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.