Vancouver, as I am sure it is in all areas of Canada. This is why I gladly support Bill C-65 as a logical step by this government toward the goal of the much respected, late member of this House, Chuck Cadman, and his proposed private member' bill, Bill C-230.

Bill C-65 will now provide a clear, express direction for the courts to conclude that street racing, if found to be a factor in the commission of the offence, is to be an aggravating factor.

The Criminal Code does not have many factors listed as expressly being aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the addition of street racing will certainly be noted by the judiciary.

Bill C-65 also goes further than Mr. Cadman's proposed bill, by extending the possible maximum driving prohibition from three years to a possible maximum lifetime prohibition.

Street racing is an area that I know we have many examples of in my riding and in adjoining ridings where lives have been lost as a result of street racing. Therefore, it is important that this House shows its concern, through the passage of Bill C-65, to the people of Canada that this is an offence that must be dealt with seriously.

I know that this bill does not propose minimum mandatory sentencing. Minimum mandatory sentencing is something that I have supported in this House, both in my statements and in my votes on previous motions and bills. However, I believe that Bill C-65 is worthy of support at this time because it indicates the very serious nature of which this House holds street racing. As I have said earlier, it sends a very clear message to the judiciary to treat this as an aggravating factor and extends the maximum prohibition.

Many families have suffered lost ones as a result of street racing. It is something that puts at risk the lives of people and communities, as it has in my riding. It is something that this House, I believe, needs to show support for as being not acceptable behaviour in Canada.

Therefore, I would ask the members of this House to support Bill C-65.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find the last part of that question a little puzzling, given that the hon. member was at the meeting where I in fact outlined the opposition days. They will begin the week of November 14 and will go right to December 8. We are meeting our commitment and our obligation to provide seven opposition days during this supply period.

We will continue this afternoon with the second reading debate of Bill C-65, the street racing bill, followed by Bill C-64, the vehicle identification legislation, Bill S-37, respecting the Hague convention, Bill S-36, the rough diamonds bill, and reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals.

Tomorrow, we will start with any bills not completed today. As time permits, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-44, the transportation bill, and reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services legislation. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-52, respecting fisheries.

I expect that these bills will keep the House occupied into next week.

On Monday we will start with third reading of Bill C-37, the do not call legislation. I also hope to begin consideration of Bill C-66, the energy legislation, by midweek. We will follow this with Bill C-67, the surpluses bill.

Some time ago the House leaders agreed to hold a take note debate on the softwood lumber issue on the evening of Tuesday, October 25.

We also agreed on an urgent basis to have such a debate on the issue of the U.S. western hemisphere travel initiative on the evening of Monday, October 24.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1(1), I move:

That debates pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place as follows:

(1) on Monday, October 24, 2005, on the impact on Canada of the United States western hemisphere travel initiative;

(2) on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, on softwood lumber.

Criminal Code

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the questions by the member for Northumberland. I am not questioning his sincerity, but what he has tried to do is deflect the issue and in effect confuse and diffuse the issue. He has missed the main point about which we are concerned.

I think that everybody understands that Bill C-65 is the act to amend the Criminal Code to include street racing and also to make an amendment to another act. What the proposed bill will do is amend the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying the involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for a number of offences. Those offences would include: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death. It also provides for a mandatory driving prohibition order if street racing is found to be involved in one of these other factors.

We want to see this type of prohibition, but the Liberals are stopping short of what they are trying to convince the public is being done. We need to look at the history. This bill is something that was championed by a number of people in the House, but chiefly by the recently deceased member, Chuck Cadman. He had been attempting to legislate changes to the street racing provisions since December 2002. Previous versions of the bill also included Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, for those who want to explore and do some research into the background on this.

What is important is the government for years refused to accept the premise of what Mr. Cadman and others were asking for, and that was that there should be some minimum mandatory sentencing if street racing were an aggravating factor. There is no question that the whole issue of street racing seems to be a growing problem. It involves absolute disregard for the life, safety and security of other people. Our citizens across the country are asking that something be done about this.

As much as I appreciate the half step being taken, once again it is only under extreme public reaction and sustained anger over a long period of time that the federal Liberals seem to get it and want to respond. That is a constant frustration in the House, with so much legislation that is common sense, that is needed by people and that is protective of them. Unless the Liberals see in the polls that it will affect some votes, they are very reluctant to move on principle. It is always on politics and that has been a frustrating part of the progress of this. Chuck Cadman was frustrated by this lack of progress for a long time.

We understand that there may have been some background discussion, that the Liberal ministers or others in their camp may have had discussions with Mr. Cadman prior to his decease and gave him some kind of reassurance that what he had asked for,over a number of years would be granted. That may have helped Mr. Cadman in some of the decisions he was making at the time or it may not, I do not know. The Liberals only moved on this as they saw extreme anger and public reaction over a sustained period of time and the possibility of winning support for this and other votes. That is what has been frustrating.

They are pretending that this bill is everything Mr. Cadman, and others who wanted to see this progress, wanted. In fact, it is not. It falls short. It does include street racing as an aggravating factor for sentencing, but it totally ignores the very serious area of repeat offenders. The aspect of repeat offenders was an essential part of what Mr. Cadman wanted to see happen

Why are the Liberals so reluctant to get tough on crime or to get serious about serious crime? Why are they so reluctant to deal with minimum mandatory sentencing? Sometimes when we use that phrase, it can sound like we are saying a certain very serious and grievous crime deserves a minimum sentence. We do not mean to minimize it. We are saying that in many cases the judiciary has too much discretion when it comes to sentencing and too often the judges will not apply any kind of sentence to a grievous and serious crime. Therefore, it does not serve as a deterrent.

The problem, philosophically, is liberals have a great struggle in terms of their view of human nature to accept that there are times when a very serious crime deserves very serious time. Liberals tend to diminish personal responsibility when it comes to crime. They tend to say that since we are all basically born good, the only reason anybody does any bad things is because they are influenced by society, or by their mothers or fathers or by some other extraneous force. When liberal philosophy does not in general accept that there can be personal responsibility, especially when it comes to serious crime, then they are greatly reluctant to assign any imprisonment or so-called punishment to that. They say that it was not that person's fault, that they were influenced by society, or by their parents or by the car manufacturer, the car was too fancy or too fast.

We are talking about minimum mandatory sentencing for this type of serious crime or others. We constantly raise the issue of serious repeat offenders in the House. We know repeat offenders perpetrate most of the crime. We have to deal with them. Repeat offenders have to be deterred by knowing there will be a serious mandatory sentence, one that a judge cannot get around. If it does not work as a deterrent and they go ahead and repeat the crime, then at the very least they are off the streets for awhile and society is protected.

That is a clear philosophical difference between liberal thinking and conservative thinking. People have to take responsibility for their actions and that actions bring consequences. Sometimes those consequences are not pleasant, but the consequences of seeing innocent people maimed, injured or killed by irresponsible street racers are serious and must be met with serious offences and imprisonment for repeat offenders. The philosophical problem we deal with all is this liberal thinking.

We ask people to recognize that this bill is like so many areas where Liberals philosophically in their heart of hearts disagree with it, they do not like it and it makes them feel all queasy. When they see the population wants the particular law because it makes sense, they have this internal battle between feeling all queasy about demanding responsibility and consequences and the possibility of losing votes. They think about how they can capture some votes and at the same how they can ease off the queasy feeling inside them. Because they like to feel squishy rather than queasy, they take a half step, thinking that will ease the pressure. They will do it today. They will stand and say that they have the mandatory provision in the bill. They will say “There, all you vengeful people, we will put that person in jail for awhile”. It has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with common sense, consequences and people taking responsibility for their actions.

We are asking the Liberals to take responsibility for their actions. They made a commitment to follow through on a commitment that was made to Chuck Cadman. As Mr. Cadman was representing a majority of citizens on this issue, it is a commitment to the citizens. The Liberals said that they would do something, but they have not done it. We are asking them to put in the mandatory provisions for serious repeat offenders. Do the right thing is all we are asking.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor on Bill C-65 to amend the Criminal Code regarding street racing.

I would like to offer a summary, for this is important for the young men and women who are listening to us. Young people often let themselves be tempted by speed. This is too often the case. Young people always tend to say that the politicians prevent them from doing what they want; in this particular case, what we want is to prevent them from engaging in excessive speeding.

Often the only way to curb excesses in the population is to impose laws and standards. It will of course be clear that street racing is a scourge. Some will say that if those who engage in racing do themselves harm, it is their own fault. However, while street racing endangers those who are driving, it also endangers the lives of the other citizens on the road who are the victims of accidents because of this racing.

Bill C-65 amends the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for offences of criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The bill also provides for a mandatory driving prohibition order for a minimum of one year for persons convicted of such offences committed while street racing.

The bill defines street racing as “operating a motor vehicle in a race with another motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place.”

The message we want to send to our young men and women is that there are places to engage in racing. That is what race tracks are for. So we do not want to discourage them or deny them the full enjoyment of their vehicles. Many young people put time and money into fine vehicles which are often very powerful. This is very much the fashion, and we do not want to discourage them from it.

What we are saying to them is that, when they do this, there are places for running their automobile trials. It is quite obvious that, for a young person who has spent a lot of money, it is always important to determine in the field whether the goods have been delivered. The message that we want to send our young people is that the only way to do this is on the race track and in those places where this type of racing is permitted.

All other uses of vehicles and all other speed trial activities are now considered indictable offences. I will repeat the definition that is defended by the Bloc Québécois and that we want to see in the Criminal Code. Street racing means “operating a motor vehicle in a race with another motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place”.

The bill provides that in imposing a sentence for the offences cited in sections 220, criminal negligence causing death, 221, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and 249, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, the court must consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the offender was street racing at the time of committing the offence.

This means that when a person is accused of an accident causing death or bodily harm or of dangerous driving, the fact that he or she was involved in street racing is an aggravating circumstance. The sentence will therefore be stiffer.

Our purpose as legislators, as I was saying, as members of the Bloc Québécois and as men and women who work hard to defend the interests of both Quebeckers and Canadians, is not to pass legislation for the fun of it. We are dealing with situations that result in the loss of human life or major accidents that leave very serious injuries. People are left permanently scarred by accidents caused by individuals who were street racing. They are men and women, and not just young people. I must say in their defence that it is not just young people who take part in street racing.

We did it in our day, but we tried to do it in places where it was allowed. The people of my generation were familiar with muscle cars, as they were called. There were places in Quebec for people who liked that, such as the Sanair track. I liked it myself back in those days. But it was always done in places where it was allowed. That is where we went.

So there are locations like this. There are speedways. There are all kinds of activities for people who want to try out their cars. That is allowed in these places. We are not trying to discourage that. Quite the opposite, what we want to discourage are the people who engage in street racing. We want to get them to do it in locations where it is allowed. That is why we support this legislation and will vote in favour of Bill C-65.

We need to understand that it is getting more and more common to have powerful engines. We fight here in this House—we the members of the Bloc Québécois—to ensure that gasoline taxes and prices are fair. We never want to see oil companies taking advantage of their virtual monopoly position—as they did in September—to make astronomical refining profits and try to pocket them.

When gas prices are low, there is another problem. Then we see use of the more powerful vehicles, the gas guzzlers. Some environmentalists will tell us that the answer is to increase the gasoline tax as well as the price of gasoline. And indeed, that would discourage people from owning the more high-performance gas guzzlers. But we do not think that this is the answer, although it is part of the answer.

One thing is certain, however. The industry has to be disciplined. That is why the Bloc Québécois has asked for changes in this House so that a gas price monitoring agency can be created, to ensure that the oil companies never again employ their quasi-monopoly to make indecent profits. We may be faced with some situations on account of the hurricane that is now forming in the Atlantic. Every time there is a threat, we see the prices go up at the pump.

All that we want is to ensure that, when the price of crude goes up, the increase in the gas price is strictly limited to the increase in the costs of acquiring petroleum or purchasing crude, and is not used for three or four days to take advantage of this virtually international situation.

When we are faced with a hurricane, the whole planet is affected. The hurricane is the universal focus of attention. The oil companies must not use this situation to raise their refining prices, to make profit for four or five days on the petroleum they already have in their tanks and suddenly hike the prices so they can fill their pockets, as they have too often done in recent months.

So we want to ensure that the prices paid by the users, the citizens, are always fair. That is what the Bloc Québécois is working on.

On the other hand, with this situation of a reasonable gasoline price we will often see the use of more powerful, more high-performance vehicles. That is what our young people are doing. That, in a way, is the message we are sending. We do not want to discourage those of our young people who invest time and money. They work hard. We know that often they go to school and have a job at the same time, for they are obliged to do both in order to finance their education. They treat themselves to a little luxury. They try to have a car and to invest something in it.

It is phenomenal. If one has the opportunity to go to various shows, it is clear how much money is spent on cars. One aspect this money is spent on is the power of the engine. This leads to the phenomenon of street racing. An individual gets a powerful car and wants to try it out, so competitions are arranged.

The real message from the men and women representing the Bloc Québécois in this House is to tell our young people that there are places for this. We are not trying to discourage you. You have nice cars that are beautiful, high-performance toys. Nonetheless, when you want to use them to go fast, there are places such as speedways and competition race tracks throughout Quebec that are available. Look into it. You could engage in your activities quite safely at these locations. Through this bill, we hope you will no longer race on the streets.

I will close by repeating, once again, the definition of street racing.

The bill provides that street racing means operating a motor vehicle in a race with another motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place.

Please, ladies and gentlemen listening, do not race in public places, or on streets or roads any more. It is for your own safety and the safety of all Quebeckers, who can end up in an accident that is not their fault because you were not paying attention. That is why we support this bill in this House.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-65 on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal.

Unfortunately the bill is held out to be an adoption of Mr. Chuck Cadman's previous private member's bills, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, which he had been trying for years to get through the House. They were common sense legislation that would protect Canadians and innocent bystanders and make our streets safer for everyone.

However, in typical Liberal fashion, the government dragged its heels for too long, and now, insultingly, once again it is offering too little too late.

From the outset, I would like to state that this bill is flawed and inadequate. Countless people have suffered from street racing while the government did nothing. Now the government is responding, but it is responding with a typical Liberal half-baked measure.

It reminds me of a couple of other issues related to the administration of justice, which I will touch on very quickly. One is the sex offender registry. As my colleagues know, victims' groups, the police and the provinces have been calling for a national sex offender registry for years. Unfortunately, the party opposite was ideologically opposed to such a move.

When public pressure became overwhelming in regard to the fact that the protection of children outweighed any privacy rights that sex offenders might have, the government did come up with proposed legislation for a sex offender registry. It was unfortunate and ironic what the bill did in regard to the registry. People were shocked to find out that the registry was not retroactive, which meant that all of the convicted sex offenders and people who had victimized children in the past would not be included in the registry.

It left countless Canadians wondering what was the point of having a registry if it was empty, if it was a blank sheet of paper, if we had to start from scratch when we already had all this information and could protect Canadians. There was a model in Ontario that we could have followed. Ontario had a retroactive registry.

Once again, in a wishy-washy method that was designed to pander to their own ideological bent, the Liberals could not stomach having an effective registry, but because of public pressure they had to come up with something.

The other example is Bill C-2, the child protection legislation. We see this same pattern. They call something “child protection legislation” so that it sounds like a bread and butter issue. It sounds good. We are all interested in protecting children, but what we are left with in Bill C-2 is a hollow shell. We are left with loopholes that people who victimize children could drive a truck through, loopholes that the defence and the bar associations across the country will have a field day with. It is not effective. It is not precise. It does not protect children. It does not go beyond where we are today with our current legislation.

The party opposite suggests that just by throwing a name out there and saying that something is a sex offender registry or child protection legislation or, in this case, a street racing bill, somehow Canadians will be fooled into thinking the government is taking some substantive actions.

Originally Mr. Cadman's bills were tabled to address the rise in street racing. The police tell us that the practice of street racing is becoming increasingly dangerous across the country. It begs the question, then, why now? Why is the government finally wanting to take on the appearance of action? Why was something not done in the past when Mr. Cadman was introducing private member's bills that would have addressed this very issue?

It is important to note the government's earlier response to Mr. Cadman. What was it saying in the past? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said:

Unless there is some compelling reason to specify that certain circumstances are aggravating it is better not to multiply the instances where the Criminal Code spells out that a particular way of committing the offence will be an aggravating factor. In my view, we are not seeing any such reason emerging from decisions of the trial courts and the appeal courts with regard to the four offences when street racing is a part of the circumstances of these offences.

There was a reluctance to adopt Mr. Cadman's bill. There was an effort to downplay it, to make it sound like it was not going to be effective. The Minister of Justice said, “Your proposed bill would result in a mandatory driving prohibition”.

That is what the bill called for: a mandatory driving prohibition.

The minister went on to say:

As you are aware, the Canadian criminal justice system is premised on the notion that sentences should be individualized for each offender...Research indicates that mandatory minimum penalties do not work from the point of general deterrence and recidivism.

This is the same line that we hear from the current Minister of Justice. We heard it as recently as yesterday in a response to a question. The Minister of Justice stated that mandatory minimum sentences do not work, yet we see that in other jurisdictions they are effective for serious offences. The Minister of Justice and the government are for some reason ideologically opposed to providing concrete protections for law-abiding citizens and to protecting the innocent in society.

It has been three years since Mr. Cadman first tabled his bills. All along, the government refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased the punishment for repeat offenders.

We could ask any Canadian if it makes sense that if someone is a repeat offender there should be an increase in the punishment. If someone is showing signs of recidivism, of being a repeat offender, should there be an increase in the punishment? The average thinking Canadian would say, “Absolutely. That makes sense”. When someone is a more serious offender, there should be a more serious consequence to the offence, yet in the past the government refused to support this legislation. I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have consistently supported these measures.

Bill C-65 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing. That makes sense. The following offences are listed: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death.

Bill C-65 also provides for mandatory driving prohibition orders if street racing is found to be involved in one of those offences.

There we go. On the one hand, yesterday the minister stated that mandatory sentences do not work, yet in an effort to appease Canadians when there is public pressure for something, the party on the other side will do whatever it takes to appease people. So what do we see included in this bill? We see a measure that I support. There is the mandatory driving prohibition, but again it is a half measure because there is no increase for repeat offenders.

There is an irony in debating this bill today, which has the mandatory provision, when we remember that the Minister of Justice stood up yesterday and said in a blustery way that he was opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because they do not work. It just does not make sense.

Despite the positives, and there are some positives in this proposed bill, it is important to note, as I mentioned, that without serious penalties for serious crimes those crimes are going to continue. There will be no effect.

It is important to remind Canadians that in this legislation the severity of the punishment does not increase for repeat offenders. That was an essential aspect of the proposals in Mr. Cadman's original private member's bills. His bills proposed that for subsequent serious offenders there would be more serious consequences.

Bill C-65 is a half measure. After years of the government dragging its feet and speaking out against Mr. Cadman's private member's bills, it has introduced a half measure. It is a half measure that I cannot support.

We should honour the original intent of these bills, which would have been effective and would have provided serious consequences for those people who are serious offenders. We need to have some common sense amendments to this bill.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member's riding is right beside the former Chuck Cadman's riding in Surrey North. I know the residents often mingle back and forth. Could the member please tell the House what the constituents say about this bill, Bill C-65? Could he also comment on what they have said about the decriminalization of marijuana, the lack of raising the age of consent and the gun registry?.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to street racing.

Bill C-65 defines street racing as “operating a motor vehicle in a race with another motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place”. Under the proposed legislation, street racing would be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes in causing death or bodily harm by criminal negligence or by dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. A street racing offender, when convicted of these offences, would face a mandatory prohibition against operating a motor vehicle on any street from one to ten years and would follow the prison sentence. Currently, offenders face discretionary driving prohibitions if convicted of the above-mentioned offences.

Street racing has been a growing problem in British Columbia's lower mainland and has resulted in numerous high profile tragedies that have caused considerable public outcry.

In June 2000, Cliff Kwok Kei Tang, 28 years old, hit and killed pedestrian Jerry Kithithee, racing a Porsche at approximately 150 kilometres per hour.

In November 2000, Sukhvir Khosa and Bahadur Bhalru lost control of their Camaros while racing at an estimate speed of 140 kilometres an hour, and hit and killed Irene Thorpe on the sidewalk of Marine Drive in Vancouver. Both were given two-year conditional sentences rather than jail time and later Bhalru was deported.

In September 2002, Yau Chun Stuart Chan ran a red light at a Richmond intersection in his speeding Honda sports car and t-boned RCMP Constable Jimmy Ng's police cruiser. The force of the crash sent the 32-year-old constable through the back window of his vehicle, killing him instantly.

In May 2003, another street racer, Ali Arimi, was handed a conditional sentence after being found guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

In March 2004 in Surrey, an 18-year-old lost control of his muscle car at an estimated speed of 140 kilometres per hour. He demolished a bus shelter, critically injuring a 71-year-old woman. Another car was spotted fleeing from the scene.

Those were just a few examples of the many sad stories that have resulted from young people racing on the streets of the lower mainland. In recent years, these speeding cars have claimed nearly 30 known victims. People are outraged, not only by the crime but also by the lenient sentences handed out to the guilty.

Many of us in British Columbia, like my former colleague and neighbouring member of Parliament, the late Chuck Cadman, were outraged at the light sentences given to street racers. Street racing can be compared to waving a loaded gun around while blindfolded and squeezing off shots at random without any regard for other people or property.

Chuck Cadman introduced two bills, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, dealing with street racing, neither of which went beyond committee stage. The bills were intended to prevent street racing by sending a clear message that those who endanger the public will face serious and long term consequences. As is usually the case, the government was not interested in supporting an opposition MP's bill when Mr. Cadman was a Conservative.

Almost two years ago, in October 2003, when Bill C-338 was debated at second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke in opposition. He claimed that the bill was inadvisable and said that if a court imposes a long period of imprisonment, the court may believe there is no need to have the offender prohibited from driving. The offender will have been off the streets and away from the wheel for a long time.

The problem with the parliamentary secretary's logic is that no one has ever received long jail terms for convictions resulting from street racing. Often house arrest is being used for street racers who kill or injure people.

The government has now turned an about face on Mr. Cadman's street racing bills. This should come as no surprise to members and to the public watching. After refusing to support my bills to protect firefighters and whistleblowers and to recognize international credentials, the government stole my concepts, introduced them in its name and started supporting them. First it criticizes an opposition bill and then it steals its concept, messes with it and then makes it a considerably weaker bill.

Bill C-65, the proposed legislation before us, is a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's past bills. Although it provides for mandatory driving prohibition and the inclusion of street racing in aggravating factors for sentencing, it fails to include the clauses on repeat offenders, which was an essential part of Mr. Cadman's bill.

Amendments to the bill should include reinstating Mr. Cadman's increasing scale punishment clauses replace subsections (a) and (b) in section 259(2.1) with the following:

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life;

(c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and

(d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

Illegal street racing terrorizes our neighbourhoods and kills innocent people. We must put a stop to it. Doing so will require work by all levels of government. Part of the solution may lie in increased impound fees for vehicles involved in street racing; the prosecution of street racing spectators, as has been done in the U.S.; traffic calming mechanisms; and the confiscation of vehicles after multiple violations.

The federal government, in particular, should provide more funding to the RCMP to increase enforcement and allow for the use of high tech surveillance. We must also have laws with teeth that provide a real deterrence to street racers, and steps should be taken to ensure that sentences are actually served.

When will the government realize that people who commit violent crimes should serve real time, not at home but in a prison where criminals will understand the magnitude of their crimes.

The B.C. government is already taking steps to clamp down on street racing. B.C. police seized 60 vehicles and suspended 180 driver licences. The B.C. government is doing its part. It is now time for this weak, Liberal federal government to do the same.

It is time to get tough on street racing. Street racing is something that is absolutely unacceptable and we should have zero tolerance for it. The Conservative Party supports the mandatory minimum prohibition on driving for street racing offenders and the placement of street racing as an aggravating offence.

The Conservative Party has consistently supported the efforts of Chuck Cadman in tackling this issue by supporting him on his bill. The Liberals, on the other hand, did not support his bill when he was a caucus member of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. They only decided to support legislation after Mr. Cadman voted to save the Liberal government in a confidence vote on May 19.

Bill C-65 is a step in the right direction but the government should honour Mr. Cadman's memory by amending the proposed legislation to more accurately reflect the true intentions of the bill.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 is purported to be a legacy of Mr. Cadman's, a man whom I did not know, but obviously members on both sides of the House speak very well of him. My understanding is that his intent was to put some teeth into a serious matter, something of which I have some knowledge.

Most, if not all, provincial legislatures have street racing as a provincial offence. Street racing frequently would be looked at as a minor offence. In order to include an offence in the Criminal Code, it must be a very serious event. I can say that these events are serious when they reach this point. Police officers take no pleasure in notifying the family of a victim who may have been a participant in street racing, and even less so when notifying the families of innocent victims.

The real intent of the legislation should be as a deterrent. There are no particular deterrents in the bill, not what we should have and not what Mr. Cadman proposed. There is nothing in the bill that would strike fear in the hearts of those who would take part in the kinds of activities that endanger other people.

There is no question that Mr. Cadman's intent was to raise minimum mandatory prohibitions. Repeat offences would increase the minimum mandatory sentences.

We frequently hear from the other side that it has fixed the laws, that the government has increased maximum potential sentences. There is a total difference between being tough on crime and being tough on criminals. Increasing the maximums does very little if there is nothing at the minimum level.

The bill does not provide us with the kind of deterrence that is required in these circumstances. Deterrents are so important whether they be for street racing, for break and enters, or for drug offences. We do not need to put any water in our wine in these circumstances.

This offence puts innocent civilians at risk. It puts police officers at risk. We are talking of vehicles that are travelling at very high speeds and very likely out of control, although the driver may think he has control of the vehicle. There are no safety factors as there would be at a proper race course. There is no one around to render aid when things go wrong.

The bill adds nothing to Mr. Cadman's original intent. As a matter of fact, it detracts from the intent of his bill. It is a neutered version of what Mr. Cadman brought forward in 2002. Mr. Cadman's bill proposed:

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life:

(c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and

(d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

Those are the kinds of things that deter that type of action. The judiciary will do its job. Police officers across the country are quite willing to do their job. They want to do their job. This would put the tools in the hands of the judiciary to provide some direction as to what society, through its elected representatives, really expects to occur for the most serious of offences.

We are not talking about the minor offences. As a police officer I know there are many cases of street racing that occur at traffic lights, where two people for whatever reason will race away from the light. We are talking about the serious offences. They are planned and premeditated. Frequently the vehicles are out of control. The cars and motorcycles reach excessively high speeds. One hundred kilometres an hour would be a very minimum speed. These are high speed events that have the potential for total disaster, which does occur and has occurred on our streets across the country.

This bill may be a good start, but we need to go back to what Mr. Cadman had originally intended. The bill needs to have some teeth and a strong deterrent effect. These events will occur if there are no deterrents.

In the last few months on one of the television channels there has been a show about racing called PINKS . People lose their ownerships to their cars if they lose the race. The race takes place in a controlled environment on a racetrack where safety officials are present.

We are talking here about street racing where there is no control, where vehicles are on roadways and pedestrians are present. There are any number of situations that lend themselves to total disaster.

As I have indicated, there are provincial laws with respect to racing. These are very serious situations. Why we would think it is necessary to water down what Mr. Cadman proposed defies logic. This bill needs to be passed with amendments that fit what Mr. Cadman had in mind. It certainly would be appropriate.

It is very difficult for me to understand why we would want to back down from what he initially had and why the House would not support what Mr. Cadman brought forward. If we are really going to honour Mr. Cadman and call this part of his legacy, then we need to put it in place just as he had brought it forward.

There are other related offences which by their nature tell us that this is serious. The other Criminal Code offences involved are criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. These are serious offences. There is no need for us to water it down.

If we do not truly honour what Mr. Cadman brought forward, we are not doing Canadians any service and we are certainly not honouring Mr. Cadman's memory.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me give you my best wishes. I am sure that you will come out swinging in your struggle for your health.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code in reference to street racing and to make amendments to another act, which would bring in a stronger punishment, as the government would like to say. We all know about the consequences of street racing. We have seen people lose their lives. Those who do street racing have a complete and total disregard for the safety and interests of others on the streets. All they are concerned about is their own interests.

My dear friend and colleague, Chuck Cadman, who is no longer with us, worked very hard to ensure that the bill was passed. One could say that Chuck Cadman's support of the Liberal government in May prompted the government to come up with the bill. We will accept that. I know Chuck wanted the bill passed and because the bill is before us, we will support it. Even though there is a political reason why this bill is before us, we will support it, but we do have a lot of concerns.

It is a typical Liberal approach to addressing issues that Canadians are always concerned about, specifically on crime. Every time a bill comes before Parliament from the Liberal side, we find that the bill is compassionate. The Liberals are always compassionate for those who have committed the crime. The Liberals say that a mistake was made and there should be rehabilitation and they try to put a face of compassion on all the bills that come before us to show that the Liberal Party is compassionate. The problem with that approach, which time after time Canadians have brought to our attention, is that the tendency of people is to ignore it, when there is no significant punishment.

I have introduced in Parliament three bills on three occasions. My private member's bill on repeat break and enter offenders, asking for a minimum two year sentence, has been defeated by the Liberals because they do not believe in mandatory sentencing. Why did I bring that bill forward? The concern with break and enter is such that repeat offenders find it profitable as a business because the punishment is so low and the rewards are so high. Offenders disregard it and they go do it again. So, what, if they have to go to court? They will get a suspended sentence or a small sentence and they are back doing the same thing. They continue on and as they become more efficient, there are more and more crimes.

The Liberal government will come along and tell us there have been no break and enters. They have declined across the nation. That is not the issue. The issue is that the crime of break and enter may have declined because of higher security or something.

The fundamental issue is when does punishment fit the crime? That is the key point. The bill that is before us has a similar consensus as that of Chuck Cadman. His bill had an escalating scale of punishment clauses to ensure that there was some kind of mandatory punishment for repeat offenders.

Mr. Speaker, you are from British Columbia. There have been recent cases in British Columbia where people have lost their lives and even police officers have lost their lives to street racing. These guys street race because they can get away with it, for the little fun that they get at that given time, with absolute disregard to the consequences it could have. They do not take into account the results and terrible consequences for others.

We talk about the people who have done this crime, but it is only recently, after pressure by the Reform Party of which I was a member, that we started looking at the victims, the terrible tragedy, the terrible consequences of these actions which are not thought of by these street racers, and what happens to the families.

A good example of that is what happened to me with the Ethics Commissioner. These actions and subsequent damage to my family are so severe that today, as I speak to you, Mr. Speaker, he is in front of the procedure and House affairs committee explaining these consequences. He probably never thought of it because he was so blind to the facts. He thought he had to do these things and he never thought of the consequences and what would happen to the family if he did what he did. Now he is in front of the committee to explain that.

I told the committee how these consequences have had an impact, on my sister-in-law, who has absolutely nothing to do with being a member of Parliament, and why her and her son's lives have become a public spectacle. Because Mr. Shapiro decided he wanted to go public and talk about something that was frivolous, this whole issue became public and the next minute everybody was talking.

I am talking about consequences, which are in this bill. The consequences of actions is what I am talking about. I want to tell Mr. Shapiro that the actions can be severe for those who have to pay the price. In the case of street racing, we know that people have lost lives. What about their families? They have voids that will be forever in their lives.

If we want a bill to address an issue, we cannot address issues in small parts. We cannot address a bill by saying one part is wrong and then think about another part. No, we need to understand and give a strong message. This Parliament has to give a strong message to anybody out there that their actions will have consequences, not that their actions will be taken lightly and we will look into the issue.

That is why the Conservative Party is proposing amendments to this bill, to make it tighter, to make it stronger, with the message going out that if street racing carries on and if somebody gets hurt there are consequences.

A couple of days ago, there were newspaper stories about a bus driver in Toronto who was shot in the face and there is the likelihood of losing an eye. He was an innocent bystander. Canadians want their streets safe. That is the issue everywhere, whether it is street racing, whether it is gun violence or any other form out there.

The police forces are asking us to do something. Even in the case of pornography with child predators. We need to send a very strong message about the consequences. When we have bills that have loopholes, or are watered down with the whole Liberal philosophy that they have to be compassionate, it is not sending the right message. The concern of what is happening on our streets, to our homes, is becoming louder and louder for Canadians.

Like me, all my colleagues listen to their constituents. I hope many of them will speak on behalf of the bill to strengthen it. The purpose of strengthening it is not to look as though we are cruel or that we have no compassion. That is not the point. We are all compassionate. The point is that the consequences for one's actions must be stated in the bill. People must know that they will face the consequences.

A bill is passed in the House and the independent judiciary implements the law. I am not saying there is anything wrong with an independent judiciary. I strongly support having an independent judiciary. It is the strongest foundation of a democracy. However, many times we have seen the judiciary send the wrong message. One decision is subsequently picked up by others and it goes on.

On many occasions many members of the judiciary have said that we in this place are the ones who propose the laws. Members of Parliament are the ones who give the directions. There is nothing wrong in sending the judiciary a message about mandatory sentencing. We are telling the judiciary that Canadians want safe streets. We are telling the judiciary that Canadians want people to pay for the their actions. We as lawmakers have to make strong statements, and we should do so in proposed legislation. Bill C-65 is a watered down version of Mr. Cadman's desire.

I was at Mr. Cadman's funeral and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you were at his memorial service. We heard many tributes made to Chuck by politicians and people who knew him very well in his riding. What came out very strong was Chuck's compassionate nature and how hurt he was after losing his son. He galvanized himself into working to ensure that the punishment fit the crime.

Chuck was not interested in throwing people in jail. He was interested in making people understand that there would be consequences for their actions. If we do not do that, then people will not understand, and that is the problem with this bill.

Chuck would go to victim's homes. He understood their pain because of the pain he himself felt. A compassionate man like Chuck would like to see a stronger bill. He would like us to send a stronger message. Bill C-65 does not propose that. While addressing Chuck's concerns, the bill still is a watered down version of what he wanted.

We want to bring in amendments that will leave a legacy for Chuck so people across Canada will get the message and, most important, the judiciary will get the message that the Parliament of Canada is very serious about addressing crime, about making our homes safe and our streets safe.

I again intend to bring my private member's bill on break and enter forward in the House. My bill would ensure a two year minimum mandatory sentence. The purpose is to break the cycle of people repeating these things.

I again intend to bring my private member's bill on break and enter forward in the House. My bill would ensure a two year minimum mandatory sentence. The purpose is to break the cycle of people repeating these things. We talk about compassion. Mandatory sentencing is not being cruel. We are being compassionate by taking repeat offenders off the streets and making them realize this is not a profitable issue.

Grow ops have become a major problem in our cities. In my riding grow ops have become a major issue because housing is cheap. Why? Because we have a problem with legislation. Hence the law enforcement agencies are weak when it comes to this issue.

I have met with law enforcement agencies in my riding. I have met with the local alderman, the local MLA and with local associations to address the issue of grow ops. Grow ops subsequently get into the drug trade and into prostitution. We have discussed how to address this issue. One solution is to put more police officers on the street. That has been our experience when police officers talk to us. They say that if they have more resources, they can put more police officers on the street which is a major deterrent, but we are not doing that. The police officers in my riding in Calgary have identified that there is no strong legislation to help the police to do this.

While the Liberals on the other side will say that this bill will address in the strongest possible terms those issues, another independent body will make the final judgment on how this is done.

Our experience has been that this independent body tends to go in a different direction. We are then doing a disservice to the independent body, the judiciary. We are not taking anything away from it. We are telling it what I want it to do. That is our responsibility. The Parliament of Canada carries the responsibility to make sound laws, laws that protect Canadians. We are elected to do that. We are not elected to create vague bills and then leave it to an independent body to decide what it wants to do.

We are giving our responsibility to it. We have said time after time that on many issues the government refuses to make law. It runs to the Supreme Court of Canada and asks it to make the decision.

It is this Parliament that will make the decisions. We make the laws. Let us give direction. This way Canadians feel confident that we are doing our jobs. The judiciary feels confident that a clear direction has come from Parliament. In this way we follow the direction that Canadians want us to follow. They have elected us to be their voices and their consciences.

We will be proposing amendments to the bill to ensure that people understand the consequences for their actions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-65 which is an act to amend the Criminal Code. It is very important to get the bill through second reading and into committee where we can discuss changes and amendments. It is important to look at all amendments to the bill because it is an incremental step forward that is very important, not only in terms of setting a standard for the criminal activity around auto theft and the consequences that affect those individuals, but also for the police forces, emergency response forces and ordinary citizens who get sucked into this vortex of pain and suffering related to the crimes that individuals commit.

It is also important to note that the bill would have a mandatory sentence which is an important step for this particular crime. It suits the crime very well and I think many Canadians will support the bill, and especially some enhancements to it.

I want to note, from my particular constituency of Windsor West, some of the great work that has been done in the past by Ken Koekstat from Crime Stoppers and Glenn Stannard, our chief of police, related to crime, youth activities, as well as the general population, and the fact that auto theft and the consequences have been rising at different times. They have been looking at proactive strategies to deal with this, as well as the consequences once the activity has taken place.

I can tell members that my former background as a municipal councillor, having lived under the Conservative regime of Mike Harris, the incredible downloading and the consequences of that were profound for municipal tax ratepayers across the province of Ontario because it put incredible pressures on keeping one's police force up to snuff.

Frankly, the corporate tax cuts that were enjoyed came at the expense of many municipalities having pitched battles about whether or not to invest in fire and rescue, emergency services and/or police departments. I know that I had many citizens who wrestled with the fact that their property taxes would need to be raised and subsequently were raised for many years because the provincial government had downloaded a series of services and responsibilities. What was despicable about the Harris regime was the fact that it also included different standards and reporting for the police department and the fire department but did not pass any appropriate funding to deal with that.

We agreed with the additional training and the additional supports that were going to be there for officers but at the same time there was nothing provided to them to actually do that without having to go into the municipal taxpayer base. Having property tax as a funding source for policing is certainly not adequate for a modern industrial society and is certainly not adequate when a provincial government makes other choices. I can tell members that it had a profound impact as well.

Right now in our constituency we do know that many of these thefts are actually related to joy rides. Also, it was described recently by police officials on our radio as a way of some people using it as transit, where they would steal a car in one neighbourhood on the east side of Windsor and use that to joyride around or provide friends rides for the day and dispose of it later. Different types of cars were easily targeted and the youth who were doing this knew that and would provide it as a way of public transit for themselves. It is a terrible crime and it is a reality that the police have had to deal with. They have incorporated Crime Stoppers to get to those individuals but there has to be an investment to provide opportunities so that is not going to be the first thing that people think or is acceptable.

I think of balance, a balance of having strict penalties for this type of serious crime and the consequences that it has brought to people's life is very important. I agree with that. At the same time, there has to be a balance. The municipal governments need to get support from the senior levels of government to be able to increase their police forces to do the types of services that are necessary to prevent the crime and to be on the streets and to be a presence on the street so there will be accountability on the spot. From my days on municipal council, that certainly had a profound impact in terms of Ontario usurping those powers from municipal police forces because of the downloading.

In fact, even when the province promised that we would actually have revenues increase when the provincial offences acts were transferred to municipal governments, we were supposed to get an increase that we could then put back into our policing and put more officers on the streets.

What ended up happening was that they gave us the worst cases, the most difficult and the most expensive to prosecute, which ended up causing a greater liability for the municipality. It was great for the Harris Conservative regime. It was wonderful for that treasury, but it was not good for local municipal governments that lost another revenue source for putting officers on the street who could prevent tragic circumstances like those that come about from auto theft.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I count it a great privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-65. The reason in particular is the way the bill has been characterized as being a tribute to Chuck Cadman. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false, totally false.

I had the privilege last Saturday of visiting very briefly with Donna Cadman, Chuck's wife. We did not discuss the bill, although I know she is familiar with the reasons that our party is having a tremendous amount of difficulty with the bill. I count myself as having been exceptionally privileged as having become a friend of Chuck's and I take great offence when I hear the justice minister of Canada referring to this bill as a tribute to my friend, Chuck Cadman.

I was also rather perplexed when I heard just a few minutes ago a member of the NDP refer to this bill as the essence of what he proposed. Well, the smell of a skunk is the essence of perfume, but it does not have anything to do with anything pleasant or anything related to what we would normally think of in terms of a perfume.

Bill C-65 as far as it goes is fine, but the next thing I can visualize is that the Liberals in a dishonest approach will say, “The Conservatives are not really serious about this issue. They would not even back the memory of Chuck Cadman. Look at what they are doing. They are going to be voting against the bill. It is the essence of Chuck Cadman”. It is not the essence of Chuck Cadman.

Chuck Cadman understood that while some of the parts of the bill are essential, truly the devil is in the details. Chuck Cadman had been attempting to legislate changes to street racing provisions since 2002. As some of my colleagues pointed out, again and again Chuck Cadman was rebuffed not only in this chamber, not only with the rejection of his bills, but also at the justice committee. He was constantly rebuffed by the Liberals.

I do recall at Chuck's funeral, and it was a fitting tribute to a very special man, that the minister related that in jest Chuck said that he had voted with the Liberals on the confidence motion and wondered if God would not be pleased. He said it in jest, but he worked constantly throughout his honourable time in this institution to try to bring some real change to justice. He worked honourably against the Liberals who were constantly opposed to him because they refused to do what was absolutely necessary to bring justice back to our justice system.

Currently we have a legal system in Canada, not a justice system. Chuck Cadman worked to that end.

Previous versions of the bill include Bill C-338 and Bill C-230. The government had refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased punishment for repeat offenders.

The Liberals are so soft on crime that they are constantly creating revolving doors. They are constantly looking to make sure that the person who has committed the crime is treated with kid gloves while the victims' families can go hang. That is a bad attitude. That is a wrong attitude. It is an attitude that the people of Surrey North, the people of Surrey, the people of British Columbia and indeed the people of Canada reject of the Liberals, that they are constantly so soft on crime.

We constantly supported the measures that Chuck Cadman brought forward. I recall a gentleman when Chuck initially came to the House of Commons, Larry Park. Larry was Chuck's legislative assistant. Larry was as committed as Chuck to these amendments to the Criminal Code. Larry and Chuck would work for hour after hour, weekend after weekend. I am sure that Donna must have wondered if she had become a widow with the amount of dedication that Larry and Chuck had to bringing these things forward.

If I am speaking with some emotion today it comes from the well of emotion that I have within me to say that this is not Chuck Cadman's bill. It reminds me an awful lot of an event that actually happened during the U.S. presidential election. George Bush's running mate was Dan Quail. When he tried to play down his youth in the vice-presidential debate by pointing out that he had as much experience as Jack Kennedy when he ran for president in 1960, his opponent, Lloyd Bentsen, pounced and said, “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy”.

I say to the justice minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you are no Chuck Cadman, you do not understand, you just do not understand.

We want to make the following amendments. They cannot be made at this particular stage but we will be proposing them on the assumption that the Liberals will be supported yet again by the NDP for this bill to move forward.

We will be making the following amendments: for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year; for a second and subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life; for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and, for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

For the people who are reading this text, other than lawyers, for people who may be watching these proceedings on television right now, that sounds like an awful lot of detail. However, as I said earlier, the devil is in the detail. This is the detail that Chuck Cadman would have had in this bill.

I say again that the Minister of Justice of Canada is misleading Canadians and is misleading the House. It is regrettable that the NDP has fallen into the trap of his misleading when he tries to say that this is Chuck Cadman's bill. Chuck Cadman was a friend of mine and this is not his bill.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

I would like to take all members of the House back to a place in my riding. It is the intersection of Lougheed Highway and Laity Street. If we had been there on Monday morning, February 28, we would have seen a man wandering in a dazed condition, aimlessly it would seem, in a state of disbelief they tell me. It was an accident scene and he was approaching reporters and people standing by wanting information. He was asking for details because earlier that morning he had received a call from the RCMP, that call that we all live in fear of, that said that his 23-year-old son had been killed in a car accident. He went to the scene to see what he could learn.

The investigation later would reveal that at 10 p.m. the night before his son was the passenger in a green Honda Del Sol driven by his 22-year-old friend. This car and a silver sports car were speeding, racing eastbound on Lougheed Highway. Shortly after it went through the intersection at Laity Street, it lost control and swerved to the left into the westbound lane and hit a Ford Taurus station wagon killing the 45-year-old woman who was driving and seriously injuring her passenger. The two young men also died at the scene.

In that moment for many, the world was forever changed. Two young men with goals and dreams, and by all accounts good kids, died in a moment of recklessness leaving behind broken-hearted families and grieving friends, and 17 and 21-year-old sons of the 45-year-old mother. The driver of the silver sports car, who by all accounts stopped, backed up, took a look at the scene, then raced off and has not been seen since. A community is forever changed when it experiences such a tragedy.

Of course we could go to other places as well. In October 2004, in Maple Ridge, there were two racing motorcyclists. One died in a ditch beside the Lougheed Highway. The uninjured rider was given a 15 day driving suspension and had his bike impounded for 48 hours. On November 13, 2000 two street racers killed pedestrian Irene Thorpe and in February 2002 they were sentenced to two years less a day of house arrest. On September 15, 2002, 31-year-old RCMP Constable Jimmy Ng was killed when his cruiser was T-boned by a street racer. The racer received 18 months, and 6 months for leaving the scene of an accident.

There are many other indicators that we could go through indicating that there is a problem. In fact, Chuck Cadman recognized that there was a problem through his private member's Bill C-230, which he introduced in October 2004, and before that Bill C-338 of December 2002 and then reintroduced again in February 2004. That one was actually debated.

There were three main initiatives in his bill. First, to amend the Criminal Code to identify street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for the following offences: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death.

Second, it called for mandatory driving prohibitions; and third, it had an escalating scale of prohibitions for repeat offenders.

It is interesting as I look back at Hansard to see what the government's response was to Bill C-338, which is remarkably similar to the bill that we are debating today. First of all, the government did not like specifying street racing as an aggravating factor and said it was unnecessary. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said:

Unless there is some compelling reason to specify that certain circumstances are aggravating, it is better not to multiply the instances where the Criminal Code spells out that a particular way of committing the offence will be an aggravating factor.

—unless we have a strong indication that the courts are not treating street racing as an aggravating factor for these four offences, restraint ought to be exercised in specifying that street racing become an aggravating factor.

The status quo is what he was looking for and the sister of Irene Thorpe might have offered him the compelling reasons he was looking for.

They did not like the idea of prescribed mandatory driving prohibitions. That same parliamentary secretary said:

I think there is logic in the present law, which gives the court discretion on whether to impose a driving prohibition order.

There may be logic, but the problem is what happens in practice. He went on to say:

If a court imposes a long period of imprisonment, the court may believe that there is no need to have the offender prohibited from driving at the point of release from imprisonment, which will be far in the future. In such cases, the offender will have been off the streets and away from the wheel for a very long time.

This argument is like an NHL player who was suspended just before the lockout arguing that he had done his time because he had been off the ice and unable to do any more harm for a very long time. The person he had injured would not see that as justice.

The government has always been against mandatory minimum sentences, even though it points to a few that it has allowed and even claims once in a while that they are working. I heard this argument just yesterday from the Minister of Justice.

It seems to me there are two basic arguments that the Liberals use. One is that they do not work. That is the government's main argument, it seems to me. This is arguable. In fact, if we look at the data, most of the data the Liberals consult comes from across the border and the drug laws that are in place there. They look at the drug use and so on and the measurements by those standards, and say that obviously these mandatory minimum sentences are not working so the idea of mandatory minimum sentences must be a bad idea. The question is not only about whether they work, it is about whether justice is being done. It is not the minister of social work. It is the Minister of Justice.

The Liberals do not like the idea of them because it removes discretion from judges, but it seems to me that that is the whole point. The theory is that if judges are using good judgment, we will only limit them by how harsh they can be. What about judicial trivialization, as I like to call it. If they are just not exercising good judgment and if justice is not being done, then they need to also be limited by how lenient they can be. Of course, they did not like the prescription for repeat offenders.

This brings us to Bill C-65. This bill looks remarkably similar to Bill C-338 which the Liberals opposed a couple of years ago. Bill C-65 is a government bill, so it raises at least two questions: why the change of heart and how is it different in any way from what Mr. Cadman proposed? Let us deal with those briefly.

Why has the government had a change of heart? What has changed since October 2003? We know that the government survived a crucial vote, and a crucial vote in that vote was cast by Mr. Cadman. I believe he did it in good faith based on his principles, but we know the government is not averse to rewarding loyalty, even if it us unintended, and so feels some kind of an obligation. Of course we also know that Mr. Cadman has left us.

The government has said that this bill and Bill C-64, its companion bill, are intended as appropriate tributes to his legacy. I agree with this. I agree that there should be a legacy and a tribute to Mr. Cadman. Our country and our Parliament are poorer places without him. In fact he made many contributions in my own riding. In my own community he used to come and work with our diversion program, talk to young offenders and give up his valuable time to change lives.

Let us go to the second question. How is this different? It now has street racing as an aggravating factor. Yes, that is in it. It has mandatory prohibitions, although the Liberals appear not to like it at other times. They are in here as well, but they did not include the clauses about repeat offenders and I am disappointed by that. Instead of giving us a bill in a form as developed by Mr. Cadman and which I think would have been enthusiastically supported by everybody in this House, the government has neutered the bill.

This is not a fitting tribute to the legacy of Chuck Cadman. While I support what is in it, I am disappointed by what is not in it. There needs to be more. We need to do what is necessary to amend this bill to include the repeat offender clauses, not just because it is what Mr. Cadman and his family would have wanted, but because it makes it better legislation and it is the right thing to do.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-65 in a tribute to Mr. Chuck Cadman who served here from 1997 until recently. It is important to note that this bill is very much in essence what he proposed.

One of the reasons I am supporting the bill is because it has some good measures to get this crime of street racing put in a proper perspective. It is important to note that this is in essence private members' legislation that we are dealing with today.

I think it also addresses a major gap that we have with auto theft and the consequences of actions that people take that are outside of the individual action itself. For example, victims are created by the chases, the activities and the repercussions of harmful actions that are a part of this theft and crime.

I know that, for example, in Toronto we have an issue over guns and the consequences there. One factor of this problem is that we have a high degree of youth that are unemployed in this country and we are addressing the things we can do on the penalty are being addressed here. Can the member give us some specifics on what we can do on the front end to ensure that these young people have good quality opportunities in front of them, as opposed to only having this behind them?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to have the opportunity to speak today on this issue of great public importance for people throughout Canada and certainly in my riding of Palliser.

I, too, would like to commend members of my party, the members for Provencher, Wild Rose and Kildonan—St. Paul, for their excellent work. I could go on and on, as there is also the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and there are the countless members on this side of the House who are trying to do the right thing and constantly striving to force the government to get tough on crime.

I join all my colleagues on this side of the House in addressing Bill C-65, which we consider a watered down version of the private member's bill submitted by the late Mr. Chuck Cadman. His efforts to protect Canadians from the deadly act of street racing, along with his efforts at cracking down on those who repeatedly offend, should be commended. The Conservative Party has consistently supported his efforts.

Bill C-65 addresses what has become an increasing problem throughout Canada and certainly on streets such as Albert Street in Regina and Main Street in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. It addresses the specific act of street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing.

On July 21, 2005, Statistics Canada released its 2004 crime statistics, showing that my home province of Saskatchewan has the highest per capita crime rate of any Canadian province. Clearly this needs to be addressed and changed.

Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I am splitting my time today with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is also a strong advocate for getting tough on crime.

Bill C-65 refers to four criminal offences that can be caused by street racing: criminal negligence causing death; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence involving bodily harm; and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

Unfortunately, this bill falls short of getting tough on these crimes by falling short of getting tough on repeat offenders. That was a key component of Mr. Cadman's bill.

It is imperative that as elected members we work as Mr. Cadman did to protect Canadians from this violent crime.

In preparing for this speech today I did a quick Google search to see what interesting facts might appear on the issue of street racing in Canada. I was frightened and disconcerted when I encountered a Canadian website geared toward video games. It was a review of a game called “Street Racing Syndicate”. Video game players are told they can “race up the ranks of street credibility to fame, money and women”. This is just shameful.

In this day and age of extreme sport, it is necessary for these offenders, those who street race, those who choose to get behind that wheel, to be penalized for endangering our citizens. It is necessary for them to suffer consequences. Street racing clearly is not a game.

In Bill C-338, introduced originally in December 2002, Mr. Cadman included a clause dealing with repeat offenders. The clause amended section 259 of the Criminal Code, “Mandatory order of prohibition”, to get tough on repeat offenders and was an essential aspect of his bill.

Getting tough on repeat street racing offenders whose actions result in tragedies was dealt with in paragraph 259.1(1)(b) of his bill, which states that “for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220” of the Criminal Code, which is criminal negligence causing death, “or subsection 249(4)”, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, “for life”, which means that there would be a lifetime prohibition from driving.

Certainly that is something that would be supported if a repeat offender street racer causes such tragedy for the innocent people in our society and for their families.

Bill C-65 is a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's bill. Sentences for these offences under Bill C-65 include a mandatory prohibition on driving, ranging from one year to a maximum of 10 years, a suspended licence. What about minimum sentences for repeat offenders whose actions result in these terrible tragedies?

In his speech of March 10, 2004, Mr. Cadman referred to an incident involving an 18 year old who earlier that month had crashed into a bus shelter, critically injuring an innocent bystander. The offender had already lost his licence. His licence had already been suspended twice, but he was again behind the wheel of a car.

These offenders know that there is little punishment for their crimes. Having their driver's licence suspended does not stop them from driving dangerously. That is why minimum prison sentences are also required, I believe, given the tragedies that have happened to the innocent victims and their families as a result of street racing, a very serious crime.

As members of Parliament we are required to stand up and do something for our communities to protect Canadians. As a member of the Conservative caucus, I am pleased that we are fighting to see mandatory minimum sentences for violent and repeat offenders. I am pleased that a Conservative task force on safe streets and healthy communities has been struck to work with victims of crime, front line law officers and community workers.

In an article in the Ottawa Citizen in September of this year, the Minister of Justice was quoted as saying in reference to Mr. Cadman that “we are going to build on his private-member's bills so that when we introduce them it will reflect his concerns and his legacy”.

I would say that Bill C-65 as it is fails to reflect the legacy of Mr. Cadman. It is for this reason that, without amendments and without getting tough on repeat offenders, we will oppose the bill.

The Liberal government's approach of being lax on crime and not getting tough on crime in our society really should not come as a big surprise. I think that many members on this side of the House, many members opposite as well and the vast majority of Canadians feel that the gun registry is a colossal failure. It has cost the Canadian taxpayers $2 billion and has not prevented a single crime or saved a single life.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can sense the frustration of the member for Wild Rose. I know that he has worked very hard on the justice committee and on many issues, especially on issues affecting children. He was a school principal in his prior life, so to speak, and has a burning desire to help children; I think that is why the member for Wild Rose is here today.

The issue he brings forward about the fact that the government has not declared Bill C-2 just goes to prove my point exactly. The reason the government has not put this into effect, at least not that I have heard unless it has been done very recently, is that the government opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

In that law, Bill C-2, the Conservative Party was instrumental in getting bare bones minimum prison sentences in place. The prison sentences were very short, but the reason the Conservative Party agreed to it is that when there is a mandatory minimum prison sentence, even if it is one day, the possibility of house arrest is excluded. We did not think that sex offenders should have house arrest for their offences, especially those offenders who abuse our children.

Therefore, I suggest, the reason that the government has not yet enacted the bill is that it is fundamentally opposed to the idea of mandatory prison sentences, and that goes right back to this particular bill, Bill C-65. The government is opposed to it and is simply putting up this smokescreen, clothing it in legalese that makes it look familiar but has nothing to do with what Mr. Cadman wanted done.

I would say that if this government is concerned about Bill C-2 and mandatory minimum prison sentences, why did it not do something about it? In fact, the government supported us because it had to do; it was put in a corner. That goes to show that the government will do it when it is politically expedient to do it.

That is why the government is coming up with this bill. It has nothing to do with the principles that Mr. Cadman advocated, because those principles simply are not there. At best, they are watered down. The government will do it in legislation. It will move ahead when it has to or when it is politically expedient. Otherwise, it remains philosophically opposed to these important justice principles.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to some of the debate that went on before my opportunity to speak . I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to address Bill C-65 as the justice critic for the official opposition.

I had the extraordinary privilege of working with Chuck Cadman over the years when he was here in Parliament. He was the vice-chair of the justice committee. He was, I might say, a seemingly ordinary man and yet he achieved extraordinary results and extraordinary outcomes in his life. He took a very severe personal tragedy in his life and made it into something positive. When I look at his work, at his speeches and at what he attempted to accomplish, he never lost sight of why he went into politics and why he wanted to see substantive changes to our criminal justice system.

Today we heard from the Ontario chiefs of police and other senior officers that the Liberal government's policies are obstructing the apprehension of criminals and that red tape and bureaucracy, as a result of the Liberal government's policies, are strangling the criminal justice system.

When I listened today to the Ontario chiefs of police and other senior officers, I was reminded of many of the things that Chuck said about the justice system and about his frustration with the failure to make things happen, things we knew should happen and yet the government consistently opposed his efforts during the course of his career here in Parliament.

This bill purports to be an incarnation of one of Mr. Cadman's previous private member's bills. This was something that Mr. Cadman had been trying to get the government to do during the course of the time he was here. Unfortunately, the government consistently denied Mr. Cadman the ability to get his private member's bill through the House. Did the Liberals ever sit down with him and say that if he were to make this change or that change that they would consider it? No. They consistently opposed the very basic principle that Mr. Cadman brought forward in his bill.

Now today we hear members on the Liberal side saying that there were problems because of the increasing mandatory prohibitions dependent upon subsequent convictions.

Now that was not their approach when Mr. Cadman was bringing this matter forward. What were they saying at that time when Mr. Cadman brought this matter forward? They fundamentally opposed the idea of mandatory prohibition for driving, period, not simply mandatory prohibitions when there were subsequent offences or increased mandatory prohibitions when there were subsequent offences. They, as a principle, opposed mandatory prohibition for driving when people were involved in street racing.

Now, after having dragged their heels throughout the course of Mr. Cadman's career here, they are somehow coming back and saying that they are listening and they are putting into effect what Mr. Cadman wanted, when everyone knows, especially those who were close to Mr. Cadman, such as his prior campaign manager, that this is not what Mr. Cadman wanted .

What everyone close to Chuck understands is that this is being done for obviously political reasons for bringing forward a pale imitation of what Mr. Cadman wanted.

From the onset, I would like to state that the proposed bill is flawed. People continue to suffer from the consequences of street racing while the government has dithered.

Mr. Cadman's bills were originally tabled to address the rise in street racing throughout the 1990s which resulted in grievous injuries and the loss of life both by the perpetrators of the act and the innocent bystanders who were mowed down by these flying vehicles.

While death from street racing represents only a fraction of the annual carnage on Canada's roads, police suggest that the practice of taking to urban streets to race is becoming increasingly more dangerous and increasingly more prevalent. Certainly, in the capital city of Manitoba, Winnipeg, where I used to reside, that has become a serious concern to police officers.

A recent study in the United States found that of nearly 150,000 fatal crashes over four years, 315, or less than 1%, were known to involve street racing and 399 fatalities occurred. These numbers, of course, are always difficult to justify as the maximum. Certainly, when police make these estimates, this is the minimum that they can determine. It is often difficult to prove that actual street racing has occurred and a much higher rate of these fatal crashes, it is quite apparent, occurred as a result of high speed driving.

It is important to note that the destruction caused by street racing is blind. It has a detrimental effect on all Canadian citizens. It does not discriminate. We have seen recent cases of injury resulting from street racing from the west coast in Vancouver across Canada to Winnipeg, Toronto and Sackville, Nova Scotia. I am sure I have left out many communities in that quick trip across Canada but I can tell all hon. members that these are not out of the ordinary any more, as young criminals understand that when they now race away from police, for example, often the police simply give up the chase because police officers do not want to endanger lives any more. Often, because these cars are stolen, it is very difficult to track down the perpetrators.

It must be that when they are actually caught, the sentence must have such a deterrent effect that offenders simply will not use this kind of avenue of escape knowing that the consequences are severe. This bill falls short of the consequence that is necessary to deter individuals.

In the province of Manitoba, a 39-year-old woman named Linda Rudnicki had gone to buy milk when a street racer slammed into her car. Her death the following day on June 6 of this year has led to stricter enforcement and tougher penalties for street racing.

I want to thank my colleague from the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, Kelvin Goertzen, the MLA in Steinback who has been very strong in advocating for stiffer penalties. He is the justice critic for the provincial Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba. I want to commend him for his strong stand on this and for continuing to tell his government that these penalties need to be enforced.

I also want to compliment my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul who has done admirable work in this area, as well as my colleague from Charleswood who has also worked very hard in respect of this matter. They have called for stricter enforcement and tougher penalties for street racing. Where was the government for Linda Rudnicki when that racer slammed into her vehicle?

On August 25 of this year an elderly woman in Winnipeg was crossing a street in the evening and she was struck by a vehicle. She was rushed to hospital but succumbed to her injuries. Witnesses say that two vehicles were street racing when the woman was hit. Where was the government for this senior citizen?

The government was nowhere to be seen when Chuck Cadman first brought his bill to Parliament. In fact, it did everything it could to kill his private member's initiative because it fundamentally opposed the principle that Chuck was bringing forward in his bill, fundamentally opposed the principle of mandatory prohibition, and that needs to be emphasized. Maybe Winnipeg is too small a town for the government to take notice.

I would like to quote Sergeant Devin Kealey of the Toronto Police Service, who stated:

At least two to four deaths in Toronto each summer can be pinned on street racing. In many other cases, speed is known to be a factor in a crash but there's no way to prove racing was involved.

Toronto area police project ERASE indicates that at least 29 people have lost their lives to street racing in the Toronto area in the last six years. Where was the government for those people when Chuck Cadman brought his private member's bill forward and the government consistently refused to support his initiative? Where was the government when Mr. Cadman called for action in 2002 and the ensuing years to tackle street racing? The government was not only dithering on the proposed legislation by Mr. Cadman, it was fundamentally opposed to the principles set out in that legislation.

I have been talking about the government's response, but it is important to note the government's earlier response to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Cadman had hoped that street racing would be considered an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing a person convicted of an offence committed by means of a motor vehicle under various sections of the Criminal Code that resulted in death or bodily harm. Mr. Cadman also advocated for mandatory driving prohibitions which increased in severity for repeat offenders.

I want to quote what the previous justice minister, Martin Cauchon, said when Chuck Cadman brought this forward on why he rejected the proposed Cadman legislation. This is what he said:

Your proposed bill would result in a mandatory driving prohibition.

At least the minister got that right. He continued:

As you are aware, the Canadian criminal justice system is premised on the notion that sentences should be individualized for each offender... Research indicates that mandatory minimum penalties do not work from the point of general deterrence and recidivism.

We know that that statement is false. There is no truth to that statement. It is a philosophical position of the Liberals stating that mandatory penalties do not work. This is repeated by Mr. Cauchon. It is repeated by the current justice minister. Quite frankly, it is not an accurate fact.

This is the real reason the Liberals oppose doing what Mr. Cadman wanted to do. It has nothing to do with constitutionality or legality. It is that they are fundamentally opposed to the concept of mandatory minimum sentences, whether it is prohibition or prison. The excuse I have heard is that it is going to be too difficult for a prosecutor to find out whether someone has been convicted of an offence where there was an aggravating circumstance of street racing.

For years the government has been passing laws that only complicate police officers' lives and judges' work. Take a look at the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is an utter failure. It is so complex and cumbersome that it is simply unenforceable.

Now the Liberals are talking about this provision, saying that it is too difficult for them to go back into the transcripts, the official court documents, and determine whether street racing was or was not involved. If it is too difficult, obviously the crown attorneys cannot do it and they will not be able to do it, but let us let them try. I am willing to bet that police officers will make that effort and crown attorneys will make that effort to find out, and I speak as a former crown attorney, and get that higher conviction involved as an aggravating circumstance and therefore get a higher prohibition of driving.

We have done it in terms of impaired driving offences. We have done it in terms of any number of offences where there has been a second or subsequent offence. Yes, it takes a little bit of work sometimes to go to local records to find out whether or not the conviction was for a particular matter and to go into the court transcripts to determine whether or not it was an aggravating factor, but to suggest that we are not going to do it because it is too difficult is wrong.

That is not why the Liberals are doing it. They are doing it because as justice minister Cauchon said, they are fundamentally opposed to the idea of mandatory prohibitions for anything. They would rather see hardened criminals, such as sex offenders and others, get conditional sentences and house arrest and be turned back on to the street. That might be easy for the Liberals, but it is not easy on the families of the victims who have been killed by individuals involved in street racing, by individuals who have been killed or injured in other circumstances.

The Liberals have the audacity to stand and say in the House that we are not going to do what Chuck Cadman wanted to do because it is too difficult. The Liberals are not the individuals who will do the prosecuting. They are not the individuals who will do the actual investigation. The attorneys general of the provinces will do it and if it is in the Criminal Code, they will do it. If it cannot be done, there is no penalty, but at least give them the opportunity. At least give them the tool to do what Mr. Cadman wanted the House to do. To come back now and say that it is too difficult to do is a slap in the face of the work of a hard-working parliamentarian.

Furthermore, I would like to quote the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who said that unless there is some compelling reason to specify that certain circumstances are aggravating, it is better not to multiply the instances where the Criminal Code spells out a particular way of committing the offence will be an aggravating factor. He said that in his view, they are not seeing any such reason emerging from the decisions of the trial courts and the appeal courts with regard to the four offences when street racing is a part of the circumstances of these offences.

It is not simply past ministers of justice, it is the current government and the parliamentary secretary who are fundamentally and philosophically opposed to what Mr. Cadman was trying to do. Now the Liberals are trying to come up with the excuse that it is going to be too hard for crown attorneys to actually dig through court transcripts and find out whether there was an aggravating factor, that it is going to be too hard for police officers to do the investigation.

Those comments are simply not acceptable, given the difficulties the government has put police officers and crown attorneys through as a result of the Liberals' obstructing, and this is what the police chiefs said today, the detaining of criminals and strangling our criminal justice system with red tape and bureaucracy. That is what the government is all about. It has nothing to do with difficulty.

If it had anything to do with difficulty in terms of convicting criminals, the Liberals would do it. The more difficult it is to convict a criminal, the government has consistently shown that is what it will do. It has nothing to do with constitutional requirements, the presumption of innocence, or the freedom to not self-incriminate. It has everything to do with the government being philosophically opposed to the basic principles set out in the legislation. For the Liberals to come here and say they are only trying to improve what Mr. Cadman failed to do is an insult not just to Mr. Cadman but to this entire House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to pass Bill C-65 because it mirrors Bill C-230 to an extent that is passable. If we could not pass everything that Mr. Cadman wanted, I think he would at least appreciate the fact that we have taken what we feel was his principal position and ensure that it is going to be passed as something that will be on the books of the Government of Canada forever.

Overall, we have to remember that at the core of this is how we can improve safety on the streets. The member talked about ensuring that the police have the resources to enforce the laws. Clearly, we all have to work together to find that. We are working with the provinces, the municipalities and all the law enforcement agencies. It is not simply a Government of Canada responsibility. It takes all of us as legislators and on all sides of the House to ensure that we are bringing legislation and laws into place that can be enforced and that will stand up to the challenges, as well as working together on what other needs are necessary in the law enforcement package.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been involved in this debate today and it is an important issue for all of us. Bill C-65 is always going to be referred to as Chuck Cadman's bill. The member knows that many times when private member's bills are introduced in the House, those bills are not workable and not passed into law for a variety of reasons.

We have taken the core and principles in Mr. Cadman's Bill C-230 and moulded it and turned it around into something that is not going to have a problem getting passed here in the House and will become law in his memory. Bills are not always going to be exactly the way that the opposition might want them to be, but as the government, we have a responsibility to ensure that they meet all of the constitutional requirements, whether we like them or not, in order to form the law of the land.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when each member on the opposite side of the House stands up, they use Chuck Cadman's name saying that this legislation is based on his bill. Yet, in a letter to the editor Dane Minor, who was Chuck Cadman's campaign manager and very close friend, and who knew Mr. Cadman very well, said:

This isn't Chuck's bill in either intent or design. It is a cynical attempt by the Liberals to use Chuck's good name while doing little or nothing to change the existing laws.

If the Liberals truly want to honour Chuck Cadman, I suggest they pass his laws as written and actually give the police resources to find out how many previous offences there were. If they don't have the courage to do that, at least have the decency to stop using his name in a self-serving bid to gain political points.

This is what this is all about. A deal was made to honour Chuck Cadman. He gave all sorts of intelligent arguments that were well researched and that spanned over a decade to make things right in criminal law.

Why was Chuck Cadman's private member's bill not only supported by the Liberal government but now when the Liberals have an opportunity, why do they not take his advice? Why did they not honour his name by ensuring that his research and objectives were put into Bill C-65 instead of being watered down the way it is?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in favour of Bill C-65, the street racing bill.

Our government recognizes the need to take up the thrust of the late Mr. Cadman's private member's bill, Bill C-230, while addressing the principled objections that were raised about the bill at the time when it was debated in the previous session of Parliament under a different bill number.

We already have offences in the Criminal Code covering the behaviour of street racing. The late Mr. Cadman's bill did not propose to add any new offences.

This coverage in the offence provisions related to dangerous driving and criminal negligence appears to be why Mr. Cadman, in Bill C-230, proposed instead to specify that a judge must consider street racing to be an aggravating factor in sentencing for four listed offences: criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The government bill maintains this aggravating factor approach found in Bill C-230. There is a second key feature in the bill proposed by the late Mr. Cadman. If there is street racing that accompanies one of the four offences, Bill C-230 moves the driving prohibition from the discretionary category of driving prohibitions into the mandatory category of driving prohibitions. The government's Bill C-65 also maintains this mandatory driving prohibition feature of Bill C-230.

I believe the government bill does address the concerns that arise in relation to the sentencing aspects of private member's Bill C-230. The prime example is that private member's Bill C-230 borrowed its driving prohibition period, for a first offence, directly from the impaired driving prohibition that is mandatory on a first offence, where there is no death or no injury.

The Criminal Code's mandatory driving prohibition for impaired driving was introduced into the Criminal Code in 1985. Until 1999 that range was three months to three years on a first offence. In 1999 that range on a first offence was changed from one year to three years.

The big concern with such an approach is that the discretionary driving prohibitions currently in the Criminal Code have a higher maximum than that proposed in Bill C-230 for a first offence, where there is death or injury and an aggravating factor of street racing.

For criminal negligence causing death, the maximum driving prohibition that a court can currently impose is a lifetime ban on driving. Bill C-230 would cut this maximum to a driving prohibition maximum period of just three years for a first offence with an aggravating factor of street racing. For dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, a court can currently impose up to a 10 year prohibition from driving. Bill C-230 would cut this maximum to a period of driving prohibition that is just five years.

For the higher maximum driving prohibition ranges proposed in private member's Bill C-230 for repeat offences to apply, the prosecution would need to obtain a transcript from the prior offence sentencing hearing and check to see whether street racing was found to be a factor in that prior offence. Obtaining the transcripts of the sentencing hearing is not guaranteed, especially if the offence was in another city or in another province.

The government's Bill C-65 avoids the situation where implementation of driving prohibitions for repeat offences would be uneven. Moreover, there is no suggestion that there is a rash of individuals who are repeating dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm offences involving street racing.

This is very different from the repeat offence situation for impaired driving that is tied to higher driving prohibitions for repeat offences. We often hear that there are constitutional issues that surround a particular proposal in a bill and, often enough, we hear comments that these expressions of concern are not well-founded.

Hon. members will be happy to hear that we do not see any constitutional problem with the fact that Bill C-65 addresses street racing, while at the same time, some provinces have provincial highway traffic legislation on street racing.

In some matters there can be a federal and a provincial head of constitutional legislative power under which each level of government may validly enact legislation in the same subject area. In this matter of street racing, the provincial legislator has constitutional legislative authority and may enact highway traffic and driver licensing legislation against street racing. At the same time, Parliament may also enact legislation against street racing, using its constitutional authority for criminal law.

On another note, there may be some hon. members present who will criticize the government's Bill C-65 for not altering the period of imprisonment that is available where there is street racing within one of the four listed offences. In this regard, I know that dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm presently carry a maximum period of imprisonment of 10 years. This is the same maximum period of imprisonment that exists for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

I would also like to mention that the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death is 14 years. I note that the maximum period of imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment, and this equals the maximum penalty for dangerous driving during a police chase that causes death, impaired driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death and manslaughter. None of these offences carry a minimum period of imprisonment.

In passing, I would note that the late Mr. Cadman's private member's Bill C-230 also did not propose any such minimum period of incarceration. In this regard, I want to make the observation that judges are required by law to set a fit and proper sentence, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and all aggravating and mitigating factors. In Canada, either the defence or the prosecution may appeal the sentence if they believe the sentence is unfit or unfair.

Again, the late Mr. Cadman limited his private member's bill to matters relating to the driving prohibitions and proposed no new offences and the government's Bill C-65 also takes this approach. The government continues to believe that given the wide variety of circumstances that can accompany any offence, judges must have a broad range from within which to select a sentence and this extends to the driving prohibition.

In closing, I want to invite other members to support Bill C-65 which has taken its inspiration from the work of the late Mr. Cadman in his private member's Bill C-230. I believe the government bill does answer principled objections and key practical problems with the private member's bill.

The government bill, like Bill C-230, speaks to the aggravating factor of street racing and the mandatory driving prohibitions that should apply when street racing accompanies the offences of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death.

Bill C-65 should be supported. It is a step in the right direction toward improving safety on our streets and improving the safety of our communities.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code, street racing, and to a make consequential amendment to another act. This is another bill that I am sure has the best of intentions to put forward some frameworks to address the street racing problem in our country.

Today I want to put some comments on the record about the credibility of what is happening in the House of Commons. I speak as a former justice critic for the province of Manitoba and as the mother of a police officer. I feel the government has had over a decade to make things right, to make our streets safer. The government has failed miserably on all accounts.

In our city of Winnipeg, Manitoba many honourable police officers are trying to suppress crime. The problem is the laws at hand and the lack of resources, accountability and concern for the victims of crime.

We have had bills on trafficking of persons and on the age of consent. We have had pleas time and time again in the House of Commons to shut down the gun registry and put those resources toward front line police officers.

Once again we are hearing eloquent speeches from the Liberal members across the House. They say that they will get tough on crime, that they will honour the spirit of Mr. Cadman's private members' bills and that they will make things happen. This is something that is hard to believe. People across Canada are becoming very alarmed with the criminal acts happening in our nation and with the lack of consequences for these criminal acts.

For example, in September Winnipeg dealt with a young man who had 11 convictions for speeding. He was spared jail time after pleading guilty to dangerous driving, causing the death of a 52-year-old grandmother. The trial went on and the judge was convinced he was remorseful. However, there was a granddaughter involved in that incident who was very close to her 52-year-old grandmother. That granddaughter today is very distraught about the death of her grandmother.

The present government has indicated without a doubt that it does not have the political will to put these resources on the streets to ensure that the time people spend behind bars or in rehabilitation matches the crime that has been committed. The government is definitely soft on crime.

Chuck Cadman was well known by many people. I was very moved by the letter to the editor by Dane Minor. Dane Minor was a close friend to Chuck Cadman. He felt very good when he heard that the Prime Minister had announced on the front pages of national and local papers that the Liberal government would pass Chuck's private members' bills into legislation as an honour to him. Everyone felt good about it. Chuck Cadman had travelled to this House of Commons to do what he thought was right and to ensure that things were put in place to protect the citizens of our country. He did it at a time when he was very ill, but he was a man of extreme principle. What was most important to him was not party lines but doing the right thing.

I will read for members the following from Dane Minor in a letter to the editor. He stated:

This "new" legislation from the Liberals is the same type of political stunt. [The] Justice Minister...said his government tweaked both bills—

And those are the Chuck Cadman bills, I note.

—to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and address "operational deficiencies."

What Dane Minor said about this was, “Bull!” That is what he said: “Bull!” He stated:

Chuck had one of the best legal advisors in Ottawa on his staff and his bills were well within the Charter. The ultimate ridiculousness of [the minister's] version was the reason for removing penalties for repeat offences: "because the police across this country don't have tracing or tracking records so we would know if it was a first, second or third tracking offence."

This is another incident, another blot and another black mark on the Liberal record of dealing with criminal issues in this country. The frustration of police officers on the front lines and of families of victims of crime is unparalleled.

This particular bill is attempting to deal with the issue of street racing, but in a very superficial way. It is putting words to paper, but it does not put the implementation in place that would stop street racing or give safety in the streets to the citizens who walk those streets every day.

There are many people in our Canadian mosaic who have been real leaders for the victims of crime. Let me speak of Jack McLaughlin. Jack McLaughlin is very well known in Manitoba. Jack McLaughlin is the father of a young man who was murdered. He and his family went through the terrible experience of being in a court system that had no consequences for the criminal. But the consequences for the family were huge, because that deep hole of regret and the deep anger at being powerless to change what happened weighed on the McLaughlin family in a very real way.

Jack McLaughlin started an organization that championed the cause of victims of crime. It put networks and counselling in place for victims of crime. Jack did something else and he does something else today. He goes to the Manitoba legislature and comes to the Houses of Parliament to push for stiffer sentences and consequences for criminals walking the streets and for more support for victims of crime. I applaud heroes like Jack McLaughlin who have done so much, who have taken a horrible tragedy and have done something good to make it better for families who are victims of crime.

I was very hopeful when Bill C-65 was introduced in the House of Commons, because I thought that perhaps there would be some thread of hope for some movement forward on the issues of suppressing criminal operations in Canada. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

We have heard members across the way say that they are here to listen, that they would like to hear what we have to say, that they would like to make things better and make sure our streets are safe, but when members on this side of the House say to shut down the gun registry, those members immediately say that police officers like the gun registry.

Let me tell members that the Winnipeg Police Association and the Manitoba Police Association have said very strongly, “Shut down the gun registry and put the resources into front line policing”.

In this country we are seeing crime on the rise. I am seeing it in my beautiful city of Winnipeg. I am seeing how police officers who are working so hard are not keeping up because they do not have the resources in place to do so.

We see such heroes as Chuck Cadman and Jack McLaughlin, and people like that, who have spent a lot of time trying to put forward helpful suggestions, trying to push for proper sentencing, and trying to suppress the criminal element in our country, not to mention the valiant police officers all across our nation who are combating crime on a daily basis. Yesterday a young police officer on the street discovered a grow op, I have heard, and the fact of the matter is that there were so many issues to deal with on that day the police officers could not move in on that particular grow op. There were not enough resources.

Here in the House of Commons, we do have the power to make sure that those resources are in place. How do we do that? We do that by shutting down useless programs that have become the black hole for the money, other than the scandal I mean; I am talking about the gun registry. Let us shut down that kind of thing and target those resources to the front line police officers all across our nation.

We have heard about the RCMP officers who gave their lives when they went to a criminal's property to try to protect the community and deal with some issues there. Those four very brave police officers lost their lives in the line of duty. We see so much bravery in the police force, yet there is no political will in the House of Commons to make sure that the resources are there to combat crime.

In the past two to three weeks, we have been talking about criminal issues and bills that are supposed to suppress crime. My colleagues in the House have said that we need to spread the word and advertise the fact that we are being very effective on crime. My hon. colleague across the way said that perhaps we should let young people know we are going to be watching and perhaps we should show them the consequences of crime.

Last year I was at a hockey game. A young man in front of me was talking about all the cars he had stolen the night before. He was talking to a group of other young people who thought it was a great joke. The young man was very well dressed. He seemed to have money, friends and everything, but they had stolen so many cars that night it was just a joke. It was like a contest about which car they should take next.

I think we have to renew the hope of our citizens in Canada. We have to make sure that programs are implemented and resources are put in place that will really make a difference. When I read this particular bill, Bill C-65, I remember that Chuck Cadman had been attempting to legislate changes to street racing since December 2002.

Previous versions of this bill, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, which Mr. Cadman brought forward, were voted down. The current Liberal government refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased punishment for repeat offenders.

I taught school for 22 years, mostly at the junior high level, and I can tell members that if we want to educate junior high school children we should just tell them that they will not be driving for the rest of their natural-born days if they offend a second time. It is surprising how they will get to know that this is not the thing to do.

Bill C-65 is nothing but a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's past bills. Although it does provide for mandatory driving prohibitions, the inclusion of street racing and aggravating factors for sentencing, it fails to include the clauses on repeat offenders, which were an essential part of the Cadman bills.

I want to go over those particular points, those particular amendments that I feel should be included. They are:

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life:

(c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4) during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years;

(d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

In other words, these clauses are basically an increasing scale of punishment, restating Chuck Cadman's intent in the bill.

Going into my concluding remarks, I want to say that when we have bills before the House that have potential, when we have ideas put on paper coming forward in the House that could have some beneficial aspects to them, it always has to be remembered that it is only paper unless we have the resources to put in place, to monitor and to make sure that the punishments match the crimes of perpetrators on our Canadian streets.

I cannot emphasize enough that we should shut down the gun registry and put that money into front line police officers. I cannot emphasize enough that not only do our bills and our laws have to be tougher on crime, but we also have to make sure that those laws can be monitored. We have to make sure that our citizens are kept safe and that they can have the hope of being safe on our streets in Canada.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

The Liberals are attempting to steal the legacy of Chuck Cadman by a watered down version of his own private member's bill for cheap political points. In the entire time I have been in the House, I have never seen a more cowardly and shameful display. I am not convinced that the Liberals are genuine in their approach and neither are my constituents.

Mr. Dane Minor in my riding was involved with Mr. Cadman for many years and has made a significant contribution to criminal justice reforms and has tirelessly volunteered on many fronts and issues in the community. He explained his disgust as follows: “My immediate reaction was a positive one. It would be a fitting memorial to Chuck. Then the justice minister announced his watered down version. This isn't Chuck's bill in either intent or design. It is a cynical attempt by the Liberals to use Chuck's good name while doing little or nothing to change existing laws”.

The justice minister has co-opted the work of a good man by claiming connection to a legacy he shows no respect for. The people of Surrey knew Mr. Cadman well and they know these bills are nothing but a political stunt.

Previously when Chuck was a Conservative member the government refused to support Chuck's private member's legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased punishment for repeat offenders. The Conservatives have consistently supported these measures and have advocated similar measures across the board in criminal justice legislation.

Bill C-65 is a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's past bills. Although it provides for mandatory driving prohibitions and the inclusion of street racing in aggravating factors for sentencing, it fails to include the clauses on repeat offenders which were an essential part of Mr. Cadman's bill.

Before I support this government bill, substantial amendments must be made to actually make this Chuck's bill and not the political rip-off it currently is.

First, Mr. Cadman's increasing scale punishment clauses must be reinstated in the bill. The scale punishment clauses were included to address repeat offenders who failed to learn their lesson after their initial punishment.

The bill also needs to be amended to treat street racing as an aggravating factor in sentencing, which could then include mandatory driving restrictions. We must have the legal ability to get those punks off our streets for good. Mandatory driving restrictions and an escalating punishment scale are exactly the tools to do it.

We have seen similar problems with Liberal criminal justice legislation for over 12 years. The Liberals refuse to adequately address the needs of communities plagued by repeat offenders who seem to never learn their lessons. Mr. Cadman understood this problem all too well, but the Liberals do not. They insist on every chance being given to the criminals, while our communities suffer as a result. If the Liberals were truly committed to Chuck's legacy, they would pass Mr. Cadman's original bill as is.

The origins of the bill also deserve deeper analysis. In the Lower Mainland we have experienced growing problems with street racing on residential streets. Let us be clear. These are not kids mildly speeding on the freeway. Rather, we are talking about people racing on residential streets. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the problems associated with such a dangerous activity.

The problem of street racing is not simply one of newspaper headlines and a few high profile cases. There is data to show the problem is growing from previous years. Recent statistics in the United States show a substantial increase in street racing with accident deaths caused by street racing doubling. I am sure the statistics hold true in Canada as well.

The question of why street racing is increasing is difficult to assess, but one thing is certain. Young people who have had their licence for only a few years are driving cars whose specific purpose is to be driven at excessive speeds. Parents have a responsibility to ensure their youth are driving responsibly and perhaps not driving powerful sports cars.

While it is impossible to legislate what kids and young adults can drive, it is perhaps time the House also considered penalties for parents of minors who are convicted of street racing where obvious negligence has been shown. Parents would think twice about giving their kids speed-laden killing machines if they too were held responsible for their children's behaviour.

Besides the cars themselves, there are also other means of limiting street racing. Illegal street racing is often an organized spectator sport. These organized events are not the fabled chicken races of the 1950s that happened on the outskirts of small towns. They happen in our busy city centres and residential neighbourhoods.

San Diego in the United States was a haven for organized illegal street racing for many years. It tackled the problem by not only increasing penalties for street racing itself but also for the organizers and spectators of street racing. By focusing merely on the supply of street racing, in other words the street racers themselves, we miss an important component of street racing. We must also focus on the demand of street racing from spectators who fuel the egos of speed that end up killing innocent bystanders.

San Diego solved this problem of demand by instituting a fine of $5,000 for spectators. This has seen great success. Street racing is now down by almost 100%. It is pretty difficult to get more successful than that.

I would like to see amendments that also address this demand aspect of street racing. By focusing on both the criminal supply and demand issues, we have an excellent opportunity to actually solve the problem of street racing once and for all. After a few people get $5,000 fines for rooting these people on in their dangerous activities, it will act as a deterrent.

The bill is an important step forward in addressing the needs of communities plagued by street racing, but it fails to build in the proper checks that could change behaviour in our communities. Mandatory driving prohibitions and an escalating scale for repeat offenders are a great way to deter street racers themselves. Chuck understood as much when he created the original bill.

We could make the bill even better by also focusing on the demand issues of street racing by fining the spectators and organizers of such events. Most racers are driven by a simple competitive spirit. Without a crowd, their yearnings will not be satisfied. Let us get rid of the crowd and the illegal street racers. If they want to race, they should go to the racetracks where proper safeguards are in place to handle high speeds.

Racing has always been part of the human experience and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. From the Olympics to NASCAR, humanity loves the rush and competition of a good race. We politicians love a good election race, but we cannot turn a blind eye to illegal street racing. It turns our roads and streets into paths of destruction and death. By tackling both the supply and demand issues of illegal street racing, we could solve this problem once and for all.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code, street racing, and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Bill C-65 should be looked at in conjunction with Bill C-64, which the House will presumably be looking at soon. Both bills purport to talk about two of the subjects that were part of the crusade, the passion and the commitment of one of our former members, Mr. Chuck Cadman. Both of these bills are subjects in which he was very much interested and certainly had no problem convincing members of the Conservative Party that they were steps in the right direction.

This particular bill, Bill C-65, amends the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying the involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for the following offences: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death. We are talking about a very serious subject.

I guess where the government departs from the intention of Mr. Cadman on this particular bill is where Mr. Cadman and most of us believe that if someone subsequently kills somebody or injures somebody because the person stole a car or got involved in drag racing, perhaps the second time that person is convicted the punishment should be greater. Most people would think that is pretty reasonable but that is the part that was rejected by the Liberal government and I think it has made a very grave mistake.

One of the parliamentary secretaries said that Canadians have a problem defining minimum sentences. Canadians have no problem defining minimum sentences. It is only the Liberal Party that has trouble putting in minimum mandatory sentences. Most Canadians with whom I have discussed some of these subjects have no problem with it at all. In fact, they applaud efforts to make sure that individuals who cause untold harm in our society and cause pain and suffering through their own criminal acts receive minimum sentences. Canadians are happy, pleased or at least satisfied that justice is done when they see increased minimum sentences for those individuals. That is the part that is missing from the bill.

Members of the government were trumpeting the fact that they are true to Mr. Cadman's legacy. They are not true to Mr. Cadman's legacy. He was very specific, as are we, that the more times one commits these crimes of course the higher one's sentence should be. There is nothing wrong with minimum sentences. However this is typical of the way the Liberals have treated both of these issues.

We also will be debating Bill C-64, another bill inspired by the late Chuck Cadman but not one that is true to his intentions. We will see when we put these two bills together, and we are talking about Bill C-64, that the government only goes so far. It starts talking about an individual who has stolen a car and then decides to scrape off the vehicle identification number. People do this because apparently it is easier to fence the car, sell the car and to get rid of it. The fact that people would do that one would think that would place an onus on them to come up with an explanation but, no. When we look at that legislation, true to the government's intent on this particular legislation, we will see the same thing.

The government then put on extra onus on the Crown to prove that the person was doing something wrong, as if the act of stealing a car and filing off the vehicle identification number was not enough. No, the Crown has to do something above and beyond that to make the point and get a conviction.

It is certainly an approach to the Criminal Code and justice issues that is completely at odds with the Conservative Party. As a matter of fact, when people ask me to define some of the key differences between ourselves and the Liberal Party, I always come back to justice issues because there is a fundamental disagreement.

The difference between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party is that the Liberals are constantly worried about the individuals who commit the crime and we are constantly worried about the victims of crime, which is why in Bill C-65 the Liberals did not want to increase the mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. They would never want to do that because that would hurt some individual and may give some consequences to what the individual had done. The individual may have to spend a longer time in jail and the Liberals are not in favour of that.

The Crown attorneys, who have enough on their plate to try to prove the elements of a crime in Bill C-64, would be faced with the extra onus that the government wants to place on them. They would have to do extra work to prove that the individual had bad ideas about stealing cars and filing off the vehicle identification numbers. The individual may have had a legitimate reason for taking our car and trying to ship it out of the country without a vehicle identification number but that is the Crown's job, is it not? It is not enough to prove the elements of the offence and prove the individual did it. No, the Crown would now have to go that extra step. Again, part of the philosophy of the Liberal Party is to be soft on crime.

The government has problems with mandatory minimum sentences. We have no problems with that because we know they are directed against the individuals who need to be off the streets and need the time to contemplate what they have done and the hurt they have caused society.

We have a very different approach. We worry about guns and we worry about crimes being committed with guns. The Liberals worry about bureaucracy. Is that not what the gun registry is all about? It has nothing to do with stopping crime but it has everything to do with creating bureaucracy in this country.

I have been told that as happy as the Liberals are about that bureaucracy, they cannot wait to get into day care. They say that we have not seen anything yet. They say that when they get into day care we will see a bureaucracy in this town, the proportions of which we have never seen before. However at this point they are content with what they have done on gun control. Have the people who commit these crimes registered their guns with the federal government? Of course they have not. This, again, is about creating bureaucracy, not about stopping crime.

We look to the Liberals and their friends in the NDP in a number of areas. I cannot wait to see the report from the federal committee studying prostitution in Canada. I love some of the quotes that are already starting to come out. One member of the Liberal Party said that she favoured three person brothels, just for licensing and zoning purposes, not a two person brothel or a four person brothel, but a three person brothel. That is what they are in favour of.

The initial report, as reported in the paper, is that the Liberals want to make sure the streets are safer for individuals who are into the pimping and the prostitution business. We are worried about making it safe for the people who live in those neighbourhoods. The children who have to grow up in those neighbourhoods are our priorities but obviously they are not the priority of the Liberal Party.

We will be watching for that, but again, the same pattern plays itself over and over again. One of the worst crimes and perhaps the worst crime committed in the Niagara Peninsula was the murder of a couple of schoolgirls and the attacks on some other women in southern Ontario by Bernardo and Homolka. After all these years, Ms. Homolka was released and the Province of Ontario made an application to place restrictions on Karla Homolka when she was released from prison.

Most Canadians, all members of the Conservative Party and the people who accept our philosophy and believe it, have no problem whatsoever placing restrictions on that despicable woman. However I made a prediction which played out over a period of several weeks. I predicted that someone in the Liberal Party would crack on this one. I said that someone would not be able to allow restrictions to be placed on Homolka and that the person would break ranks over there and that we should watch for it. Sure enough, a member of the Liberal caucus from the other place came to the defence of Ms. Homolka and said that Ontario's application to place restrictions on Homolka when she was released from prison “was unjustified”. He went on to compare it to something we would see in a dictatorship. He said, “I have to give her a chance. I don't consider her dangerous”.

A lot of Canadians consider her dangerous. I was very surprised by the member of the Liberal caucus. The Liberals could not stand it but they kind of held together. They knew they would be offside with public opinion if they were to come to Homolka's defence but instincts always prove true and in the end somebody had to break. To the credit of my colleague from St. Catharines, he objected to it but, nonetheless, I believe it is symptomatic of the Liberal Party in general.

Mr. Speaker, I should tell you that I am pleased to split my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

This bill, as in all these other issues, highlights for Canadians the important differences between the Conservative Party and the Liberal government.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 was built on the work of Mr. Cadman who spent his life trying to make things right that were terribly wrong in this country.

I heard members praising the bill today, which I am sure had a lot of good intentions along the way, but Mr. Cadman put forth the idea that if people were second time offenders they would not have a licence anymore. They would have to walk. His bill had very strong consequences.

The member referred to the resources the police forces need to work with this issue. Could the member comment on how those resources could be put forward right now? The suggestion I made earlier was to shut down the gun registry and put those resources toward front line police officers on the street.

Now we can feel good about these comments and we can congratulate each other across the way but realistically the public cares about safety. The grandmothers across the street do not want to be hit by racing cars. We do not want to see our young people die because those cars have crashed in a midnight race, which came very close to happening in my city on Portage Avenue a few months ago.

We need to be very realistic. Could the member comment on those two issues?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague on his pertinent remarks this morning on this bill. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie expressed some relevant thoughts about this problem, which relates to public safety and also, as he said, the environment.

I will try today to make my own contribution to this debate, which affects the people of Quebec and Canada.

I have the pleasure of speaking on Bill C-65, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 28. It seeks to amend the Criminal Code with regard to street racing.

As we know, Bill C-65 is based on Bill C-230, a private member's bill introduced by Mr. Cadman on October 20, 2004. Unfortunately, Mr. Cadman died of cancer in July. This bill has become part of his legacy in the House of Commons, even if, as some Conservative colleagues claim, this bill is not as tough as his. The Bloc Québécois feels, however, that it is a step in the right direction.

The purpose of Bill C-65 is to amend the Criminal Code by clearly defining street racing, that is, operating a motor vehicle in a race with another motor vehicle on public property, and by specifically identifying the involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for offences involving criminal negligence and dangerous driving. I say “specifically” because when someone is found guilty of one of the four offences currently listed in the Criminal Code, namely, criminal negligence causing death, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, the court in imposing a sentence must take the fact that the individual was involved in street racing into account as an aggravating factor in the commission of the offence.

Furthermore, this bill requires the judge to suspend for at least one year the driver's licence of anyone found guilty of such offences committed during street races. As we know, the mandatory automatic suspension of a driver's licence has applied only when a person was found guilty of impaired driving.

Now the bill provides for a mandatory driving prohibition order for a minimum of one year and a maximum of 10 years for criminal negligence causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing death. When an individual is found guilty of criminal negligence causing death, the duration of the order is not limited by the legislation. In such a case, the judge could very well suspend the driver's licence of the guilty party for life.

Our party is in favour of Bill C-65. We believe it is extremely important to define and reinforce the sentences imposed on those who engage in street racing, whose numbers are unfortunately increasing. We are all affected by dangerous driving, whether by the death of a loved one, by injuries suffered or by a personal tragedy. A few years ago I lost a friend when a motorcycle race between him and some friends came to a tragic end. The whole point was to have fun and show off his driving skills, but the misadventure that took his life could have taken other lives as well.

Public roads are not racetracks, nor should they be dangerous to the lives and physical safety of adults and children. As legislators, we must pass laws that ensure the public good and help to protect people. That is what this bill does.

Like driving under the influence, street racing is dangerous and unacceptable, and the consequences must be clear and pre-determined.

This bill toughens the sentences for participating in dangerous, illegal activities. It should help to dissuade people from this practice, which all too often poses a danger to the safety of citizens and infringes on their right to move about safely on our roads.

Some of us know people, have friends, who have been victimized by this kind of behaviour on our roads. All too often, people have seen their lives turned upside down by these dangerous activities. Some people have been killed, while others have suffered traumatic experiences or been injured. Every day there are new victims.

I was speaking earlier about the dangers of impaired driving and the dissuasive legislation regarding this scourge. Over the last few years, we have passed some general dissuasive initiatives, such as legislation to convince people not to drink and drive out of fear of the negative consequences. These negative consequences, such as suspended driver's licences, are designed to prevent offenders from repeating the behaviour. The legislation has been very beneficial on the whole and has helped to reduce impaired driving considerably. However, although the negative experience of arrest, courts and sentences is enough to prevent some people from repeating this behaviour, others seem to treat the experience as just an inconvenience before they return to their old ways.

That is why it is necessary to encourage the development of responsible automobile driving and why it is important to pass preventive legislation. It is important and necessary to punish, but punishment is not enough because it is often too late. As in the case of impaired driving, preventive legislation must be passed to make drivers really think about the dangers of street racing.

I want to come back to the problem of driving. As I said, much work has been done in Quebec to make drivers of all ages more aware of the dangers associated with such behaviour. Tools have been adapted in order to decrease the likelihood of someone drinking and driving. These tools were a key component of past countermeasures, such as informing the public about the danger of this practice and increasing public awareness.

Since street racing is a threat to public safety, just as much as drinking and driving is, the state must implement legislation to cover this new phenomenon and must also conduct a comprehensive public awareness and education campaign.

When it comes to public safety, the rights of the public must always take precedence over the rights of individuals. As my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, said, it is time to give our police forces additional tools so that they can more effectively enforce the law. Prevention is essential, but we also need more appropriate deterrents and punitive measures. We believe that this bill could help counter this phenomenon. The state is responsible for defining the limits of acceptable behaviour in our society. We need to act as responsible legislators for our individual and collective safety.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the point in Bill C-65 is that under the current provisions and under the laws as they stand today, the judge sentencing has the opportunity to apply a lifetime ban. When we look at dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death, or criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death and when we look at street racing as an aggravating factor, that would play into the judge's ability to go to a maximum sentence. This would apply to driving prohibitions and time incarceration.

Through this legislation the courts would have that type of latitude and would be able to reach and address those repeat offenders. I think we are all united in this House that we want this to be addressed. We certainly want the courts to have an impact on this dangerous phenomena. I believe it is within the realm of the judges to provide for those sentences.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's submission on Bill C-65. I certainly support the intent to which he alluded. We need to get tougher with people who commit these types of crimes, and make no mistake about it, these are crimes.

When people wilfully and flagrantly disregard speed limits and participate in street racing, they ultimately not only put their lives at risk but also the lives of their passenger. All too often they take innocent lives, people who are crossing streets at crosswalks. We have to be assured that the laws are respected. If they are not respected, then we have to get tough with those who would commit these types of offences and take innocent lives.

I am constantly reminded of how often this happens in my home province of British Columbia. Almost every week we hear about another tragedy, in particular in the city of Vancouver and the surrounding communities such as Surrey where Chuck Cadman lived. It continues to be a very serious problem in that community as well as others across our land.

I want to be very clear about this. To my Liberal colleague's credit, he referred to the fact that there was a major difference between Bill C-65 and Mr. Cadman's private member's bill, Bill C-230. When it comes to a second offence of either dangerous driving or criminal negligence causing death, Mr. Cadman wanted to send a message to those who would do such a thing that it was intolerable and unacceptable in our society. He wanted to send the message that those who would do such a thing would lose their driving privileges for life. He felt this was serious.

Bill C-65 would provide a range for judges and courts to consider. That was not Chuck Cadman's intent. He wanted to send a message that if someone was convicted of the second offence, they would lose their licence. He felt if they caused an innocent death, they should lose their licence forever. They should lose the privilege of having a licence. It is a privilege, not a right. We do not have a right to drive a vehicle on our roads. It is a privilege to have a driver's licence. We have to take a test to get it. We have to prove that we can operate a motor vehicle in a safe and responsible way. People who commit these crimes do not do that.

With all due respect to my colleague, I believe the government is once more trying to pull the wool over Canadians eyes. Those members say that they are getting tough with a very serious crime when they are not. Bill C-65 would not do that. It still would leave a wide range for a judge or the courts to interpret. The maximum sentence will never be used.

My colleague said that the government had increased the maximum from what Chuck intended in his bills. The point is the maximums are not used in our court system. That is why we need mandatory minimums.

We in the Conservative Party are always careful about the word minimum because it could be misconstrued by the Canadian public. They might think that somehow minimum means a lesser sentence. They need to understand that a mandatory minimum is a threshold. No judge, no jury, no court can go below that threshold. It is a mandatory sentence. We are trying to send the message to people who would conduct themselves in this manner that their behaviour is unacceptable in our society. If they participate and if something goes wrong and innocent lives are taken, they will face that mandatory sentence.

For a second offence of dangerous driving, criminal negligence causing death, Chuck Cadman wanted that sentence to be a lifetime driving prohibition. I do not understand why that member, who I know takes this issue very seriously, would not support amending the bill back to the original intent that Chuck wanted to see.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express support for Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Over the past few years there have been horrific instances of innocent people being injured or even killed as a result of street racing. Despite the potential of death or serious injury, as well as criminal sanction, this dangerous phenomena of street racing continues on our streets.

I am pleased to state that the Criminal Code does already have offences that criminalize fatal and injurious collisions where street racing is involved. These existing offences include criminal negligence causing death, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; dangerous driving causing death, which carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment; criminal negligence causing bodily harm with a maximum of 10 years imprisonment; and dangerous driving causing bodily harm with a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.

There have been cases where the courts have recognized street racing as an aggravating factor at sentencing, although there is presently no requirement under the Criminal Code that they consider this fact as an aggravating factor. An aggravating factor typically has the result of increasing the sentence that a court would otherwise impose if the factor did not exist.

Furthermore, the courts currently have the discretionary power under the Criminal Code to order a period of driving prohibition if a person is convicted of one of these four offences. These current discretionary periods do not have a minimum period of prohibition and they do allow for a 10 year maximum period where there is a conviction for the offences that I mentioned before.

The goal of Bill C-65 is to make this existing legislative scheme stronger in a balanced consistent manner. In achieving this objective, the government proposal would amend the Criminal Code to explicitly provide for street racing if found by the sentencing judge to be present there is an aggravating factor in sentencing for those convicted of the four noted offences; namely, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death.

Bill C-65 would also include mandatory driving prohibitions where the noted offences are found to involve street racing. There would be a new mandatory minimum driving prohibition period of one year for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The maximum driving prohibition term would remain 10 years.

In the case of criminal negligence causing death, the proposal would provide a minimum prohibition of one year and the maximum would remain a lifetime ban.

In all cases, the mandatory minimum driving prohibition would be in addition to any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

It is important to recognize that these periods of mandatory driving prohibitions are reflective of those periods which are currently found in section 259, concerning the Criminal Code, that deals more generally with driving prohibition orders.

For the purpose of clarity, under Bill C-65 street racing means operating a motor vehicle in a race with another motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place.

Some members of the House will certainly recall Bill C-230 brought forward by our late colleague, Chuck Cadman. Bill C-230 was in fact the inspiration for Bill C-65 but there are notable similarities and as well notable differences.

First, it is key that the offences to which the reforms apply are the same as in Bill C-230. Furthermore, both bills specifically identify street racing as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing and make a driving prohibition mandatory where street racing is found to accompany the offence.

With regard to the differences between this bill and Bill C-230, in Bill C-230 mandatory prohibition periods are tied to second and subsequent offences committed by the same accused. Bill C-65 does not adopt this scheme because the proposed changes pose several practical obstacles

Furthermore, Bill C-65 does not include the mandatory lifetime driving prohibition that was proposed in Bill C-230 for a second or subsequent street racing offence where one of the offences was either dangerous driving causing death or criminal negligence causing death. However this does not mean that Bill C-65 fails to take street racing as seriously as Bill C-230 did. On the contrary, Bill C-65 proposes a maximum driving prohibition for an offence involving street racing which is seven years higher than that proposed by Bill C-230 for a first offence or dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, death or criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

In addition, the government's proposal to adopt a maximum lifetime driving ban for the offence of criminal negligence causing death that involves street racing is significantly higher than the three year maximum driving prohibition proposed by Bill C-230 for the first offence. Bill C-65 also provides a maximum driving prohibition for a second offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm involving street racing of 10 years, which is higher by 5 years than that proposed by Bill C-230 for a second offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

Therefore, Bill C-65 and Bill C-230 are based on the underlying objective of ensuring that those who street race and commit one of those listed offences are dealt with more severely while also providing for a mandatory period of driving prohibition with a goal of keeping our streets safe.

I would like to now briefly discuss why Bill C-65 does not adopt a subsequent street racing offence scheme which has been requested. If Bill C-65 is passed, offenders who participate in street racing and commit one of the four offences will be convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death or dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death.

The finding that an offender has engaged in street racing in the commission of an offence is a factual finding made by the judge. It is not an element of the offence itself and, therefore, not reflected in the charge against the accused. This factual finding is not recorded on CPIC and, therefore, will not show up on the criminal record of the repeat offender.

The only situations where a crown prosecutor would be aware of a previous conviction involving street racing would be where he or she has a practical familiarity with the offender or the facts in the previous prosecution. If this were the case, the crown prosecutor would likely be required to obtain a certified copy of the sentencing hearing transcript or reasons for decisions in the hope that the sentencing judge verbally or in writing expressed the finding that street racing was involved. It would not be readily ascertainable from the charge history of the accused.

It is practically unworkable. As a result, a prosecutor would have great difficulty in knowing whether he or she is dealing with a repeat offender and, therefore, would not know to inform the sentencing judge that this was a repeat offence. As such, a scheme based on repeat offences could not be perfectly effective at achieving its aims. Further, it would likely lead to inconsistent application of the repeat street racing offender scheme. For these reasons, it was not adopted in Bill C-65.

In taking into account repeat offenders when they are known, Bill C-65 proposes a higher maximum driving prohibition period than was proposed in Bill C-230. Furthermore, sentencing judges routinely consider the existence of previous convictions in setting an appropriate and fit sentence even where this is not explicitly required. This element of Bill C-65 is therefore based on practical considerations and achieves a balanced approach.

There are existing tools in the Criminal Code that can be called upon to ensure that these amendments are implemented to their fullest. There may be concerns that driving prohibitions currently imposed are not being respected as certain drivers subject to such orders continue to drive.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides that anyone who operates a motor vehicle while he or she is disqualified to do so is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. The driving prohibition orders which would be imposed as a result of Bill C-65 apply to this offence provision as well.

Furthermore, it is important to state that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with seizure and forfeiture of offence related property upon conviction will also apply for any of the four noted indictable offences, as well as for the indictable offence of driving while disqualified.

I am sure we would all agree that this power of seizure and forfeiture, when used, should certainly deter those with existing driving prohibition orders from getting behind the wheel of a car.

In summary, the bill specifies that if street racing is found by a sentencing judge to be involved in an offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, then the street racing is to be considered as an aggravating factor in setting the sentence.

Furthermore, the bill provides that if street racing is found to be involved in these listed offences, then a period of driving prohibition must be imposed. The range of driving prohibition is 1 year to 10 years for driving causing bodily harm or death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The range is one year to a lifetime ban for an offence of criminal negligence causing death. These prohibition periods would follow any period of imprisonment imposed.

The approach adopted in Bill C-65 is based on practical considerations and is aimed at achieving the objective of making our streets safer. Those who engage in street racing must be discouraged from engaging in this dangerous behaviour and those who street race and ultimately cause bodily injury or death to anyone must be dealt with appropriately. Bill C-65 achieves this objective and, therefore, it has my full support.

I would urge all members to support Bill C-65 so that our police and crown prosecutors will have strong tools to fight against this dangerous phenomena.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be an underlying theme with the government. It has caused great concern to me for the 12 years I have been in this place and it has been getting worse as time has gone on. The fact that it is happening is undeniable. The fact is it is hurting our society. People not only feel more vulnerable, but in fact they are, due to this weakness on the part of government. It is undeniable that is happening.

As to the motives for allowing that to happen, I simply do not understand the motives. Liberal members often say it is because of the charter that they are taking weak measures instead of the strong measures that we suggest which would make a real impact. I would suggest that the government is hiding behind the charter and is abusing the intent of the charter. On many occasions the Liberals are using the charter as a smokescreen, as a way to avoid taking tough action, or as a way to distort reality. They treat the charter as some document more holy than a holy book in this country.

Many Canadians have a great deal of respect for the charter. I would suggest that the government's use and abuse of the charter shows a lack of respect. This lack of respect for the charter is something I cannot understand. The Liberals talk about how important it is to them. They should show it by respecting the intent of the charter. They simply do not. As a result we see weak measures and the charter is used as a smokescreen.

I simply cannot answer the member's question. I cannot understand the motives. This does not seem to make any sense.

The member used the example of the age of consent. We wanted to increase the age from 14 to 16 years when it comes to adults of any age having sex with children, and yet the government refused to do that. The Liberals said that is wrong somehow. I would like them to explain to me how it can be wrong to increase the age of consent for our children to have sex with adults. A 50-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old girl is legal in our country. I have a problem with that. I see that as wrong.

It is time the government started to take tough action. It can start with Bill C-65. It should do the right thing for a change. Put in place the tough sections of the bill that will make it really work. Do not hide behind the charter or whatever the government is going to hide behind this time.

The member asked a good question, but I really cannot answer it because I cannot imagine what the Liberals' motives are.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-65, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding street racing and to make consequential amendments to another act.

This bill has been touted by the government as a bill which will enact Mr. Cadman's private member's bill, the most recent version of which is Bill C-230 which he introduced roughly a year ago. Bill C-65 does not do that. Later on I will talk specifically about why it does not do that. Like so many others who have spoken here today I want to talk about the contributions that Chuck Cadman made to this place and to this country.

Chuck was a tireless fighter for the people of North Surrey and for the rights of victims of crime right across the country. One of Chuck's priorities in the last number of years was to address the growing concerns about the misuse of motor vehicles. Part of that was his private members' bills on street racing, and his actions day to day to try to make our streets safer and reduce the number of victims. It was a proactive effort.

One of the things that caused Chuck to be respected by members of all political parties is that he really was not politically partisan. He worked with people from all parties in any way he could to further a cause which was important to him, because he knew it was important to other people in his constituency and across the country. Chuck Cadman was a rare individual in this House for his ability to work in a non-partisan fashion.

Personally from time to time I would chat with Chuck and say to him, “Couldn't you just beat up on them a little more? Couldn't you just be a little more partisan? We are right and they are wrong”. That was not the way Chuck was. He gained a great deal of respect from members of all political parties because of that. He was extremely effective, partly because of his hard work and partly because he worked in a non-partisan fashion in this place. We could all learn from that.

The bill that was introduced by the justice minister includes an essential element of Mr. Cadman's recommendations, namely the provision to increase the length of any mandatory driving prohibition for repeat offenders. That is what the government is pointing to, but the government's version of the legislation really does not enact what Mr. Cadman was calling for. It is really important that we point that out.

Chuck's proposed amendments targeted street racing by introducing mandatory driving prohibitions for a number of serious criminal offences and vehicle theft, by making it a crime to tamper with motor vehicle identification numbers. Unfortunately, while over the years Chuck fought so hard for these amendments, the Liberal government consistently rejected any form of mandatory licence prohibitions similar to the type that Mr. Cadman recommended. The government ignored the recommendations relating to vehicle identification numbers which were an important part of Mr. Cadman's package.

While the Liberals continue to soft pedal efforts to confront crime, it is important to make it clear that the Conservative Party is committing to see genuine crime fighting efforts like those put forward by Mr. Cadman make it into the criminal law of Canada. Unfortunately, the two pieces of government legislation do not do that. I want to speak to Bill C-65 specifically and point out in a little more detail what this bill is intended to do.

The bill amends the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying the involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing for the following offences: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death. It also provides for a mandatory prohibition order if street racing is found to be involved in one of those offences.

The intent of the bill is to prevent street racing by sending a clear message to those who endanger the public that they will face tough long term consequences. The bill also aims to make the streets safer for Canadians. The stated intent of the bill is what Mr. Cadman had in mind. A little later I will get into how we could amend the bill to make it work, but when we look at it, Chuck Cadman had been attempting to legislate changes to street racing since December 2002. Previous versions of the bill included Bill C-338, but the most recent version is Bill C-230, which is the one to which I referred.

The government refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory driving prohibitions and increased the punishment for repeat offenders. These are measures that the Conservative Party has always supported, will continue to support, and in time, will enact, and the sooner the better.

Bill C-65 is truly a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's past bills. It is touted as being an enactment of them but it is not and I will explain why. Although it provides for mandatory driving prohibitions and the inclusion of street racing as an aggravating factor for sentencing, it fails to include the clauses on repeat offenders which were an essential part of Mr. Cadman's bill. There are amendments which could be made that would fix the bill. I would hope that the House would choose to enact the amendments, or similar amendments, so that the bill would do what Mr. Cadman intended his private members' bills to do.

The amendments would replace proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 259(2.1) with the following: “(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year; (b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life: (c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and (d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment”.

I believe there would be a lot of support on both sides of the House for these amendments. If these amendments were enacted, I believe that the legislation would do much of what was intended by Mr. Cadman. I certainly hope there is a will in the House to do it. I sense that there is and I hope party discipline will not get in the way. Maybe this is the time for members from all political parties to decide to have a little bit of that non-partisan approach that Chuck Cadman took in his bill.

Chuck Cadman has left a very strong impact on the people of his constituency and on all of us. I certainly hope the House will recognize that by enacting the legislation he fought so hard to have enacted.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started on my comments on Bill C-65, I would like to respond to the previous speaker who said he was open to any suggestions about how we could improve policing and the courts.

He has been part of a government that has been in control of this country for the last 12 years. His government has wasted billions of dollars on a gun registry. Maybe those billions should have gone to policing. That could have stopped street racing.

The government could have done all kinds of things. All kinds of suggestions have been brought forward in the House, so as for him standing up and asking for ideas on how to do this, let me say that we have given him a lot of ideas. Taking the $2 billion that was thrown away on a gun registry and putting it toward front line police would have been a great start and it would have helped Mr. Cadman in his pursuit of more justice in this country.

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the issue of Bill C-65, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vegreville--Wainwright.

Mr. Speaker, we were talking a little about Chuck Cadman. You and I were colleagues of his. There is a reason why Chuck was successful. We all have talked about it to some degree here today. On all the issues he brought forward to the House in a personal way in his private member's bills and through his support on the justice committee and others, the fact was that when he took on dealing with an issue he was right.

His perspective, his ideas and his amendments to the Criminal Code were exactly what is needed to create a safer society for the citizens of Canada. That was his approach. He wanted to make Canadians feel safer and actually be safer in their homes and in their lives. Many of the issues that he brought forward, and the issue that brought him to the House of Commons in the first place, which he campaigned on for many years, did just that. He wanted to make changes to the Criminal Code that would bring in stronger laws and provide more deterrents just to make Canadians safer in their homes and safer on the streets.

When Chuck brought an issue forward, there were a number of things that he went through. He was very resourceful. He was very pointed. His issues were well researched. He did not bring anything forward that was not of substance and that he had not looked into from all angles. He researched the Criminal Code and consulted widely with Canadians and experts in these areas. So when he brought an issue forward, it was always one that people would take note of. We only wish the government had taken note more often of some of the things he brought forward.

He did this in such a way that there was little to argue with. He would counter all of the arguments. He would do the research. He would make sure that when he made a suggestion about an amendment to the code it would stand alone and stand the test of scrutiny. With these things in mind, Chuck would formulate ideas and changes, as he did with the bill on street racing.

He did not stop there. He had a way of managing the situation when it came to the House. We have all brought private members' bills forward, but when he brought his bills forward he would work with members of all parties. He was not afraid to consult with the party critics or committee members from all parties to see how they felt, to see if he could garner their support.

In many cases, I believe, he did alter what he was working on to some degree to make sure it gained the support of the other parties in the House. He was willing to do that. He did it in his style, which was not at all one of confrontation. His style was one of working together to come up with the best possible scenario for Canadians as a whole. That was his main mandate.

The fact is that the main function of a government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. I think that was very high on Chuck's list of important issues. He worked hard to maintain that type of focus. He felt that if we were actually going to protect Canadians, then we had better do it in a meaningful manner.

I do not appreciate the fact that people stand in the House and say that the law is the law, but then we have the justice system we do, especially when that is said by a member of the government that appoints the senior judges in this country, a government that is responsible for seeing that resources are in place to protect Canadians. As for them saying that, it is all fine and dandy, but the justice system is failing. We know that it is.

That is why we need changes such as those that Chuck Cadman brought forward, changes to strengthen laws and to have strong minimum sentencing to deter people from committing crimes.

Let me talk about what he said when he introduced his bill. I have retrieved the comments that he made back in October of 2003 on Bill C-338, the predecessor of Bill C-230. He went into all of the issues that had brought him to bringing forward the bill. There was the fact that on the streets of the big cities there had been slaughter from street racing, that innocent people had been mowed down and killed, and there was the fact that there seemed to be enough disposable income among car enthusiasts so that they could soup up these cars to do extraordinary things.

I am an old hot rodder myself; I still have an old muscle car that I tour around in and take to shows. That horsepower has to be treated with respect because it is dangerous, but these modern vehicles are something else. The technology that can be put into a very small car to make it go fast is unbelievable, and people will do it. In most instances, the people behind the wheel do not have the experience or the driving capability to handle that kind of horsepower.

The government tries to address these issues in Bill C-65, but I believe it fails because of its sentencing aspects. The basic premise of the bill, of course, is to make sure that street racing is added to the list of aggravated instances and crimes. That is the right thing to do, but in the end, as we have seen time and time again with this Liberal government, it completely fails to deliver the goods when it comes to the sentencing.

For the government to tie Chuck's name to this I think is right because this is an issue that he brought forward, but the government fails him miserably when it comes to putting forth the very essence of what he was trying to do. The fact is that the legislation the government has brought forward is going to fail and does not go as far as Chuck would have wished it to go. The bottom line in what he was trying to do was protect Canadians. He tried to send a message to the government through his private member's bill that this is exactly what the government needed to do.

We can argue all around the issue and say that the bill is on the right track, and maybe it is a small step in the right direction, but if we are going to make it work, if we are going to really have some teeth in it, then the issues and the progressive sentencing and penalties that Chuck had researched and come up with are, I believe, exactly what need to be put in the bill.

The précis the minister put out even indicates that Mr. Cadman's bill included an additional clause with progressively longer periods of mandatory driving prohibitions for repeat offenders lasting from one year to life. He indicates in his own documentation that this was not something that the government was willing to do.

Here is the quandary we always find ourselves in. A small step is good, and if it is the right direction then it is something we basically should support, but when the government totally fails in regard to the original initiative that was brought forward, then that is something we have a problem with and we cannot support.

One thing really made me pay attention here. One of the sentences that Chuck would have had imposed for a first offence was this: “for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year”.

He was saying that if the person who committed the crime were put in prison, then the driving prohibition would happen after the person came out. I think the government carried that forward, but Chuck would imposed a pretty serious sentence to start with. If people are going to contemplate street racing and they know that the result of their actions is going to put them in jail and take their drivers' licences away for one to three years on the first offence, and longer if they get a second offence or hurt somebody for life, I would say that these are meaningful sentences which would be a deterrent.

As I pointed out, when Chuck Cadman brought a bill to the House of Commons, it was well researched and well thought out. He looked at the whole scope of what effect it would have on society, not only on the perpetrator but on society in general. I believe he was on the right track with what he brought forward. I believe the government has let him down somewhat in the version it has brought forward.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I do not agree with the member at all. I wish I could give my speech again, then maybe she would understand why I could make that comment.

In fact, Bill C-65 is more punitive than Bill C-230 in every aspect of offence and repeat offence. The only problem, and I raised it at the end, was the fact that it was possible to have higher minimum and maximum driving prohibitions for street racing as for impaired driving. That was a problem with the CPIC.

Again, I do not disagree with the member when she says that we are not giving it any teeth. Even the laws we have now are not being enforced in many cases to the fullest extent possible. We often see cases thrown out or we see conditional sentencing or house arrest and this kind of thing. Those are the kinds of things that we should talk about. We have talked about this, and I have talked about this, many times in this place. It is an issue that is important to the House. It is important to many pieces of legislation current and past, and we have not dealt with it.

If the opposition thinks that one bill, Bill C-65 or whether it is Bill C-230 is going to do it, or if we put Chuck's Bill C-230 through as is, it will not change the fact that unless the adjudication of these cases is handled to the fullest extent that was provided within the laws and fairly takes into account the aggravating circumstances, then we have not made any accomplishment on what the member wishes to accomplish.

I am with the member. If she wants to begin dealing with the issue of resources for policing authorities and with the directions to the courts, I would be happy to work with anybody in this place who wants to find out how we can. Do not ever tell me why we cannot, just tell me how we can.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the member opposite speak today about Bill C-65 and how important it is, Mr. Cadman's name keeps coming up all the time. I must admit that I was a little taken aback when the announcement was made on front pages of newspapers across the country that Cadman's private member's bill would be honoured and brought forward.

Yet this morning we are debating the bill and talking about the inadequacies. We are talking about the lack of enforcement. We are talking about things that should have been in the bill and things that our very honourable former member of Parliament had very close and near and dear to his heart.

We have to be very careful when we address issues in this House. As a former justice critic for Manitoba and as the mother of a police officer, I listened to so much rhetoric and eloquent speeches from the other side of this House from the government. It saddens me because we have, as I said before, within these last few days had members opposite vote against raising the age of consent and talk about trafficking in persons. We have had nothing about the gun registry being shut down to put those much needed forces on the street, those front line police officers. Now today we are dealing with the street racing issue.

Street racing is primarily a provincial jurisdiction until someone is seriously injured or killed. If anyone has ever been in a police force or seen how police work, they have a list of priorities before they get to the street racing. If there is a murder, a stabbing, or a break-in, they take priority. So we can have the cars racing on the streets until something happens. We do not have the police resources to deal with it.

Members opposite are not putting the teeth into the justice system, and not coming up with the solutions. It has been over a decade that this government has been in power. There is a lot of consternation among the public. In my city, we have the highest homicide rates in the country. Can the member please tell this House why Mr. Cadman's private bill was not adequate, in view of the discussions we have had this morning.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us be careful in being clear on what we are talking about. If we are talking about minimums and maximums, are we talking with regard to driving prohibitions or are we talking about jail time? There is a difference. The member is not clear, so I cannot answer the question.

He knows, however, that where there is bodily injury or death in a motor vehicle accident of any kind, whether street racing is involved or not, there are laws covering it. The issue comes down to what street racing is in the scheme of determining the penalties. I think there is some agreement, whether it be through Bill C-230 or Bill C-65, that it is an aggravating circumstance which should be taken into account.

I think the courts already have the penalty regime. The issue now is, what are the courts doing with the penalty regime they already have? If the member's assertion and the House's opinion is that the courts are not applying the laws to the extent they should, that they are not reflecting the passion that Chuck Cadman brought to this place and laid out this problem, then maybe we have to find out what we can do to deal with that problem which is not on the floor before us and clearly is a problem not only for Bill C-65 but many other pieces of legislation.

I must tell the member that I do not disagree with him, but I cannot fix it in Bill C-65. It is a whole other subject. Why not have a take note debate on how we are going to deal with providing the resources that our policing authorities at all levels need and what direction we have to give to the courts to ensure that the legislation we pass is not only good legislation but is enforced and properly adjudicated?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 2004, the hon. Chuck Cadman, member for Surrey North, rose in the House to say:

Yesterday in Surrey, B.C. just before the evening rush hour, an 18-year-old lost control of his muscle car at an estimated speed of 140 kilometres per hour. He demolished a bus shelter, critically injuring a 71-year-old woman. Another car was spotted fleeing the scene, making it obvious to all concerned that this was yet another tragic result of a street race.

As warmer weather approaches, street racing incidents will likely increase and participants are confident they will not spend a day in jail even if they kill or injure. Nationally, insurance claims resulting from street racing more than doubled between 2000 and 2002. A message must be sent to the courts that these crimes are to be treated more seriously.

I urge all members to maintain support for Bill C-338, which the House passed and sent to the justice committee. It will make street racing an aggravating factor for sentencing. If we are really serious about deterring this irresponsible criminal activity, Bill C-338 must become law before the end of this Parliament.

That is what we are talking about and what Chuck wanted us to talk about, and I believe Bill C-65 would give us the instrument to take the essence of his concerns. Bill C-338 was a bill in the 37th Parliament and he brought it back in this current Parliament, now Bill C-230. As he introduced that at first reading I thought it would be interesting just to read maybe what he was thinking the day he came back to the House and decided to put it again. He stated:

Street racing continues to kill or seriously injure innocent people in Canada.

I am reintroducing this legislation to amend the Criminal Code specifically to provide that street racing is to be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing a person convicted of dangerous operation of, or criminal negligence involving a motor vehicle.

In addition, the bill provides that any person convicted under these provisions who was involved in street racing must be subject to a regime of mandatory national driving prohibitions ranging from one year to life, to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed.

The bill received broad support in the last Parliament and I hope that will continue to be the case.

If members would reflect on Mr. Cadman's bill and his statements to the House, I think they would find that Bill C-65 embraces the principles that Chuck included in his bill. There are some differences but the differences are not to an extent that would cause the House some difficulty.

In fact, when I looked at Bill C-65 and I compared it to Bill C-230, and members will know because they are amendments to the Criminal Code, that the bill does not read as a story book, like here is the beginning and the end. One actually has to look at the Criminal Code and look at the context that it is in, and determine whether or not the continuity of the changes make some sense given the historic evolution of the Criminal Code.

Indeed, the Criminal Code is a very complex document. I once tried to print it out from the Internet and I think it was about a foot tall and, quite frankly, was maybe not something one would want to do too often.

One of the points Mr. Cadman raised in the bill had to do with aggravating factors. I do not think there is any disagreement in the House that street racing, where it ultimately leads to bodily harm or criminal negligence causing death, is identified as an aggravating factor in both the bills. That is not a contention.

However there also is the issue of making the prohibition of street racing mandatory.

The differences between Bill C-65 and Bill C-230 are quite stark. Under the Cadman bill, Bill C-230, the maximum penalty for the first offence is three years but under Bill C-65 the maximum penalty can be a life prohibition. It is a more serious recognition of the offence than was contemplated by Mr. Cadman.

There are four offences that are dealt with in these bills to which the reforms apply and the most frequent offences charged in cases involving street racing where death or injury results. This is where the key is. In the discussion with one of the previous speakers, it was noted for the House that street racing as an offence, where there is no death, injury or damage caused, is a provincial jurisdiction and there are laws to deal with the offence of street racing. We are not just talking about street racing in a vacuum. We are talking about street racing where death or injury results.

Obviously these offences are serious. They involve the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing death. Those are the four main issues.

The maximum driving prohibition that is proscribed in Bill C-230 for a first offence involving street racing is a three year ban. It would result in a drastic reduction of the maximum driving prohibition that is currently available under the Criminal Code. There should be a change to that and it would be a change that I am sure Mr. Cadman would have supported.

In this regard, the current Criminal Code discretionary driving prohibitions provide for a period of up to a maximum of 10 years in the case of the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death or criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The difference is that in the case of criminal negligence causing death, the existing provisions provide for a discretionary maximum period of a lifetime ban on driving.

I think the fact that we are talking about that incident of criminal negligence causing death is the example Chuck used back in the 37th Parliament and I know that it is the one that motivated him to say that enough was enough and that we needed to deal with this.

Bill C-65 maintains these current maximum driving prohibitions but it does so in the context of a new provision imposing a mandatory driving prohibition period. This aspect of a mandatory penalty has been one that has come up many times in this place with regard to criminality. I think the House recognizes that there are circumstances in which minimum mandatory sentencing may be appropriate. I have argued that in this place myself and we have other legislation in which mandatory minimums are in the laws of Canada now.

The argument about whether or not mandatory minimums are effective and are a deterrent has been passed. That is no longer the point of discussion. It is in fact in current laws and it reflects, not just that there should be a deterrent, and I understand what deterrence is, but I am not sure I understand what people say when they say that minimum mandatory sentences are not effective. They are not effective for what?

In the example of a commercial marijuana grow house operation we have been told time and time again that after a certain number of plants, all of a sudden we are talking about a commercial operation which, more often than not, is involved in other criminal activity, usually organized crime in which the money is being used to fund other criminal activity that is detrimental to society as a whole.

I do not think there is a disagreement with regard to the mandatory side. I am raising these issues because it is quite important not to get distracted by the politics or the partisanship with regard to whether or not the bill is identical. It is important that we take the opportunity to use Bill C-65 as a tool to address the items that our former colleague raised in this place so often. We should continue to consider this as Chuck's bill. I think the House would agree unanimously that it is something we want to make happen. Rather than members saying why they cannot support the bill, they should identify areas in which we could say how we can support the bill and make the bill fit a little closer. I cannot see that it is that different.

Let me move on to the second offence of the four, which is dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm that involves street racing. The maximum driving prohibition in Bill C-65 is higher than in Bill C-230 by five years. The maximum driving prohibition in Bill C-65 for the two offences just named is 10 years. It is incorrect to say that the bill is not as tough. In fact, it is in many respects tougher than what was proposed, maybe not inappropriately as well. I am sure that had the bill had the opportunity to come to the House for debate and to go to committee and be dealt with, we could have resolved some of the questions that are being raised today.

Some members are of the view that a repeat offender scheme similar to what is proposed in Bill C-230, which would create a scheme of higher maximum or minimum driving prohibitions, would be a preferred model but I am not sure. Certainly, with regard to the principle of whether or not there is a repeat offender, there is no question the courts could take that into account. I can recall being in a courtroom watching proceedings and there was a fellow who was charged with auto theft and other theft of auto parts. After they read out the litany of events on this guy's rap sheet, his lawyer argued that the rate of incidence of these crimes was going down. So that is a good thing and we should say that this guy is doing well because he is not stealing as much as he used to.

With some of the problems that we try to address, I sometimes wonder whether the courts do not take them as seriously as we do. I am not sure why but I have heard many anecdotal cases where the courts have not had the resources, or somehow have allowed cases to be thrown out, or summarily dismissed, and arguments where the courts cannot do their job.

We have a serious problem. When we do have laws and we do enforce them but the courts cannot dispose of them in the fashion that was provided for by the legislators, then why are we making laws in the first place? They are either important laws that should be enforced and adjudicated or they are not. However it appears that half of the problem or maybe more than half the problem is with the courts themselves.

I think that is a very important question and I know it crosses jurisdiction in many cases. However, when we pass laws that we ask the provinces, through their provincial police, to enforce, what do we do when they do not have the resources? Do we now have a responsibility to ensure that the laws that we make are in fact enforced?

We have so many cases of marijuana grow houses. In my own community of Mississauga South the chief of police tells me that the police cannot even follow up on all of the tips that they get from people that there are grow houses there. They cannot even investigate them because they do not have the people who are properly trained to deal with those dangerous situations. Why is that? Why is it when we know that most of the moneys that are coming out of these commercial size grow-ops are going to finance organized crime, prostitution, hard drugs, and all of these other terrible things that are placed in our society? It is because communities do not have the resources to have the policing.

I think it is evident as well in the kinds of things that we see even in Chuck Cadman's bill. There are things that we cannot do for some odd reason. I would rather say that I do not want an explanation of why we cannot do it. I want an explanation of how we can.

I always like to come to this place and talk for something and not against something. I want to talk in favour of Bill C-65 because for me it is still Chuck's bill. The arguments that he brought, the statements that he made, the passion that he brought to this place, and the inspiration that he has been not only to members in this place but to Canadians as a whole are the things that we should remember when talking about why we should make this instrument work.

We should deal with it quickly. I want to encourage members to reflect on what we are doing and why we are doing it. To the extent that we discover bottlenecks, pitfalls or some other problems, we have the ability to change them. We can change things at committee stage after second reading. We can change things at report stage if necessary.

If members are still not happy with what comes out of committee, members can pass a motion at third reading to revert it back to committee to reconsider it on certain aspects. We have tools to work with and I would rather say that we can, rather than we cannot.

I think that members are quite familiar with the bill. There is a question that has come up and I would like to perhaps rhetorically pose the question and see if I can provide the answer. It has to do with CPIC and it comes up a lot.

The question is, why is it possible to have higher minimum and maximum driving prohibitions for impaired driving but not for street racing? The answer, whether we like it or not, is that the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, does maintain on the criminal record convictions for the offence of impaired driving. Therefore, it is possible to quickly see a prior conviction, given the offender notice and a higher penalty for a repeat offence, but not with regard to street racing.

That is a mechanical problem. It is a functionality problem that I think we need to consider. I know that the justice committee always has CPIC present at the table. If we are told that CPIC cannot do what we would like it to do, why do we not find out how we can do it, so that we can pass Chuck Cadman's bill?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to another act. This bill will toughen current legislation and sentencing with regard to street racing.

Before I begin specific consideration of Bill C-65, I want to say that street racing has been a problem in Montreal, among other places, for a number of years. Many police forces throughout Quebec but especially in Montreal are working to stamp out this scourge, which is ultimately a danger to the public in the Montreal region.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the neighbourhood police station No. 24, just off Decarie Boulevard. In recent years, this police force has tried hard to put a stop to street racing, which endangers the lives of the public. Police forces have, in part, the means to counter this scourge, which is endangering people's lives.

Currently, under the highway safety code, anyone caught street racing or modifying a motor vehicle, may be fined $400 and lose 6 demerit points. The police have adopted a three-pronged approach in order to put an end to street racing.

First, the police are trying to raise public awareness about not souping up motor vehicles for use on highways and Montreal streets. They are reminding the public that it is illegal to modify the exhaust manifold and other components in order to soup up vehicles for races that are completely illegal on Montreal streets and Quebec highways.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, the police have, in part, the means to hand out fines and crack down on street racing. They have tried to crack down on what is known as aggressive driving. This is similar to street racing, but it is also already highly illegal under the highway safety code. So the police have done what they could.

It should be remembered that street racing started around 1998 near the Technoparc in Montreal, where some automobile racetracks opened up. A few years later, however, these racetracks closed down. So the races now take place on the streets of Montreal in two different locations. One is a location with which Montrealers are very familiar, the Orange Julep, at the corner of Décarie and Paré, and the other is near des Sources Boulevard in Pointe-Claire, in restaurant parking lots open at 10 o'clock at night.

People gather in these places. They set rather vague rules, their own rules, thereby contravening the highway safety code. As I said, they modify their vehicles, which is in direct contravention of the highway safety code.

Sometimes these races are quite well organized and planned. Other times, it is just aggressive driving. One person stops his vehicle at a red light alongside another, opens his window and says, “My car is faster than yours”. As soon as the light turns green, the two vehicles start tearing in and out through the streets of Montreal.

The Montreal police forces have gone to considerable lengths to try to prevent this while maintaining a respectful posture. There is station No. 24 in Montreal, which is not in my riding but which has done wonders in this regard. I think now, though, that the law needs to be toughened. These sentences, which used to be at a judge's discretion, need to be made mandatory.

That is what is proposed in Bill C-65, which deals with three aspects of the Criminal Code. First, it defines what street racing is, because the Criminal Code is far from clear in this regard. Second, it states clearly that these street races are an aggravating circumstance. Third, it introduces a requirement for judges to revoke the driver's licence of individuals who are found guilty for a minimum of one year.

At the present time, there are four Criminal Code offences that apply to street racing. First, there is criminal negligence causing death; second, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; third, criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and fourth, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

Under the Criminal Code as it currently stands, judges can revoke the driver's licence of an individual if that person was driving under the influence. In cases of dangerous driving and criminal negligence, judges have discretionary power.

In short, Bill C-65 includes a mandatory prohibition from driving for not more than ten years and not less than one year. I believe the law must be given some teeth. Our late colleague, Mr. Cadman's, battle over the past few years must not be in vain.

I have heard certain colleagues in this House say they would vote against this bill because it does not go far enough. It may not go far enough for the Conservative Party, who would like it to be more severe, but it is certainly a step in the right direction, one that provides us with more ammunition. The Criminal Code has an important role to play here. It will further criminalize this scourge, this phenomenon, which we have so far not managed to control with prevention.

Some people may wonder if it makes any sense for people to be able to use our streets as race tracks. The answer is no. There are alternative solutions for people who do want to race. There are places set aside specifically for that. For about $20, people can become members at a track where they can practice what they consider their sport. There is no need to use the streets and highways of Quebec and Canada to practice this sport, which can put others at risk.

We have to realize that this phenomenon is spreading. As I said, our police forces are trying to use the means available to them to fine racers and those who soup up their cars. But the reality is that this approach has not been successful.

I feel that this amendment is exactly what the government ought to have come up with.

The Criminal Code must apply precisely for such cases in Quebec and Canada.

As I was saying, individuals do not hesitate to make changes to their vehicles. People are currently entitled to modify their exhaust pipes to make their cars louder. There is not only a safety risk, but also an environmental risk. How can we allow modified vehicles on the road when we, on this side of the House, are in fact proposing changes to automobile manufacturing standards to make cars less polluting?

We cannot say one thing and do another. We cannot allow these activities on the streets of Montreal when we are proposing stricter pollution standards.

The same is true of noise pollution. Can we allow people to use the streets in residential and urban areas at midnight as racetracks? The answer is no.

Safety should definitely be a motivating factor for strengthening the legislation, but so should the environment.

We wholeheartedly support this bill. We support it because we believe we must provide the police with the tools to do their work. We believe that public safety must be improved. For safety reasons the streets of Montreal or the roads of Quebec must not be used as racetracks. The private sector provides facilities for individuals to practice their sport safely. At the very least it is safer for the public; for those who practice the sport it is another story. That is why we wholeheartedly support Bill C-65.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of street racing, Bill C-65 has been called Chuck's bill. We saw the headlines. I want to congratulate the member on drawing this out.

In British Columbia this bill has been trumpeted as Chuck's bill. What the Liberals have introduced here is something that is not Chuck's bill. It is a very weak illusion. Illusion might be a good word. It is like so many other issues, in that it sounds good, it gets a good headline, but when we look at the substance, it is misleading.

The government will not raise the age of sexual consent. It will not outlaw child pornography. It will not implement consequences against violent crime. It will not bring in legislation that deals with gun play. Instead, it wants to licence duck hunters and bring in a wasteful gun registry.

I wonder if the member agrees that the Liberals are back to the smoke and mirrors game, creating an illusion rather than taking genuine action.

The member outlined that Chuck's bill would bring in mandatory sentences, mandatory prohibition of driving for these offences and would increase severity with repeat offences. The member serves on the justice committee. From his past experience in the insurance industry, he just demonstrated his knowledge about crimes of this nature in British Columbia.

The parliamentary secretary recently talked about how the new legislation would provide the courts with a tool because they could give a life sentence as a maximum sentence for a serious crime involving serious injury. The member mentioned conditional sentences which are also provided by the law. Is he aware of any instances when maximum sentences have ever been imposed for anything?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Motor vehicle acts are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. I represent Langley in British Columbia. I dealt with the motor vehicle act in British Columbia for years. Federally, Bill C-65 deals with street racing causing death by criminal negligence, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, causing death by dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, or causing bodily harm by dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Those are the federal offences and that is what we are talking about with Bill C-65.

The member asked what if no harm was done during a street race. That is under the jurisdiction of the provinces and their motor vehicle acts. If someone is caught street racing in British Columbia, the vehicle will be seized, towed and stored for a week. There are storage costs. The person will be charged under the motor vehicle act and will have to appear in court. The person could lose his or her licence for a year or a month, but that is left up to the courts.

What we are talking about here is what would happen if somebody is seriously hurt or dies as the result of a street race. What is the consequence going to be? What is our responsibility?

Right now, the typical sentence is a conditional sentence. There was a high profile case in British Columbia. There was a street race. A woman was killed. The case spent many years in court. The individual served the sentence in the comfort of his home, watching television, putting back some six packs, or doing whatever. Was that a just consequence for killing a woman while street racing?

Canadians say no. That is why we are having this debate. The government has to have some guidelines. The courts need guidelines, and the government has to provide legislation with teeth.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has identified the issues very well. As he well knows, through the legislative process at committee stage and report stage the House has the opportunity to address those concerns and to make its argument. I am certainly not giving up on this bill.

I do note that the definition of street racing in the bill is not as strong as I would like to see it. It almost uses its own terminology to define itself. I hope that in some aspect it will clarify exactly what racing is, at what point it happens, and how it ties in to the laws as they currently exist.

Part of Bill C-65 deals with the concept of aggravating circumstances. I can recall a change to the Criminal Code that I had something to do with in respect to assault or abuse of a child or a spouse. The law had a certain penalty regime associated with assault, but to the extent that it involved the assault or abuse in a trust relationship, being a parent with a child, or a spouse, that was even more serious. In terms of providing the courts with some latitude, aggravating circumstances is already present in many laws in Canada. It should not be discounted in terms of addressing where there is bodily harm or other negligence.

The member referred to Chuck Cadman's bill. This really comes down to whether or not the House is of the view that street racing, in the absence of any consequences such as no accidents or no one is hurt, is to be dealt with more harshly under the laws of Canada. The second part of that obviously is with regard to the number of offences that may have occurred.

Is the member suggesting that street racing in the absence of any accidents or bodily harm should be a serious offence under the law? What additional seriousness should be added to it if there are repeat offences?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak to Bill C-65 which deals with street racing.

It is a particular honour for myself because I considered Chuck Cadman a friend. The government has introduced Bill C-65 as a bill to honour Chuck Cadman and in his memory. It was just a few months ago when many members of the House were at a funeral in Surrey, British Columbia to remember Chuck and his fight for a safer Canada and for victims' rights.

Chuck spent the last years of his life fighting for a better and safer Canada. During that fight, while he was in Parliament, he introduced Bill C-338 and Bill C-230. The Liberal government opposed those bills. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the reason for that was sentencing principles. The government does not believe in the principle of mandatory sentencing. It does not believe in creating legislation with teeth. Without consequences and without legislation with teeth, a disrespect for the rule of law is bred.

There have to be consequences built into legislation to be able to respect the law. The vast majority of Canadians do respect the law in Canada, but a smaller group of people do not. That creates huge problems, one being street racing.

What is a street racer? The typical street racer has changed over the generations. Right now street racing involves people with high powered cars. Their hobby is to spend their paycheques on high performance vehicles. They soup them up and then they have races. Sometimes the races are in lonely areas of the communities where there are not a lot of people around. With cellphone technology and through the Internet, they talk to one another about where they will go to race.

They have spotters who watch for police cars. If they see any, they forward a message to the people to scramble. They will have a number of people observing and having fun. There is drinking and partying going on as they are racing down the streets. This has resulted in a lot of people being seriously injured or killed.

Another form of street racing that creates havoc and deaths is the hat race. A hat race is when hot cars gather together. The owners of the cars and some of the passengers throw money into a hat. They will be given a destination and the first person to that destination wins the money in the hat. They disregard stop signs and go as fast as they can, racing through communities so they can win the money. It exciting and exhilarating to them. Their adrenalin flows as they tear through our communities.

Hat races and street races are all part of the street racing phenomenon we have been experiencing with these high performance vehicles and our technology. People are dying . In that vein, Chuck Cadman wanted to do something, so he created these two private members' bills. He fought hard for them in the House.

Canadians grieve still the tragic loss of his life. The Prime Minister spoke at his funeral. I am glad we were there to remember Chuck and acknowledge his hard work. The Prime Minister promised he would introduce bills to remember Chuck. We have Bill C-65 on street racing and Bill C-64 on vehicle theft and changing VINs, which we will speak about shortly. These two bills were really important to him. I talked with Chuck's wife, Donna, and I promised that would speak to this bill. I will report on what she said in a moment.

Bill C-65 is to honour Chuck. Dane Minor also was a very close friend to Chuck. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Surrey Now newspaper in British Columbia. I would like to read it into the record. Dane Minor was Chuck Cadman's former campaign manager who worked for years with Chuck on issues. He was very excited to hear that the government was going to honour Chuck with Bill C-65 and Bill C-64. He read an article of October 1 about “Chuck's Bill likely will be law”. When we saw that we thought maybe the Prime Minister and the government were really going to do something to finally honour Chuck. I and Dane were excited about this.

He writes:

I read [this] article...with a growing sense of disgust. Several weeks ago the Prime Minister announced on the front pages of national and local papers that his Government would pass Chuck's private member bill into legislation as an honour to Chuck. My immediate response was a positive one. It would be a fitting memorial to Chuck. Then the Justice Minister announced his watered down version. This isn't Chuck's bill in either intent or in design. It is a cynical attempt by the Liberals to use Chuck's good name while doing little or nothing to change the existing laws.

One of the things that drew Chuck into the political arena in the first place was a visit by a former Justice Minister to supposedly discuss the Young Offenders Act with Chuck. The man blew into town spent five minutes getting his picture taken shaking Chuck's hand and went back to Ottawa saying meetings with the victims showed his government cared about victims and the faults of the YOA. Chuck was disgusted and it was incidents like these that led him to become an MP to truly change things.

This “new” legislation from the Liberals is the same kind of political stunt. [The] Justice Minister said his government tweaked both bills to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to address “operational deficiencies”. [Baloney]. Chuck had one of the best legal advisors in Ottawa on his staff and his bills were well within the Charter. The ultimate ridiculousness of [the justice minister's] version was the reason for removing the penalties for repeat offenders, “because the police across this country don't have tracing and tracking records so we know if it was a first, second or third tracking offence“.

If the Liberals truly want to honour Chuck Cadman I suggest that they pass his laws as written and actually give the police the resources to find out how many previous offences there were. If they don't have the courage to do that, at least have the decency to stop using his name in a self-serving bid to gain political points.

After reading the letter, I talked to Dane. I asked him for permission to present it today. He was glad to have it read in the House of Commons.

I also talked with Chuck's wife yesterday. I asked Donna what she would like me to tell the House. She said that I should tell the government not to water down Chuck's bill. If it did, it would create Mickey Mouse legislation and it would protect the criminals.

I have a background ICBC, as did Chuck. I was in loss prevention. I worked to find out where crashes were happening, why they were happening and where the crime was happening. Chuck and I both had a passion. I feel as though I am carrying on the torch for him to fight for safer communities, particularly regarding automobiles. Chuck wanted to deal with this. It was an important issue to him.

When we talked to the public, we were encouraged to share the three e s: education, engineering and enforcement. When we have a problem in a community through policing, whether we are an engineer, a police officer or politician, if we look at the three e s, that usually will guide us into finding a solution to the problem. Let us apply the three e s to street racing.

The first is education. We educate through the school systems, through the Internet, through movies. Before a movie starts, there are trailers. In the movie theatres we see these trailers warning people that if they drive fast, the forces between 50 k.p.h. and 60 k.p.h. actually double. The impact doubles between 50 k.p.h. and 60 k.p.h.

It is often students who drive the hot cars. Through education we tell them that there are only four little pieces of rubber which hold the car to the pavement and if they drive extremely fast, the forces are tremendous and they could lose control and they could kill themselves and other people. We know that education has worked somewhat.

The second is engineering. Street racing is a problem. Some communities have put in speed humps, bumps and strips on the road. They know of some of the areas where people are racing cars and they wet the streets. They are trying through engineering design to keep street racing to a minimum and to stop it. Through education and engineering we are trying to do what we can to stop street racing.

The third is enforcement. The enforcement aspect of it is our responsibility in the House. We need to have legislation that provides a stop to street racing. It is our responsibility and that is what Chuck was trying to do, the enforcement.

Why are we opposed to it? We are using Chuck Cadman. If we want to have Chuck Cadman's memory on it, then let us have Chuck's bills which include the teeth.

There was a recent announcement on crystal meth, a dangerous drug and is now schedule 3. What are we going to get for it? No teeth. It is a phony announcement.

The child pornography bill, Bill C-2, was passed by the House. Everyone was excited because our children would be protected. Again, it appears it was a phony announcement. It has just been sitting on the Prime Minister's desk for the last five months. I asked the justice minister yesterday why it has not been enacted and why is it not legislation. He would not answer.

We now have more phony bills using Chuck Cadman. It is shameful. We should honour Chuck and pass Chuck's bill. Promises were made by the Prime Minister to honour Chuck.

We need to change this bill. We need to give Chuck's bill the honour it deserves. Chuck wanted mandatory driving prohibitions in the bill, so that if people street race, there will be consequences. He also wanted increased punishment for repeat offenders. If people get caught, there will be a consequence, which is what Chuck wanted. If they do it again, it will be a more severe penalty and a more severe consequence. Each time they reoffend, there will be an additional increasing consequence.

Chuck was right on. We need to honour his bill. Bill C-65 is a phony bill and the Conservatives will be opposing it. Let us honour Chuck and let us oppose this phony bill.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member needs to reflect on the terms of this piece of legislation, I think, because in fact this is not watered down legislation. As I have just pointed out, it does expand the breadth of opportunity to be able to deal with those who would offend.

I think it clearly brings forward the concept that we want to have these individuals brought to justice. We want the court that deals with the matter to be able to find that there is an aggravating factor and to be able to give maximum penalties that could reach up to life, in the case of death.

I believe that the other bill clearly did make an attempt, but I think the attempt failed to reach out and ultimately succeed at the goal, because in fact, as I mentioned, CPIC does not carry incidents of aggravating factors in previous convictions. As a result, the other bill would have been more watered down in the sense that it would have been less enforceable than this bill.

We believe that Bill C-65 in fact is stronger and does put more teeth behind the opportunity for the court to give a sentence that is actually proportional to the crime. I believe that in this particular case the bill certainly does meet that request and need.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the government Bill C-65.

The bill contains a set of amendments to the Criminal Code regarding street racing. It is inspired by private member's Bill C-230, which was tabled by the late Mr. Chuck Cadman, who, until his untimely passing, was the member for Surrey North.

In summary, the government bill, as did private member's Bill C-230 that inspired it, specifies that street racing is an aggravating factor when a court is setting a sentence for certain offences. Also, as with Bill C-230, where street racing is found to accompany the offence, the government bill makes a driving prohibition mandatory. Unlike Bill C-230, the government bill does not call for the system of higher minimum and maximum periods of driving prohibition based on a repeat aggravating factor of street racing. I will speak more about that shortly.

I note that the four offences to which these reforms apply are the same in this government bill as in the late Mr. Cadman's private member's bill, Bill C-230. These offences are: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death.

Some members across might be asking themselves why government members had spoken against Bill C-230 in the earlier iteration of that bill during an earlier Parliament. I can say that the reasons for not supporting the private member's bill were based entirely upon principled objections to important sentencing aspects of the private member's bill and upon the practical difficulties in implementing certain key elements of the private member's bill.

One such principled concern that arises from the private member's bill is that for a first offence involving street racing—and most offenders appear in court for a first offence—the maximum driving prohibition is only three years. The current driving prohibition found in the Criminal Code is discretionary, but where it is imposed, the court may order a period of driving prohibition up to a maximum of 10 years for a case of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death or criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

In the case of criminal negligence causing death, where a court chooses to impose a driving prohibition under the existing provisions found in the Criminal Code, the maximum period is a lifetime ban. The government bill maintains these current maximum driving prohibitions that currently can be used on a discretionary basis, but it does so in the context of a new provision for a mandatory driving prohibition.

Again, the maximum driving prohibition in the government bill for three of the offences is 10 years. With a lifetime driving ban as the maximum prohibition for the offence of criminal negligence causing death that involves street racing, the government bill's prohibition is ever so much higher than the three year maximum driving prohibition that is in Bill C-230 for a first offence of criminal negligence causing death that involves street racing.

For the second offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm that involves street racing, the government bill's maximum driving prohibition is higher by five years than the proposal within the private member's bill, Bill C-230, for a second offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The maximum driving prohibition in the government bill for the two offences just named is, once again, 10 years.

The private member's bill, Bill C-230, would have created a scheme of higher minimum and maximum driving prohibitions that are based upon the repetition of the aggravating factor of street racing. The minimum in the private member's bill would have been a one year driving prohibition on any first offence of criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, or dangerous driving causing bodily harm where there is an aggravating factor of street racing.

On the second offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm with an aggravating factor of street racing, Bill C-230 would have created a minimum driving prohibition of two years. On a third offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm where street racing was an aggravating factor, the private member's bill would have had a minimum driving prohibition of three years. On a second or subsequent offence, if either the first or the current offence involves street racing and a death, the only penalty under the private member's bill would have been a lifetime ban.

Because of very significant practical obstacles, the government bill does not create a scheme that relies upon the prosecution proving a repetition of the aggravating factor for subsequent offences followed by a higher minimum driving prohibition. This is because it would be very difficult to implement a scheme, since aggravating factors are not recorded by the Canadian Police Information Centre. Therefore, the only cases where a subsequent offence scheme could be used would be those cases where the prosecutor is fortuitously alerted to the existence of the aggravating factor of street racing in a prior offence and successfully obtains a certified transcript of the sentence hearing.

This would be difficult in many cases where a prior aggravating circumstance of street racing arose in another city or even in another province. The end result would be an inability to implement consistently the higher minimum and higher maximum driving prohibitions scheme that is envisaged by the private member's bill, Bill C-230.

The mandatory minimum driving prohibition in the government bill for an offence involving street racing equals that proposed for a first offence within the private member's bill, Bill C-230. The minimum driving prohibition in the government bill is also a one year driving prohibition.

In order to be very clear, I wish to summarize that the government bill provides for the following. In every case involving one of the four listed offences with street racing, the offender will have a mandatory driving prohibition. The minimum driving prohibition will be one year and judges will have the discretion to make an order up to the maximum of 10 years' driving prohibition for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death or criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In the case of criminal negligence causing death, the judges will have the discretion to order up to the maximum driving prohibition of a lifetime ban.

The government bill on street racing should be supported. It specifies that street racing is an aggravating factor in the four offences already noted and it makes a driving prohibition mandatory for such cases that involve street racing. The minimum and maximum driving prohibitions in the government bill are workable because they avoid the higher minimum and maximum driving prohibition periods for repeated aggravating factors found in Bill C-230.

Again, a system that by necessity requires proof that there was an aggravating factor in a prior offence in order to obtain the higher minimum and maximum driving prohibition leads to inconsistency of application because the police system does not record aggravating factors and show them on the criminal record.

This government bill is, I believe, relatively straightforward, and police and prosecutors will be able to use it in a very easy way. I urge hon. members of the House to support the bill.

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opposition House leader's comments. The same confusion which reigned in the House perhaps reigned when I was trying to describe what we understood the consent to be.

The opposition House leader is exactly right. It would be our intention, if we could, to return to second reading of Bill C-65. If, however, we went until 6:30 p.m. with Bill C-49, we would return to Bill C-65 at a later date.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with my hon. colleague across the way in the sense that there was some confusion immediately following routine proceedings today that allowed these two bills to slip by. I think there were members from all parties who wanted to speak to them. I certainly would concur with my colleague.

I would like further clarification. If Bill C-49 carries the day until 6:30 p.m., would it be the intention following debate that the question would be put and deemed carried and we would then return to second reading of Bill C-65 either tomorrow or at some future date?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the bills listed on today's Projected Order of Business.

Mr. Speaker, as you noticed, there was perhaps a bit of confusion on all sides of the House with respect to participating in different debates following routine proceedings a few moments ago, in particular the third reading of Bill C-49 and the second reading of Bill C-65.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House to return to third reading of Bill C-49 in order for members to participate in said debate, and that at no later than 6:30 p.m. today, the motion for third reading of this bill would be deemed carried.

Should Bill C-49 conclude before 6:30 p.m. today, the House would immediately return to the second reading of Bill C-65 for the same reasons I noted above.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from the member's question that he was obviously not at the last opposition House leaders' meeting where the entire agenda up to December 15 was laid out, including the seven opposition days to which he has referred.

In terms of background, I might also suggest to the hon. member that back in 1973 when there was a minority Parliament, the House opened on January 4 and all seven opposition days were held between March 5 and March 26. Back in 1979, when the House opened on October 9, opposition days started November 6. Opposition days clearly are the purview of the government to schedule. We have scheduled all of them for the opposition parties.

The House will continue this afternoon with the second reading of Bill C-54, the first nations oil and gas bill, followed by second reading of Bill S-38, respecting trade in spirits, and report stage and third reading of Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-28 and if it is completed, we will proceed with second reading of Bill S-37, respecting the Hague Convention and Bill S-36, respecting diamonds.

Next week is the Thanksgiving break week and I wish all hon. members a very happy Thanksgiving.

When the House returns on October 17, we will consider second reading of Bill C-63, respecting the registration of political parties, followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-49, the human trafficking bill, second reading of Bill C-65, the street racing bill, Bill C-64, the vehicle registration legislation, and report stage of Bill C-37, the do not call bill.

As the week continues, we will add to the list reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting the cruelty to animals, Bill C-44, the transportation legislation, Bill C-47, respecting Air Canada, the reference before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services bill, and by the end of the week we hope to begin debate on the energy and surplus bills that are being introduced this week. There is also ongoing discussions about a take note debate that week.

As members can see, there is a heavy agenda and important legislation. As I said and as I laid out to the opposition House leaders at our previous meeting, in the post-Remembrance Day segment of this sitting, we will consider the business of supply and we hope to be in a position to deal with the final stages of many of these very important bills before the end of the year.

Criminal Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)