Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1996

Impaired Driving

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with the seriousness of the offence.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on this very important Motion No. 78.

I was also pleased to take part in the kick off for the red ribbon campaign by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers which occurred on Parliament Hill over the weekend. This campaign involves tying red ribbons around the antennas of vehicles through the holiday season to tell people that they should not drink and drive and to publicize the epidemic in this country of drinking and driving.

Last year MADD Canada distributed over three million red ribbons to tell people about the hazards and the consequences of drinking and driving. This year they expect and hope to have a red ribbon on every single antenna of every single car in Canada. I absolutely support that and I will do whatever I can to promote it.

September 19 was the last time I spoke in the House on the important issue of impaired driving. That was the third and final hour of debate on my Bill C-201. The bill would have established minimum sentencing and stronger deterrents against impaired driving in particular to deal with people who choose to drink and drive and as a result kill. Unfortunately, Bill C-201 was narrowly defeated in this House by 31 votes, with the help of the Bloc members almost all of whom voted against it, and with the help of many of the Liberal members who voted against this bill.

I did receive support from some of the Liberal backbenchers, from numerous NGOs, including MADD Canada, and tens of thousands of Canadians across the country. Despite the defeat of Bill C-201, this support has only strengthened my resolve to push forward to ensure that some day the federal government will take the lead in developing measures to combat impaired driving in this country.

Once again I remind members of the Liberal Party opposite that this issue transcends all political lines. It is an issue that is so important in the minds of Canadians yet Liberal government members refuse to grasp that. They play party politics with the lives of Canadians.

I would like to thank the Liberal members who did support Bill C-201. On behalf of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Canadians who are keenly interested in this issue, I know that their appreciation has been shown as well.

For those Liberal and Bloc members who opposed it, I sincerely hope on behalf of all of Canada's impaired driving victims that they see the value of Motion No. M-78. I hope that they see this as an opportunity to get into real and positive debate on the issue of impaired driving. I hope the comprehensive approach to impaired driving that Motion No. M-78 offers will give the Liberals some comfort zone that it will not go against their policy or philosophy of being soft on crime.

We all have our own ideas of how to combat impaired driving. Motion No. M-78 gives the government, particularly the Minister of Justice, as well as the Bloc members the opportunity to discuss Motion No. M-78 in the justice committee setting. They could bring forward their ideas and witnesses would appear. It would bring this terrible, senseless and 100 per cent preventable crime to the forum that it deserves, the justice department of the Government of Canada.

Almost every province has taken action on this issue. Almost every province has taken steps to deal with the crime of impaired driving in a way that reflects the severity and epidemic state of this crime, but the Liberal government has refused to follow their lead. It is the very government that should be setting an example in being proactive on the issues which concern the Canadian people, but the Liberal government has refused to deal with impaired driving to treat the issue with the respect and seriousness it deserves.

Ontario has recently followed the lead of many other provinces and introduced a 90-day roadside licence suspension. Other provinces have lowered the blood alcohol content for temporary suspensions and have established higher mandatory minimum licence suspensions for those convicted of impaired driving. Some provinces have set lower BAC limits for young drivers. Some will impound the vehicles of individuals who are caught while driving under suspension. These are positive steps, just a few of the efforts that have been put forward by some of the provinces.

What does the federal Liberal government which should be the leader in this country do? It refuses to deal with the issue. What efforts have come from the Liberal government? None. Just opposition. What proposals have come from the Liberal government? None, even though it voted against Bill C-201.

If the government had been seriously concerned about the issue of impaired driving, it could have brought forward its own proposals. I do not care whether it wants to take some sort of recognition for dealing with impaired driving and leave my bill on the sidelines. The issue is that the government has an obligation to the Canadian people to deal with this issue which is of great concern and it has refused.

The pleas of victims of impaired drivers and their families have been met with opposition and silence from the Liberal government. In 1995, 1,650 Canadians were killed by impaired drivers. I understand that after my presentation the member for Halifax is going to stand up and tell us that is not important.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask that the hon. member not anticipate my remarks.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax did in fact vote against Bill C-201. Therefore I assumed and probably correctly but we will wait to hear what she has to say, that she is going to oppose M-78 as well because the Liberal government members opposed Bill C-201. The member for Halifax in her duty does everything the Liberal government members tell her to do.

The justice minister took no pains to move quickly to follow a personal agenda when he brought in gun control measures. He said that he wanted to fight crime because 196 people are murdered each year by firearms in the hands of criminals. We support the fighting of crime. And if that bill were effective, we need effective controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because gun deaths are no less a crime. However, considering that 196 people are killed each year in Canada at the hands of criminals who have firearms and considering that 1,650 people were killed last year by impaired drivers, I ask the question: What reasonable justice minister would fail to recognize the severity of the crime of impaired driving and the consequences? What reasonable thinking justice minister would fail to recognize that? The justice minister of the Liberal Government of Canada is the person who fails to recognize it.

The Liberals are on the wrong track. They refuse to act on impaired driving. They prefer to follow their own agenda with useless and ineffective gun control legislation. They refuse to deal with a crime that killed over 1,600 people in this country last year.

The Liberal government talks about promoting safety in our society. I say that the Liberal government is incapable of promoting community safety and it has shown it by refusing to move on the issue of impaired driving. It is the justice minister who is compromising community public safety by pursuing his personal agendas rather than dealing with the serious crime of impaired driving.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice whether his government will take the time to deal with Motion M-78. He stated in his presentation on Bill C-201 that the justice committee was too busy to deal with Bill C-201. Motion M-78 gives the Liberals an opportunity to deal with impaired driving in a far more comprehensive manner than Bill C-201 offered so let us give it that opportunity. Will the justice committee once again be too busy to deal with this serious crime?

Why is the government not doing everything possible? It is beyond me. Why is the government not doing everything possible to deal with impaired driving, which is at an epidemic stage? Why does the Liberal government continue to look on impaired driving as some sort of social ill? It is a crime to drink and drive in this country. It is a crime to make that choice, to get behind the wheel of your car when you are impaired. Certainly it is a crime when you kill or injure someone.

Yet the Minister of Justice refuses to recognize that. He prefers to treat it as some sort of social ill, and that must stop.

Why does the Minister of Justice have no initiatives whatsoever to deal with impaired driving in Canada? It is the number one cause of criminal death and injury in this country. Yet the Minister of Justice and the government members have refused to deal with it. Why? What do they have to say to the families of victims of impaired drivers?

I support Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and the organization's recommendations that the blood alcohol content be lowered to .05 and the two hour sampling time be extended or eliminated. I support that. I believe those caught driving while impaired should face higher fines, longer jail terms and licence suspensions.

The Liberal members in opposition to my last bill said deterrence is not a factor here, that we cannot deter someone by threatening to impose a stiff sentence or a stiff fine. I would say

that of all the crimes in this country that are preventable by deterrence it is impaired driving.

Mr. Speaker, you could go outside now and ask the first 100 people you meet on the street why they prefer to take a taxi when they have been drinking, and the number one answer will be because they do not want to get caught. That is the number one answer.

Why do they say that? They know there is a fine involved and a licence suspension. They do not want to get caught. It is not the fact that they do not think they can drive home all right, but they do not want to get caught. That is deterrence. If we stiffen up the fines, the licence suspensions and the jail terms in case of death or injury I know we are going to see a marked improvement in the statistics concerning impaired driving.

As well, I support a two and a seven year minimum sentence respectively for those convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death. I believe we have to have sentences that reflect the severity of the crime.

I believe that sentencing ranges are commensurate with the gravity of the crime and mirror the sentence available for those convicted of criminal negligence causing death. I believe we have to get tough with people who drink and drive.

I am aware that changing the Criminal Code is not the silver bullet to end all impaired driving but it is important that this Liberal government show some leadership on this issue. It is important that it take an important step, but it is not the only step that needs to be taken. It has to examine the whole range in the Criminal Code that deals with impaired driving. It also has to look at rehabilitation for impaired drivers while they are in prison.

Evidence suggests that the majority of impaired drivers have a problem with alcohol and have faced similar charges in the past. Statistics show that up to 70 per cent of the people who cause death and injury through impaired driving do have alcohol problems. Accordingly, and the Liberals are going to hate this one, the government should consider using its order in council powers to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that those serving time for impaired offence absolutely must successfully complete a rehabilitation program as a condition of parole.

Some Liberals will stand up and say this is a human rights violation, that we cannot force anyone to get better, that we cannot force anyone to turn their life around. Tell that to the victims of impaired driving. Tell that to the families of the victims of impaired driving.

The federal government should encourage the provinces to introduce random breathe tests. This would give the police the opportunity to make random stops and request the breath test without having to prove reasonable and justifiable cause. Members know that lawyers have a field day with the reasonable and justifiable cause section of the Criminal Code. However, areas that have introduced random breath testing have found a dramatic decrease in the incidence of impaired driving. That is because the chance of getting caught has been made even greater.

At present some provincial forces do use random breath tests to deter and catch impaired drivers. As I said, research indicates that random breath testing has an effect on the number of impaired drivers.

We must look at a whole range of measures in order to deal with the very serious issue of impaired driving. Motion No. 78 allows us to look at those measures. It allows government members, Bloc members, Reform members, NDP members and Conservative members to come together in the justice committee to seriously deal with the issue of impaired driving.

The Liberal government must get away from its belief that impaired driving is some sort of social ill. It has to start looking at it as a serious crime. I look forward to the debate which will follow on this motion and I will listen with interest to the suggestions and recommendations that come from colleagues in this House.

However, it is important to point something out which probably reflects the feeling of Liberal government members. The philosophy of some Liberals has been stated in a letter by the member for Simcoe North. He believes that this is some sort of political game. He believes that Reformers, I included, have grabbed this issue for some sort of political gamesmanship. I am saddened to see that comment in a letter.

The member for Simcoe North also says that the federal government cannot dictate to the provinces how they should deal with impaired drivers. I know that some areas that deal with impaired driving are within provincial jurisdiction. But the fact is this Liberal government has to take some leadership on this issue. It is duty bound to take leadership. It should encourage the provinces to deal more effectively with impaired drivers.

The member for Simcoe North also said in his letter: "The issue is whether Motion No. 78 will be effective and appropriate measures to deal with the problem. I can't support them because of serious reservations which I have explained and substantiated". Whatever they were.

"One reservation is that these measures are based on the false premise that longer sentences lead to reduced repeat offences. The evidence simply doesn't support this view".

Longer sentences and mandatory rehabilitation will reduce this crime and I urge the members to deal with this.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in complete support of Motion No. 78, that the government should consider strengthening penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code that deal with impaired driving offences. I am honoured to speak on this motion immediately after the mover, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley who gave an excellent speech. I have always been of the firm conviction that if it makes sense I will support it. This motion makes a lot of sense.

I feel it is important to state that this issue goes beyond our party lines. The fact that this motion was introduced by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley of the Reform Party, supposedly my opponent, has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that strengthening penalties for those who commit an impaired driving offence is a good idea.

I previously supported the hon. member's bill, Bill C-201, which called for amending the minimum sentence of seven years for impaired driving causing death. Although, unfortunately, that bill was narrowly defeated, I believe this motion will accomplish the same principle.

Drunk driving is a very serious offence. It is high time that our courts have a tool to discipline and deter an offence which often ends in death. People, especially young people, are dying every day due to impaired driving and we have to try to stop it.

Recently the Ontario government attempted to crack down on drunk driving offences by imposing an automatic 90 day licence suspension for drivers who blow over the legal alcohol limit or who refuse a breathalyser test. This is a step in the right direction, but it certainly does not go far enough. These drivers can easily appeal on the grounds of mistaken identity or the inability to give a breath sample for medical reasons. Besides that, a 90 day suspension is an administrative tool for the government and does not act as a real deterrent. We need to impose a sentence which will make an impaired driver think twice about getting behind the wheel after drinking alcohol.

I come from a rural part of southwestern Ontario and I am sad to say that I often see the reality of impaired driving close to home. Where there is an absence of public transportation or taxi cabs, young and old alike will often get into their vehicles after a night out and attempt to drive the dark, back country roads. I am sad to say that I have often witnessed horrific accidents due to drunk driving right on the corner of my property. That is not to say this is exclusively a rural problem. Nevertheless, without any alternative form of transportation we have to send a clear message to people in rural Canada that driving drunk is dangerous, if not deadly.

It is my belief that the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired driving do not act as a sufficient deterrent. Currently there is a 14 year maximum sentence available for impaired driving causing death. How often is it imposed? It is similar to our old gun laws, some of the toughest in the world, but never enforced by a lenient justice system. Indeed, most sentences are for one or two years, even with a previous conviction. It is a joke.

The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley once told me of a sad story in his riding where three family members were killed by a drunk driver with previous convictions who was sentenced only to three and a half years. People are justifiably outraged by these kinds of sentences. They do not at all reflect the views and the concerns of average Canadians.

In the United States the transportation research board has suggested a tough crackdown on repeat drunk drivers, which would include impounding vehicles and police stakeouts of people convicted of driving under the influence. The board's committee said that current policies in Canada have been effective in discouraging most people from drinking and driving. However, there remains a group of persistent drunk drivers who do not appear to be deterred by the threat of social disapproval or legal punishment.

According to the report, repeat offenders are four times more likely than other drivers to take part in a fatal traffic accident. Twelve per cent of drivers involved in alcohol related crashes had at least one prior conviction. An interesting study in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 1994 entitled ``The risk of dying in alcohol related automobile crashes among habitual drivers'' came up with some revealing conclusions.

The scientists linked about 3,000 drivers to their driver history files. The study showed that aggressive intervention in the cases of people arrested for driving while impaired may decrease the likelihood of a future fatal alcohol related crash.

In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people between the ages of one to 34. Almost 50 per cent of all traffic fatalities are related to alcohol. Furthermore, 40 per cent of the people in the U.S. will be involved in an alcohol related crash at some time during their lives.

Similar figures are available for Canada. In 1994 87,838 people were charged with impaired driving. More astonishing is that in 1994, 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving, which is three times higher than our murder rate.

The government has fervently committed itself to imposing gun control to help reduce crimes committed using a gun. Unfortunately it is a lot easier to get a driver's licence than to get a gun licence and according to these statistics a car is even more of a lethal weapon.

It seems that the attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Charles Harnick agrees with me. He says: "Drinking and driving is the number one cause of criminal death and injury in our society, and alcohol is the greatest single factor contributing to automobile accidents in Ontario". But this problem goes beyond the borders of Ontario. It is a national issue. Transport Canada found that there were 113,731 injuries as a result of impaired driving accidents. To make it more clear, that means there are 3.8 deaths and 311 injuries per day, due to drunk driving.

Last week the government introduced some tough legislation to crack down on smoking. The principal incentive was the cost to the health system. Everybody knows that smoking inevitably leads to ill health. But if everyone knew that just one fatal drunk driving accident costs the Canadian taxpayer $390,000, I think more people would be up in arms about the high cost of getting behind the wheel after drinking. If this is not a very serious national issue, I do not know what is.

Motion No. 78 is worthy of the support of members of all sides of the House. We are here to represent our constituents as well as the betterment of all Canadians. I truly believe that toughening the Criminal Code to crack down on impaired drivers would benefit every Canadian.

I remind my colleagues that partisan politics have no place in Private Members' Business. This is a votable motion and I will certainly be voting in its favour.

My brother-in-law was in a Scandinavian country, I cannot recall which country it was, but the law there stated that if you are picked up with the smell of alcohol on your breath, it is an automatic one-year suspension of your licence. If you are charged the second time you lose your licence for life. I think our laws, in comparison, are very lenient.

As I mentioned previously, within one mile in my area, more than five people have been killed because of impaired driving. I live on a dead end road where there is very little traffic. However, it is sad to meet the families of these people who were killed in these accidents. It never leaves them.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Motion No. 78, a votable motion dealing with impaired driving.

Today Reformers are wearing red ribbons in support of project red ribbon which is carried on by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is a strong reminder to everybody that we should do our best to stop tragic deaths, in particular, those dealing with drunk driving.

This motion calls on the government to deal with all areas of the Criminal Code with regard to drunk driving. It take steps to deter drunk driving and it also provides for sentencing which reflects the circumstances.

Critics during discussions on drunk driving often say we want to implement stiff sentences. I really cannot think of any greater stiff sentence than personally losing somebody because an individual has been drunk behind the wheel. I remember only too well the years in our family we had with Sheena who was the best buddy of my son Jason in the early years. Sheena was his cousin and my niece.

Sheena was a very bright young lady, with all the best prospects in life, doing well until she was 13 years old. In 1983 a drunk driver took her life. I can remember those days as if they were yesterday. The call we got at home, the disillusionment, the reasons why. Then came the questions: What could have prevented it? Why did it happen to such a nice young girl? It has been 13 years and I still cannot forget two things. Why did the individual who killed her get a very minor suspended sentence and end up out on the street right away doing goodness knows what, and the lives that were destroyed.

I talked to Sheena's mom, Winnie, this morning and I know that she does not forget. I know she has forgiven. I know it has stuck with us for many years. Sheena will never be forgotten. I somehow guess that the person who was behind the wheel that day has maybe forgotten about it because nothing much happened to him. That is very sad. This motion addresses the hurt and pain of families resulting from this action.

Then I think of the reality that Ken and Eileen Roffel of Langley, B.C. have been dealing with. I just talked to Ken a few moments ago. Ken is going around the country looking for 300,000 plus signatures to deal with zero tolerance of drunk driving. Last March his son Mark was killed by a drunk driver. This drunk driver had five previous convictions for alcohol related charges.

Mark was 23 years old. He was killed at 8.30 p.m. last March. Very few people in the country know that at 3.30 p.m. the same day the drunk driver who killed this young man had had another drunk driving accident.

This type of thing has to stop. We have to look beyond partisan politics in a House that is filled with partisan politics. We have to try to understand the heart and the pain of people like the Roffels and my family. We have to rise above the occasion of Reform, Liberals or separatists and deal with the issue of drunk driving in a fair, reasonable and responsible manner.

The drunk driver who killed Mark had no licence, no insurance and stole a truck. He had five previous convictions. What more can I say? How many more people must die on the roads before a responsible government does something?

Mark's dad, Ken, is working hard to get a focus on zero tolerance. He is travelling across the country to raise awareness, as many other parents before him have done, as MADD is doing today and as the Reform Party members are doing. My colleague, who is sitting here today, has raised this on several occasions in the House, mostly to deaf ears of a majority government that is far too partisan for the good of all Canadians. We are very likely to hear that in one of the speeches to come from the Liberals.

What happened the last time this came before the House? The separatists, who the Liberals claim are the official loyal opposition in this House, voted against it. That is nothing new. Shameful, I suppose. One wonders where things are going in this country when one party cannot deal responsibly with social issues of the day and its only concern is with separation from a country that needs all of its parts.

What does voting for this motion really mean? Does it mean that if my colleague gets this passed in a vote that the Liberals should be ashamed and we should have an election because of it? No, that is not it at all. It means that this would go to a committee and it would be discussed. Witnesses would come before the committee from across the country, giving their perspective, their feelings and their good suggestions on how laws that are fitting against drunk drivers should be developed. It means an open debate on an issue that is far overdue. It just means we should bring it forward to the people of Canada.

I praise my colleague and those who have the courage of their convictions on the Liberal side to deal with this issue of drunk driving. I can assure the House that my family will not forget Sheena nor the issues around her. Ken and Eileen will not forget Mark. And all those parents, families and friends of victims will not forget those who have been injured or killed by drunk drivers.

I only ask that the Liberal government members take the responsibility that is afforded them as a majority government and deal with the issue on a non-partisan basis.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no dispute about the potential for serious harm that impaired driving poses. Many of us, tragically, as was pointed out by members on the other side, know intimately the suffering that impaired drivers can and do cause. Our first reaction because of this as legislators, and a very understandable one, is to consider changing the penalties in the Criminal Code.

We should, however, clearly understand what the criminal law does now about impaired driving. We need to do this in order to ensure that we are proceeding wisely and not simply setting out upon a course, however well motivated, that will turn into a journey that does not lead us toward meaningful change. Only after such an understanding is reached can we then wisely consider whether there are appropriate changes that ought to be made to the Criminal Code.

Driving is a legal behaviour, given the appropriate provincial or territorial licence. Drinking alcohol is also a legal adult behaviour. Clearly one may engage in either behaviour separately and not offend against the Criminal Code. What the criminal law does prohibit is driving when one's ability to do so is impaired by alcohol. The code also prohibits driving with a concentration of alcohol in the blood that is greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is regardless of whether the person shows actual signs of impairment or not.

I understand that scientists have indicated that the significance of alcohol as a discreet factor influencing driving behaviour becomes demonstrable only above the level of 80 milligrams of alcohol. Therefore the present over 80 limit is one that can withstand scrutiny by the courts. It respects fundamental principles of criminal law relating to culpability being a limit that rests securely upon a foundation of blame worthiness which is demonstrable by study results that are statistically significant.

I want to turn to the penalties associated with the criminal offences that are committed by persons who consume alcohol and then operate a vehicle. Where the crown prosecutor can bring evidence proving that the drinking driver's pattern of driving was so bad as to constitute criminal negligence there is a maximum penalty of life imprisonment where the driver caused a death. Clearly this is the most serious maximum penalty available. If the criminally negligent driver caused bodily harm, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. Where driving behaviour is involved the proof which the crown prosecutor must offer in court for the offence of criminal negligence is a proof of very high divergence from normal driving behaviour.

The Code also has an offence of dangerous driving causing death. The level of behaviour required for this offence is less divergence from normal behaviour than the behaviour contemplated for the criminal negligence offence. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death is 14 years imprisonment. For the offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment, the same as for criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

In 1985 Parliament amended the code to introduce the offence of impaired driving causing death. The level of proof of divergent driving behaviour or an impaired ability to operate a vehicle which the crown prosecutor must offer in court is far lower than would be the case in criminal negligence cases. This offence carries a

maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, the same penalty as the offence of dangerous driving causing death.

Parliament also introduced the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm in 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, the same as the offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

For impaired driving and driving while over 80 where no death or bodily harm is involved there are various minimum penalties available. For a first offence the minimum penalty is a fine of $300. For a second offence the minimum penalty is 14 days imprisonment. For a subsequent offence the minimum penalty is 90 days imprisonment.

Impaired driving and driving while over 80 can be prosecuted by summary conviction or by indictment. Where prosecuted by summary conviction procedure, the maximum penalty is six months imprisonment. Where prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. The crown prosecutor's choice to select procedure by indictment over summary conviction procedure would be influenced by such matters as the circumstances of the offence and by the prior record of the drinking driver.

In addition to the minimum and maximum penalties there is a prohibition from driving anywhere in Canada which a judge is required to impose under the Criminal Code. The maximum prohibition from driving anywhere in Canada is three years. For a first offence the minimum period is three months. For a second offence the minimum period is six months. For a subsequent offence the minimum period is one year.

This prohibition period is a criminal law penalty and is separate from any provincial or territorial driver's licence suspension that might follow upon a Criminal Code conviction for impaired driving or for driving while over 80.

I should note that we have before the House some proposed amendments-

[An hon. member]

Fascinating.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to stop briefly. The hon. member from British Columbia says it is fascinating. I know it is fascinating. The point is the hon. member understands what I am getting at. However, there are a number of other hon. members who do not. With the best of intentions, they do not understand how the law is formed, how the law is practised or how the law is administered. I do know that the hon. member does understand that. Therefore I appreciate his response that these things, while somewhat dry, are indeed fascinating.

This prohibition, as I mentioned, is a criminal law penalty and is separate from any provincial or territorial driver's licence suspension which might be extremely severe as well, depending on the province, and rightly so.

I should note that we have before the House-

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Gutter politics.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps talking about gutter politics. I do not understand why my discussion of criminal law provisions should be called gutter politics.

Apparently there have been some differences on the amendments contained in Bill C-17. These amendments are aimed at ensuring that periods where the convicted drinking driver is imprisoned will not be deducted from the period of the prohibition from driving. The approach of various provinces and territories has been different in this matter and the amendments will clarify the approach to be taken.

The penalties in the drinking and driving provisions of the Criminal Code represent a measured approach to the drinking and driving crimes. They are serious penalties. We should be very careful not to confuse challenges in investigating drinking and driving crimes or the heavy onus on the crown in proving drinking and driving crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction with the sufficiency of the penalties we presently have for these crimes.

We should remember that provinces may also use their legislative powers in areas relating to driver licensing and suspension and in the area of highway safety to address the problem of drinking and driving. For example, some provinces have chosen to use a lower blood alcohol concentration limit with regard to the suspension of licences than the criminal law might be able to justify using when creating a criminal offence. Also, some provinces have chosen to use administrative roadside suspensions of driving privileges for drinking drivers which take effect immediately. Such suspensions are not criminal law penalties. Under fundamental principles of criminal law, criminal penalties can follow only upon a conviction for a crime and cannot proceed a conviction.

This should remind us that the criminal justice system and the criminal law, including penalties, are parts of a combined effort to address the problem of impaired driving and driving while over 80. The concerted effort of governments, educators and community groups against drinking and driving can be traced to the implementation of the 1985 amendments to the Criminal Code. In my view the Criminal Code penalties are already serious penalties, containing deterrent value. To increase the criminal penalties would not at this time mean that people would be more deterred from drinking and driving than they are currently with criminal law penalties.

Thankfully, over the years there have been increasing efforts by provincial governments in the area of provincial highway safety legislation and licensing which have contributed toward a solution to drinking and driving crimes. Similarly, education, which really is the true answer, and example in the home contribute to the solution. The alcoholic beverage and hospitality industries have also taken a role in reducing drinking and driving problems.

In my view the present Criminal Code penalty along with the amendments that relate to prohibition in Bill C-17 do provide-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and extend my appreciation to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for bringing this motion forward and for his determination to have this area explored in view of our desire and thousands of Canadians' concerns about the possible reform of our impaired driving laws at the federal level.

The hon. member for Halifax has quite rightly pointed out the maximum penalties for drinking and driving, but that is not the issue. The issue is the courts are not issuing penalties anywhere near the maximums. The concern is that there should be minimum penalties which the courts must deal with.

This House passes legislation in order to tell the courts what to do, which is exactly what this motion is designed to do. At least it brings forward the opportunity for reasoned debate on this very important issue.

There are over 110,000 members in the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization. This organization was born out of the anguish and pain caused by impaired or drunk driving. This organization was formed as a result of the inaction of the federal government. If the government were addressing this issue, this organization would not have any need or basis to lobby, to raise funds and to do what it can to bring this matter to the attention of politicians who seem oblivious to the need to do something in this area.

Last Thursday night I arrived home in Cameras, Alberta. The very next evening a drunk driver ran into a car which was being driven by a father. The mother was in the front passenger seat and their four children were in the back. Both the mother and father were killed while the children were left alive. The oldest is fourteen and the youngest is five. It happened in the area of Armenia which is in my constituency as a result of the boundary change. The family was from the small city of Cameras which has a population of approximately 12,000 to 13,000.

That catastrophe will touch thousands of people in that area. And what is being done about it? Nothing is being done about it at the federal level. Some of the statistics on the subject have been introduced into this debate by my colleagues. From 1983 to 1991, 17,630 people died in Canada in alcohol related crashes and 1.1 million people were injured. In 1992, 14,014 were killed. In 1987, 5.2 million days of employment activity were lost.

Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in 1995: "Every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the country". I hope this is not lost on hon. members.

The justice minister stood in this House and justified Bill C-68 at least in part with the horrific statistic that every six days a woman is shot to death in this country. I would just point out that every six hours someone is killed in this country by an impaired driver. Certainly the House and the Government of Canada should be looking at this issue. It should not simply brush it aside because as the member for Halifax has stated the maximum penalties are what they are; the maximum penalties are not worth the powder to blow them up unless they are utilized. What is the purpose of having a maximum penalty if the courts never consider the maximum penalty or anything near the maximum penalty?

I understand my time has expired. I have appreciated the time to speak and perhaps I will be able to continue later.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Crowfoot will have five minutes when the debate resumes again, if he so wishes.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on the private members' motion, just so that I understand it correctly. The motion is printed on page 21 of today's Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley and thereafter it states that pursuant to Standing Order 86(3) it is jointly seconded by a number of members.

As I read the motion before us, it asks that we vote on the following:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with the seriousness of the offence.

As I understand it, that is all we are being asked to vote on. Am I correct in my submission? Just so that I can understand precisely what the debate is, it is just this motion and nothing else. Is that correct?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. minister will appreciate that being a votable matter the motion will come up for debate again for two further hours. Private Members' Business expired about three minutes ago and I would urge the minister to raise this point the next time the matter comes up in the House.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification on the substance of the motion before the House and whether this is the totality of the motion before the House. Perhaps the Chair or the Clerk could inform the House that the totality of the motion is as I have read it. If there are additional sentences to be added, I would like to know that as well. However, as I understand it, the motion before the House is what I have read and nothing else.

[The Deputy Speaker]

With great respect, I think the minister's question is one of debate.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

It is not a question of debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Private Members' Business has now expired.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might be helpful to the House if the hon. member in whose name the motion stands might very briefly clarify the point of order raised by the minister. In fact, it possibly may even enhance his own motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the member to clarify?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification to the Minister of Health, the motion as it is written is in its entirety and that the government should consider. Let me just add if the motion is passed by the House, the hope is that the government knowing its responsibility will indeed send the motion to the justice committee for the recognition this serious issue deserves. That is the intent of the motion.

Ways And Means

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for Minister of Finance]

moved that a ways a means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table on Wednesday, November 20, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This motion is not debatable.