Thank you.
I find the discussion very interesting. A lot of the things that were said are troubling to me.
I'll start with the Canada Safety Council. They mentioned that most of these problems we're dealing with are with people who are dependent on alcohol, probably alcoholics more than the social drinker. Yet in my riding--I keep tabs on all the courts and I have three different courts in a rural jurisdiction--over the last while I can't tell you how many young offenders, 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds, were drunk and mostly driving while intoxicated. It's a phenomenal number, and this is a small rural area. I can only imagine what it must be in other jurisdictions. But these young people aren't necessarily drug-dependent or drink-dependent. They're just starting out. They haven't got enough brains to know how to do it, maybe.
Then we talk about education. Well, I've been in the education system for 30 years, and I've seen all kinds of programs. And yes, they will have a positive effect on a good number of the students, but they won't reach everybody. There's no doubt about that. And of course in our wisdom as a wise society, we lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18, and trust me, that didn't do us any favours in the secondary schools with younger people. Where we used to have a problem with 18- and 19-year-olds consuming, it suddenly became a problem with 14- and 15-year-olds, or even worse.
We're our own worst enemy in some of the other decisions that we make, the influences. I've heard comments like, “Well, marijuana's really nothing all that big”. Yet I've seen it have a drastic effect on young people in the school where I taught, a horrendous effect.
I'm really tired of the legal system. It seems as if the legal system overpowers the justice system on undue harsh penalties. I heard that comment--undue harsh penalty. Well, what's an undue harsh penalty for the victims at the hands of these people? How bad does it have to get before that becomes undue harsh penalty? And deterrence doesn't work. Well, unfortunately, he's probably right in most cases. I can't remember who said that, but he's probably right in most cases.
I can name one particular case back in the sixties in a county, and I think it was Saguache County--I'm trying to remember--where they had the right to impose the law. What they did is if they caught you impaired or drinking while driving or whatever, they took your vehicle, period. No questions asked, you lost your vehicle. If it belonged to your dad, it was gone. If it belonged to a company, it was gone. Boy, did that deter drinking in that county. You didn't do it. It was very effective, but unduly harsh, I will admit.
So where is the balance that Mr. Dykstra was trying to seek? We go to the extremes at one end or the other and we never seem to arrive anywhere. And always, to me, it's the legal system that interferes. We talked about cameras. My God, if you used a whole bunch of cameras, how long would it be before there'd be some people out there saying “You have no right. You're invading my privacy.” We're overdoing this whole thing. It's overkill. Why don't we stick with the brass tacks?
Was it 815 dead during 2004? My God, people, 815. We are very saddened, we're broken up that we've lost 56 soldiers since 2002 in the war in Afghanistan. That breaks us up. And here we've got 815 in one year from drunk drivers? If this happens every year, how many thousands is that? I think it's time to stop all the nonsense of talking. What do we have to do to get down to hit that balance and get it fixed? What do we have to do? I'm still waiting to hear good solutions. I'm sorry, I can't buy a lot of them. I can't buy it.