Debates of March 19th, 1996

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The deferral is to 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we thought the division was deferred until after government orders. I think that means 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We agree. The deferral is going to be until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.

Criminal Code

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

moved that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to lead off debate on my private member's Bill C-201. This bill deals with a very serious and tragic issue, impaired driving. There are people who choose to drink and drive and as a result kill people in this country. This is senseless tragedy that occurs every day far too often.

The bill deals with sentencing and punishment for those who choose to drink and drive and as a result of their choices kill. The bill will amend section 255(3) of the Criminal Code and will impose a seven-year minimum sentence on those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Bill C-201 has its origins in my home city of Prince George, B.C. In September 1995 David Kevin Johnson chose to drink to the point of utter intoxication and then chose to drive despite his condition. He chose to get into his vehicle and drive. The result was that he recklessly sped through a red light causing a devastating collision in an intersection only blocks from my own home.

The collision killed three members of the Ciccone family, residents of Prince George. Jim Ciccone, his son Rylan and his daughter Emma lost their lives in September because of the completely irresponsible actions of a man who was driving a truck after he had made the choice to drink.

Mr. Johnson was arrested and charged with three counts of impaired driving causing death plus one count of leaving the scene of an accident. Mr. Johnson knew what he did. He knew the tragedy he caused. He fled the scene of the accident.

I witnessed the aftermath of that accident. I witnessed the tragedy and I followed the case as it went through the courts, through the media and other sources. I waited expectantly for Mr. Johnson's sentence with the belief that justice would be done and with the belief that the seriousness of this crime would be reflected in the sentence handed to David Kevin Johnson.

I waited, but these expectations were dashed on December 22, 1995. On that day David Kevin Johnson, who chose to drink, who chose to get into his automobile and as a result killed three members of a family, was given a three and a half year sentence because the judge said he was bound by precedents which resulted because over time cases had been heard in which defence lawyers had continually chipped away at what was once an appropriate sentence for this crime.

I was outraged that evening when I heard the sentence on the news. Citizens in my community of Prince George were outraged as well, and rightly so.

Public demonstration followed. Later that week there was a demonstration in front of the provincial courthouse. Over 300 people turned out to express their rage, their sense of bewilderment with the failure of the justice system to appropriately deal with this serious crime. People were enraged that such a light sentence could even be considered for such a devastating crime.

The citizens of Prince George were concerned and bewildered about the state of our justice system. Specifically they were concerned about sentencing procedures and practices. Many wondered what could be done to prevent another lenient sentence such as this in the future.

They came to me with their concerns and I heard them. In their view David Kevin Johnson was sentenced to one year for every life he took; one year. To them and to the majority of Canadians, and I sincerely hope to the members of the House, this is simply unacceptable punishment.

Accordingly I looked at the Criminal Code to determine exactly what I could do to change this. What could I do to enhance deterrence and ensure the penalty for this terrible crime would be suitable? My efforts led to the presentation of Bill C-201.

We did a lot of research into alcohol related fatalities and the fact was disclosed that sentencing is extremely lenient when it comes to impaired driving causing death. It is tragically lenient. Statistics show that the average sentence is in the one to four-year range even though the latitude a judge has is from zero to fourteen years. At one time sentences were in the higher range of that latitude. Now because of the system and the way defence lawyers have chipped away at appropriate sentencing, it sits in the very low range of that latitude.

The precendents in law today in no way reflect the seriousness, the tragedy of someone who chooses to drink and drive and who kills a family member, a friend, a neighbour, a Canadian on our highways. Surely life is more valuable.

Sentences handed down today in the courts for this crime, sentences for taking a human life, are not adequate. Drivers are given sentences that are equivalent to those for defamatory libel, possessing a forged passport or dealing in counterfeit money. Surely we must place a greater emphasis on human life. Surely we must do whatever we can to deter people from driving while impaired and killing people. Surely that is the least we can do. That is the purpose of Bill C-201.

I sincerely hope all members of the House share with me the tragedy of this crime. The bill seeks to place a higher standard on life. It places impaired drivers on notice that if they take a life because of the choice they have made, they will be subject to serious jail terms.

The lenient sentences that are given out today by the courts of Canada appear to remove the responsibility from the impaired driver who kills. It is as though being impaired allows the individual off the hook, should he or she drive while drunk and kill someone. I argue that this is wrong.

No one forces an individual to become impaired. No one can successfully argue that by any circumstance they are then forced to drive. We are talking about choices. Bill C-201 will hold impaired drivers who kill others responsible for their actions. I remind the House these irresponsible acts are going on all the time. They must stop.

There are some statistics which hon. members will find shocking. In 1994, 87,878 people were charged with the impaired operation of a car, a boat or a plane. It is important to remember this number represents only the people who were caught and arrested. It is estimated that it takes between 200 and 2,000 repetitions of impaired driving to make a single arrest. That means we have no idea of the number of people who are out there today behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired. They can kill.

The true number of impaired drivers will always remain unknown. If the true number were known, I believe there would be a massive outcry, far more than what we are witnessing today, from the people of Canada. If we knew the number of impaired drivers that were out on the streets as we speak, there might be a cry for prohibition, it is so massive. While prohibition is not in the cards, deterrence certainly is.

From the time we woke up this morning until the time we go to bed tonight, four families in Canada will be visited by police officers to be told that a member of their family has been killed by an impaired driver. Think about it. It happened yesterday. It is happening today. It will happen tomorrow and every day. That is the tragedy of impaired driving.

We never stop to think about it until it affects us, until we witness an accident, until a family member, a friend or a neighbour is touched by impaired driving. Who in the House has not been touched in some way? Who in this House has not had a family member, a neighbour, a friend or an associate touched by impaired driving? I would hazard to say there are very few in this House today.

There has been a 40 per cent reduction in impaired driving charges over the last 10 years which can be directly attributed to the harsher way we have been dealing with impaired drivers. Deterrence does work when it comes to impaired driving.

I have talked to many people who previously used to drink and drive who now take taxis or ask friends who have not been drinking to drive them home. I asked them why they changed their habits. Their answer was not that they did not feel capable of driving home but that they were afraid of being stopped by the police and charged. That is clear evidence that deterrence is a factor in reducing impaired driving and in dealing with drivers who drink.

More than ever, drivers are aware of society's contempt for impaired driving and they are aware of how an impaired driving conviction can ruin their chances of ever driving a car again. Nevertheless, as I noted earlier, there remains an untold number of people who continue to drink and drive.

Bill C-201 is targeted at those individuals. By imposing a minimum sentence, this bill will send an extremely strong message that the possible lethal consequences of impaired driving will not be tolerated in this country. The best thing we can do in Canada through this House is to make our impaired driving laws the toughest laws in the entire world. I know it may never get done but by God I will try.

I also put through Motion No. 78 which would see the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code strengthened with respect to impaired driving. This bill and the companion motion will provide a deterrent to keep impaired drivers off our streets, off our highways and out of our neighbourhoods.

There is no question that deterrence is needed. Impaired driving is the most frequent offence dealt with in the courts today. When we consider that impaired driving charges are dismissed or reduced in 40 per cent of the cases, we know that deterrence works and must begin to play a much larger role.

In Ontario impaired charges rose 40 per cent between December 1994 and January 1995. In 1993 in that same province, 565 of 1,315 auto fatalities were alcohol related. In 1994 a total of 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving in Canada. This number is three times higher than the number of people murdered in the entire country in 1994 but the result is the same as murder. Yet impaired drivers who have chosen to get into a vehicle are simply given a slap on the wrist and the result could be that someone is dead as a result of their actions.

I have not talked about the significant financial costs of impaired driving. This is something we have to consider as well. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that it costs $100 million annually to deal with impaired driving injuries. Our courts spend the

majority of their time on impaired driving cases. We all know the cost of our court system today. We can quote precise figures when we speak of financial costs. That is easy. We have statistics. However, there is no way of measuring the real human cost when it comes to fatalities as a result of this action.

Of course there is the victim but there are also the victim's family and friends. They are left behind to wonder what they could have done to prevent the tragedy: "Should I have told my friend, my daughter, my husband or my wife to come home earlier, to not go out that night?" Tragically, it is the human cost.

This bill has the support of many organizations including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Students Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, Young Drivers of Canada, Families and Friends Against Drunk Driving and Margaret Rywak, chair of the Nepean Committee Against Impaired Driving.

This is an issue which concerns all Canadians. I believe Bill C-201 will act as a deterrent and will more properly reflect the seriousness of the crime of impaired driving causing death. I ask all members of the House to understand the seriousness of the tragedy we are talking about and to support this bill.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, some people share the perception that Canada is soft on impaired drivers, that our laws are weak, that our enforcement is inadequate and that our judiciary is unwilling to impose harsh sentences.

No one will deny the tragic consequences of impaired driving. Certainly, as the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley indicated, there is hardly anyone who has not been touched or who does not know of an instance of an impaired driving tragedy striking in their community or among their family or friends.

When such a tragedy occurs we should focus on the responsible party, on his or her actions, not necessarily on the law. The assumption is always the same, that a tougher law with a more severe penalty would have deterred the driver from drinking and averted the tragedy. This is not the case.

The causes of impaired driving are complex and the solutions to this serious social problem are not simple. One cannot merely increase the harshness of penalties for offenders and expect this alone will stop people from drinking and driving. Impaired drivers are not a homogeneous group. A variety of measures are needed. For example, while fines or jail sentences may deter some people, alcohol dependent persons may be less susceptible to deterrents when sanctions are severe. Treatment might be a more effective approach in such cases.

In the course of the government's review of the problem of impaired driving in the mid-1980s the experiences and research of many countries were examined. All the evidence suggests that legislative amendments must be considered in the broader context of an overall legislative and prevention strategy to deal with the problem of impaired driving. No single measure can provide the answer.

Legal sanctions for example can only provide a partial solution. Increased law enforcement which accordingly augments the perceived risk of apprehension and punishment may have a greater deterrent effect than increased penalties.

Research conducted since 1985 indicates that changing the prevalent social acceptability of drinking and driving has been a more effective preventive measure than any changes in the law or the degree to which it has been enforced.

While there has been a significant reduction in impaired driving since 1980, I know that impaired driving continues to be a problem in Canada. That problem can be attributed largely to a group of high risk drivers who believe themselves to be above the law and immune to tragedy, disaster or detection.

The great majority of Canadian drivers appreciate the risks to themselves and to public safety and have embraced the message both federal and provincial governments continue to promote, that drinking and driving is a serious crime and a serious social problem.

Changing the law and the severity of the penalties is not a silver bullet. It is not the magic solution that will solve all our problems in dealing with impaired driving.

I do not mean to suggest the law does not have an impact on impaired drivers. Canada has in place strict laws and tough penalties. The Criminal Code comprehensively addresses a variety of impaired driving offences and sets out a range of punishments in accordance with the severity of the offence.

Moreover, the impaired driving provisions provide one of the very few examples in the Criminal Code where a minimum sentence is provided. The following minimum punishments are provided for the offences of impaired driving, driving over .08 and refusal to provide a breath or blood sample. For the first offence the fine is $300; for the second offence, imprisonment for 14 days; for each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a minimum of 90 days.

Maximum punishments are also prescribed. Where the offence is punishable by summary conviction the maximum punishment is

six months imprisonment. For indictable offences, the maximum term of imprisonment is five years.

The minimum punishment for a second conviction is 14 days imprisonment and a mandatory driving prohibition of 6 months. A person convicted of a third or subsequent impaired driving offence, driving over .08 or refusal would be subject to a minimum penalty of 90 days imprisonment and up to six months on summary conviction or five years on indictment and a mandatory prohibition for driving for a minimum of one year and up to three years.

The Criminal code also provides that upon conviction for an impaired driving offence, a mandatory prohibition from driving will be imposed. For the first offence, a minimum of three months is imposed. For the second offence, six months is imposed and for subsequent offences, a minimum of one year is imposed.

Upon conviction for impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, the prohibition from driving may be up 10 years. These prohibitions are in addition to any provincial licence suspensions which may be imposed in accordance with provincial highway traffic legislation.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm is an indictable offence and carries a maximum of 10 years in prison and a maximum 10-year prohibition from driving and an unlimited fine. The offence of impaired driving causing death carries a 14-year maximum term of imprisonment and a 10-year maximum prohibition from driving and an unlimited fine.

The penalty imposed on a person in respect of an accident in which death or serious bodily harm has occurred is based on fault. In other words, the impaired driving must be the cause of the bodily harm or death, and therefore the penalty should be proportional to the seriousness of the act that caused the death or bodily harm. This is why there is no mandatory minimum sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

The bill before the House today would amend subsection 253(3) of the code to provide a minimum of seven years imprisonment and would retain the present maximum of 14 years imprisonment.

I cannot support such an amendment. I applaud, however, the hon. member's intention to raise awareness about the tragedies caused by impaired driving and to further deter such criminal behaviour. A minimum sentence will not in my view accomplish this. It is inconsistent with the sentencing principles and the philosophy within the Criminal Code.

Moreover, there is a great danger that the minimum sentence proposed will become the ceiling rather than the floor and all sentences for impaired driving causing death will hover around seven years rather than permitting judges to properly exercise their discretion and frame the sentence to address the severity of the crime, with the offender's impaired driving record and countless other factors taken into account in sentencing.

Upon proclamation of the sentencing bill, Bill C-41, passed by the House less than a year ago, the Criminal Code will include a statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing. As a fundamental principle, a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

In addition to this fundamental principle, the Criminal Code will set out additional principles which will apply in the sentencing of offenders convicted of any code offence including impaired driving offences.

These principles include that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances in order to promote consistency of sentences that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances be considered.

The code will also set out the purpose of sentencing. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute along with crime prevention initiatives to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society where necessary; to assist in rehabilitation of offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to the victims or to the community; to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

With these principles entrenched in the Criminal Code we should not need to spell out for judges the sentences that must be imposed in particular circumstances. We have given them the guidance to exercise their discretion.

Moreover, we should not support piecemeal amendments to the Criminal Code. When the government proposes code amendments after comprehensive study and consultation, we are often criticized for singling out certain provisions for amendment rather than undertaking more fundamental reforms.

The amendment proposed in Bill C-201 seeks to impose a minimum penalty on a single provision of the code, impaired driving causing death. No similar amendments are proposed for other offences, for example impaired driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, or dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death. Therefore I cannot support the proposed amendment.

I have a letter from Mothers Against Drunk Driving giving six reasons why the bill ought not to be supported. I commend this correspondence to hon. members who may feel otherwise.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our highways are often the scene of slaughter. Several thousands of people are injured in highway accidents and many of them die. Drinking and driving is a terrible thing and I condemn those who dare to get behind the wheel of a car in an impaired state. After all, drunk driving is a criminal offence.

That being said, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley is today proposing a bill that is supposed to be a solution to the problem of drinking and driving, to the deaths caused by drunk drivers. Bill C-201 would amend the existing section 255 of the Criminal Code by providing for a minimum prison term of seven years for any person who causes the death of another person while impaired and having an alcohol reading over the legal limit. It is important to note that anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death is already liable to fourteen years' imprisonment and, in the case of criminal negligence causing death, to a life sentence.

At first glance, it would seem like a nice idea to support such a bill. However, when we look at the possible consequences of such an amendment to the Criminal Code, we are forced to conclude that this is the wrong remedy. In looking for a solution to the problem, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley is getting dangerously close to repression.

The penalty he is proposing is typical of his party's mentality: government by force. One of the favourite phrases of the Reform Party is: "Lock them up and throw away the key!" To hear them, every day brings a new crisis. The real crisis is misinformation and it has been with us since the Reform Party was elected. Its members peddle dubious ideas about criminality in the country, doctor statistics and start people worrying. The individual cases they tell us about do not reflect the reality around us. They exploit tragic situations to score make cheap political points.

The Reform Party grabs every opportunity to get more media exposure. They feel that by taking up the time of this House, they will project the image of a party that offers pragmatic solutions to the problems of our society.

They want to restore capital punishment for adults and teenagers. They want minimum sentences for repeat offenders, whatever their offences. They want to lower the age of adolescence from 12 to 10 years. They do not want 16-year olds to have the right to vote, but they want them treated as adults should they commit an offence. There are many preposterous examples. We only have to look at the Order Paper to realize that the Reform Party is getting desperate.

I expect one of them in the near future to propose that our child care centres be turned into detention centres for prejuveniles, since early signs of delinquent behaviour can be detected in kindergarten.

Bill C-201 is a good example of their lack of vision. By incarcerating for a minimum of seven years those convicted of impaired driving causing death, Reformers think that they will eliminate the endemic problem of drunk driving. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem of drunk driving can only be solved if all levels of government focus on prevention and education.

In this regard, it is important to point out that impaired driving offences continue to decline year after year. The number of people charged with impaired driving has been falling every year since 1985. This annual reduction is around 6 per cent. This drop is, I think, mostly attributable to the campaigns against drunk driving being waged throughout Quebec and Canada. These awareness campaigns have helped people understand that drinking and driving is socially unacceptable. It must also be noted that road checks do a lot to deter people from drinking and driving.

On the other hand, I seriously question the deterrent effect of increasing the minimum sentence. I would like to point out that a working paper prepared by the justice department on minimum penalties in general concluded that, on the whole, the public was not aware of which offences carry the minimum mandatory penalty.

The same document also shows that, as a disincentive, minimum mandatory penalties have very little impact on whether or not the offence for which a more severe penalty is considered will be committed. Robbery is a case in point. Worse yet, juries are said to be less inclined to return a guilty verdict when they know that the offence the accused is charges with carries the minimum mandatory penalty.

This means that the bill put forward by the Reform Party member will do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do. If indeed juries are less inclined to return guilty verdicts in such circumstances, they will necessarily acquit the accused, who will then be free as a bird. Ironically, in his attempt to put more people behind bars, the hon. member may end up facilitating their acquittal.

On the other hand, if convictions are secured, another serious problem will arise. Imposing a minimum mandatory penalty will make the prison population increase substantially. The hon. member seems to believe naively that detention centres will be able to accommodate this larger number of inmates. He is completely out of touch with the reality.

There is no way of knowing what impact his bill will have on the number of convictions that could result from the application of this provision. Let us not forget that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the hon. member intends to increase the minimum

penalty, he can expect the prison population to increase dramatically and the present infrastructure to fail to accommodate yet more inmates. Also, any increase in prison population will involve an increase in related costs.

Will the hon. member tell this House, in all honesty, how much his bill will cost, if passed, given that, in 1992-93, the average annual cost to keep an inmate in a maximum security facility was $56,000, and $110,000 in a medium security facility.

This money should be spent wisely. If money has to be taken out of the public purse, let it be used on eduction and prevention. Especially since prevention and education always come at a lesser price, in terms of both money and lives.

In conclusion, as regards the argument that judges tend to be too lenient regarding these offences, I refer hon. members to the decision made in March 1995 by the Quebec court of appeal in the Houle vs. Regina case.

The individual pleaded guilty to charges of criminal negligence causing the death of a person, criminal negligence causing bodily harm to four people, and driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol level higher than the authorized limit.

In order to make a proper decision, Justice Delisle reviewed 158 decisions made by various courts of appeal in Canada between 1985 and 1995 regarding similar cases. He refused to reduce the sentence imposed, except to take into account the period of preventive detention. Marc-André Houle received the following concurrent sentences: five years in prison and driver's licence suspended for eight years for criminal negligence causing death; three years in prison and licence suspended for five years for criminal negligence causing bodily harm; one year in prison and licence suspended for six months for driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the authorized limit. The fact is that courts do apply the principles of sentencing with rigour. I continue to trust our courts of justice. Again, demagogy has no place in criminal law.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just before I start I would like to mention that the Liberal member spoke about all these laws on the books and how they were being given out as sentences and penalties. The whole reason we are here today is because these things are not happening. There are thousands of cases where they are not receiving penalties and not even being incarcerated. It is a very serious matter and I really hate hearing someone misquote the facts when so many people have been hurt.

Regarding the Bloc member who just spoke, her disparaging comments about the Reform were not too pleasant to listen to, but apart from that was her charge on the cost of incarceration. What about the cost to all of the people who are hurt by impaired drivers? Let us get realistic here. I am really tired of the misconceptions uttered by members in this House who should really be committed to honesty at all times.

Bill C-201 deals with amending the Criminal Code to impose a seven year minimum sentence for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member speaking is raising a question about the honesty of hon. members. There have been-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I take the intervention from the hon. parliamentary secretary very seriously, but respectfully he is engaging in debate.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be allowed the time I need to finish my speech.

At present, section 255 of the Criminal Code provides a 14-year maximum penalty for this offence causing death. However, the type of sentencing we have seen in Canada has been six months, one year, two years and, in many cases, no incarceration at all.

Bill C-201 is placed before the House by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. The amendment proposed by the bill would impose a seven-year minimum sentence in section 255, up to a maximum of 14 years.

Is this amendment needed? Do we have a serious problem in Canada with impaired drivers causing death?

Perhaps at this time I should provide the House with some shocking facts. A portion of these facts were already given to the House by my friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, but they are so serious we should hear them again. Apparently members of the House do not believe them, do not think they are worth listening to or do not think they are important enough for us to do anything about them. That, to me, is really shocking.

In 1994 over 87,000 people were charged with the impaired operation of a car, a boat or a plane. Notice that trains are not included. We know that impaired train operators have caused death in North America.

In 1994 over 1,000 people were killed as a result of impaired driving. That is three times higher than the number of people who were murdered.

Ninety per cent of impaired drivers are primarily responsible for the fatal crashes in which they are involved.

Out of 1,315 auto fatalities in 1993 in Ontario, 565 were alcohol related.

In answer to those in the legal profession who try to create sympathy for the impaired driver by saying that he or she is a law-abiding citizen, that in itself is a contradiction of terms. Or they say that it is a once in a lifetime error in judgement or that they do not usually drink.

To judges, who must pass sentences, here are the myths. Myth: The impaired driver is a law-abiding citizen. Fact: Forty per cent to 70 per cent have had prior alcohol related offences.

Myth: The impaired offence represented an isolated error in judgment. Fact: It takes 200 to 2,000 repetitions of impaired driving to produce one arrest.

Myth: Impaired drivers are non-problematic social drinkers. Fact: As high as 85 per cent of first offenders have had problems with alcohol.

Myth: Remedial education could alter an individual's decision making related to impaired driving. Fact: Remedial education by itself is not an effective intervention. It depends on if the impaired driver has a drinking problem and what form that remedial education took. If an alcohol problem is present, then an alcohol remedy is necessary. I would hope that any program in remedial education would involve the AA philosophy, a well recognized authority in successfully dealing with this illness.

Judges and members of the legal profession need education on alcoholism.

We had a victims' rally in B.C. hosted by my fellow Reform MP from Fraser Valley West. Over 2,000 concerned Canadians were there.

The victim speaking from my riding was Betty Cyr. Betty and her husband Gary lost their daughter Sherry to a drunk driver. Others in my riding could have spoken as well in memory of their loved ones who are now dead because of drunk drivers.

I want to share a letter with the House from one such parent, Kate Verhulst, who lost her daughter to a drunk driver. It reads:

On August 10, 1995, my daughter Cindy Verhulst was travelling home with two friends from seeing the fireworks in Vancouver. At the corner of Seventh Avenue and Hurd Street, an impaired driver plowed into the car Cindy was a passenger in. We know that the impaired driver, Geoffrey deJong, had seven roadside suspensions prior to this crash. He was speeding, ran the light and was in the wrong lane. My daughter didn't have a chance. On August 14, 1995, Cindy died surrounded by her heartbroken family, especially her twin sister Sharleen who held her to the very end.

Geoffrey deJong is still drinking and driving. He has been charged with impaired driving causing death one count, impaired driving causing injury two counts, dangerous driving causing death one count, dangerous driving causing injury two counts, and driving over .08-He did not lose his driver's licence. The preliminary hearing will be June 27, 1996, the trial will be set for late 1997 or early 1998. In the meantime he has the opportunity to kill again. We know that even if he is found guilty on all charges, if the Prosecutor does not plea bargain-

-and plea bargaining is one of the major problems-

-he will serve in actual jail time approximately six months. At present he is still an alleged drunk driver, yet my daughter is not allegedly dead. If he had shot her or stabbed her, this case would be treated as a serious crime, would she be more dead? One of the surgeons at Vancouver Hospital told me that Cindy would have had a better chance against a gun.

I would like to know why the court process is so slow, and why the man who killed my daughter has all the rights and freedoms he robbed her of. I would like to know why this is the only crime that is referred to as an accident. How can a person accidentally commit a crime? I would like to know why the courts treat these cases so lightly. I would like to know how many people deJong will kill before he is stopped. I would like to know why he was given seven road-side suspensions. Isn't it obvious that he was and still is a habitual impaired driver? I think he is a dangerous offender, in that he continues to commit the very crime that killed my daughter.

We need tougher laws against drunk/dangerous drivers, and tougher enforcement of these laws. There should be a minimum sentence required that judges have to adhere to. Impaired/dangerous drivers will injure and kill more people than all the guns, knives and other weapons put together. We have swifter justice for parking violations. What will it take to implement the changes needed?

Kate Verhulst.

I agree with Cindy's mother. There should be a minimum sentence to which judges must adhere. My hon. colleague's Bill C-201 would do just that. I believe it is impossible for any of us here today to know how all-consuming is the distress, hopelessness, frustration that a victim must live through for the rest of their lives when a loved one is taken from them, in this case at the hands of a drunk driver.

Why should the drunk driver or the impaired driver not be held responsible for his or her actions? Because we must all be held accountable for what we do.

Unfortunately past governments were responsible for telling Canadians they deserved everything and did not have to pull their weight or help others or be responsible. The charter of rights and freedoms is responsible for many court actions. Minority groups, anyone who feels hard done by, can go to court claiming hardship in one way or another against them. That charter is for people who continually think me, me, me.

One can initiate court action if the opposite sex whistles at you, if a prisoner slips and falls while playing racquetball in prison, if a restaurant serves coffee that is too hot and a customer spills it, if a citizen drinks too much and then dives into unknown waters. It is always the fault of someone else. No one has to be responsible for his or her actions any more in our country.

We used to be. There was a time in Canada when parents taught their children to stand on their own two feet, respect others and contribute to your country. I believe the charter must be amended to read the charter of rights, freedoms and responsibilities.

Anyone who drinks and drives has a choice. It is a choice they make to drink. It is a choice they make to drive. What choice did the victim have? None. Absolutely none.

If the statistics are to be believed many who drive under the influence of alcohol may have a drinking problem. I state here in this House alcoholism is a disease, not an excuse. Because we are sick does not mean we are no longer responsible for our actions. It is time lawyers and judges, those representing the law and the rights of Canadians, realize everyone must be held accountable for his or her actions.

Only if we as a society insist on this response will we begin to reverse those terrible statistics that I read earlier. First, the impaired driver must receive a sentence that is in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. When we kill others we do not make excuses. We have to be held accountable. A minimum sentence of seven years for impaired driving causing death removes the drunk driver from our roads and if he or she has a drinking problem it gives them ample time to make a serious decision regarding the terrible consequences of their actions.

There are AA programs in prisons-volunteers will come in on a regular basis-run by recovered alcoholics who volunteer their time. These men and women are the experts. It does not cost the taxpayer anything extra. AA has a proven track record for alcoholics who admit they have a problem and are willing to deal with it.

I ask the members of the House, please consider Bill C-201. Let us know longer make excuses, blame others for our actions or kill with no penalty.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in complete support of Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired).

I was honoured to co-sponsor this bill along with several of my Liberal colleagues. I have always been of the firm conviction that if it is a good idea I will support it.

The fact that this bill was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley of the Reform Party, supposedly my opponent, has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Bill C-201 is a good bill, worthy of approval by all Canadians and by all political parties.

As members have mentioned, the issue of drunk driving causing death is one of great concern to Canadians. By imposing a minimum sentence of seven years for impaired driving causing death and changing section 255(3) of the Criminal Code, this bill will address these concerns.

Currently there is a 14 year maximum sentence available but how often is that imposed? It is similar to our old gun laws, some of the toughest in the world, but never enforced by a lenient justice system.

I highlight the fact that this bill was supported not only by members of all parties, but even more important by organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Students Against Drunk Driving. I had the privilege of meeting Jane Meldrum, the president of MADD Canada, at the news conference announcing this bill. I can fully appreciate and sympathize with her commitment, duty and obligation to raising public awareness on the issue.

The current section in the Criminal Code allows a maximum sentence of 14 years for this horrible crime but that is rarely, if ever, imposed by the courts. Indeed, most sentences are for one or two years even with a previous conviction. That is a joke. Bill C-201 will change that and will better reflect the concern and apprehension of Canadians.

I know we are all pleased that since 1993 the rate of persons charged with the impaired operation of a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft per 100,000 persons 16 years and over has decreased 7 per cent. It is the 11th straight year of a decrease. But the age of the group with the highest rate of charges was that between 25 and 40 years. The single largest group charged was the 30 to 34 age group. Obviously we must do a better job in educating our young people while still in high school.

The number of drinking and driving fatalities have decreased over the years due to the improvement of general road safety, lower speed limits, increased enforcement and improved vehicle safety such as airbags. However, these facts do not help the families tragically torn apart by a drunk driver.

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

It should be noted that sections of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired driving were amended in 1985. Basically all punishments were increased and several new offences were introduced. The new offences were impaired operation causing death and impaired operation causing bodily harm. While it is rare for me to do so, I congratulate the former Conservative government for these reforms.

All the punishments however, including the maximum 14 year sentence for drunk driving causing death, are only guidelines. Judges are free to set any sentence. For example, in Prince Edward

Island almost all persons convicted of drunk driving are sent to jail as opposed to Quebec where probation is the leading sentence.

The U.S. transportation research board has suggested a tough crackdown on repeat drunk drivers which would include impounding vehicles and police stake outs of people convicted of DUI. The board's committee said current policies in Canada have been effective in discouraging most people from drinking and driving, but there remains a group of persistent drinking 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.

There was an interesting and revealing study published by the New England Journal of Medicine in August 1994 entitled: ``The risk of dying in alcohol related automobile crashes among habitual drunk drivers''. It speculated that persons arrested for drunk driving may be at an increased risk for death in the future in an alcohol related car crash and that people who drive while intoxicated do so repeatedly. The deaths of drivers in those types of accidents were studied over a 10 year period in North Carolina.

The scientists linked about 3,000 drivers to their driver history files. Their conclusions are common sense but revealing nonetheless. Their 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 one to 34 years of age. 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.

The New England Journal of Medicine report suggests that drivers who die or cause death in alcohol related crashes are more likely than other drivers to have been arrested previously for drunk driving. As well, they tried to determine whether the association with death in a drunk crash increases with the number of arrests for drunk driving.

The U.S. study proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the strength of association between arrests for driving while impaired and alcohol related deaths increased dramatically as the number of arrests increased from one to two or more.

The study had a number of strengths including the completeness with which alcohol level information was collected and reported to the North Carolina medical examiner system. I want to quote from the study: "The likelihood that an alcohol impaired driver will be arrested is between 1 in 250 and 1 in 2,000. Therefore, strategies to combat drunk driving must reach beyond the drivers who have already been arrested. Our results suggest that effective intervention when drunk drivers are arrested could reduce the number of alcohol related deaths. Since the association between arrests for driving while impaired and deaths increases substantially with the number of arrests, it is important to intervene after the first arrest. Such an arrest may thus present an important opportunity to decrease the risk of death from a future alcohol related crash".

I can offer no better reason to support Bill C-201 and its stronger sentences than the August 1994 report of the highly respected and honoured New England Journal of Medicine with its stellar reputation for integrity and principles.

There are similar figures available for Canada. In 1994 in this country 87,838 people were charged with impaired operation of a car, boat or plane, and 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving, three times higher than murder. Ninety per cent of impaired drivers are primarily responsible for the fatal crashes in which they are involved. Out of 1,315 auto fatalities in 1993 in Ontario, 565 were alcohol related.

Bill C-201 is worthy of support by all members of the House. We are here to represent our constituents and I firmly conclude that a majority of Canadians would support this bill and the measures within. It is a votable bill and I will certainly be voting in favour of it because it is a good proposal and partisan politics have no place in private members' business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week the human resources development minister responsible for the unemployment insurance fund said some pretty incredible things that greatly concerned me. I am concerned because I think the spoken words underline a complete misunderstanding of the needs of Canadians and a misunderstanding of his own ministerial responsibilities.

In the House of Commons the minister responded to a question I asked him by accusing union leaders of forcing ordinary people into the streets of New Brunswick with "all kinds of false and erroneous information to exploit them". In answer to another question he said that union leaders should "stop exploiting vulnerable people in our society". I wonder who is exploiting whom.

The people of New Brunswick have had a lot to say about the changes being forced upon them by this government, not the least of which have been the changes to the unemployment insurance fund. We all know that the fund itself is in a surplus position because the government has cut the benefits and restricted eligibility. Where some 70 per cent of the unemployed used to receive benefits, now only some 40 per cent are eligible. At a time of high unemployment, one would expect the insurance fund to be in a deficit but this government is forcing the surplus position and that can only be achieved by exploiting the people who need it the most.

Perhaps the minister has not noticed but the people of New Brunswick and the people of other parts of Canada have noticed and they do not like what they see. Perhaps the minister has not noticed or perhaps he does not care, but ordinary, real people do not go out on to the streets, take up placards and demonstrate against their government unless they are frustrated and angry.

Those are words that accurately describe the feelings of the people who are out on the streets of New Brunswick. They are frustrated and they are angry at the changes being forced upon them. They are also the ones who are driving the demonstrations. They are demanding that their leaders do something about the issue.

Perhaps the minister has not noticed but the democratically elected leaders and those who work for them have recognized this frustration, this anger and this need for social programming that the ordinary, real citizens of New Brunswick and elsewhere have expressed.

The minister has chosen to attack his opponents instead of their ideas possibly because he has no real response to those ideas. If cutting the program and building a surplus in the fund to eventually apply against the national debt is the government's goal, then it is doing fine. However, if it is working with people through the difficult times between jobs or working with the economy to create the jobs needed to put people back to work, then it has failed miserably and it must be held accountable.

When the minister is asked to be accountable, he responds by questioning the credentials of those who express their concerns. When the head of the Canadian Labour Congress asks to be heard and asks for a meeting, the minister says: "I would not speak to Bob White if he was standing in the middle of the Sahara Desert with a glass of cold water and I had been there riding a camel for two weeks and was dry as a bone". What kind of an insulting comment is that?

Certainly the minister has a responsibility to meet with and discuss the important issues of his department with the people who are democratically elected to represent the people most affected by the decisions of that department.

I remain concerned that the minister has failed to understand that the real people of New Brunswick and other parts of Canada who are unemployed but want to work are simply looking for work. In the absence of work, they want to know that the insurance program they support will be there to support them. When the large profitable corporations are shedding jobs and the federal government is not there to protect them, they are going to turn to their other representatives for help.

I ask the minister to reconsider his comments and tell us that he will work to design an employment insurance program that benefits, not penalizes, those whose only real goal is to find and maintain a decent job.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in having the opportunity to comment today.

As a unionist myself, one of the problems I encounter on a regular basis is which hat does Bob White really wear? Does he wear the hat of the CLC or does he wear the hat of the NDP? That is probably one of the reasons union movements in Canada today are in such disrepair and have so little time for governments to listen to them. We do not really know whether they are part of the NDP movement or part of the real union movement, which people are looking for.

The issue of the union's lack of interest and solutions was brought up again today in committee. One of the affiliates of the CLC made a presentation of the ideas the member talks about. The conclusion of the ideas was to scrap the bill.

From my experience when I organized anything that took place in the union movement, the whole objective was to make sure we had our voice heard, that we had recommendations and ideas to put forward. From there we would want to meet with somebody.

What Mr. White has done, and I agree with the minister, is he has not given us any ideas to this point. He is just interested in playing politics on the backs of a lot of people who are very concerned about the EI changes.

If the member wanted to be helpful he would say to his friend Bob White, the executive of the NDP, that he should give us some ideas and some recommendations, come to the committee with them instead of what we heard this morning from one of their affiliates to simply scrap the bill. Anybody in their right mind knows that is not any idea or recommendation. A lot of Canadians have had a problem with the CLC for a long time. Those of us in the

union movement can say we are tired and are not willing any longer to put up with people like Bob White.

I recommend to the member and I say to the minister that he should condone those individuals. He should not stop saying the things he says because there are a lot of people like us out there who believe Bob White is doing a disservice to working men and women.

We will be having the CLC come forward in the next couple of weeks to make recommendations. I hope they are recommendations, not just political rhetoric, which is what we heard so far.

If the member thought the orchestrated demonstrations by union leaders in Atlantic Canada were being helpful and that they would make changes based on that, he should look at what happened in other jurisdictions as far as the union movement is concerned.

Nobody is paying any attention to labour because of comments like that and comments by Bob White. I hope they will change that approach and that we get back to doing business in the labour movement with governments no matter which stripe they represent.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services concerning the relocation of Revenue Canada offices from Hull to Ottawa.

In her attempt to respond, the minister cast some doubt on the transparency of the process in admitting that every effort was being made by her department to have an open and fair process in the call for tenders.

The minister offers us no guarantee that would allow us to be sure all efforts have been expended to ensure transparency and equity in the process. Moreover, does this not make this government appear to the public to be the one with the least transparency?

Once again, the Liberal government has done nothing to restore public confidence. It is now a known fact that it has not been successful in curbing the lobbyists. Yet, when the Liberals were the opposition, they were tearing their hair out over transparency. The famous red book is getting a paler and paler shade of red as more and more promises are not kept.

This is a striking example of a policy with a double standard. How can the minister state that the processes are open and equitable? Why do Quebec property owners have to get tied up in government red tape, while Ontario landlords do not?

A number of questions come to mind. Could barefaced patronage be involved? Is somebody getting paid back for a favour?

A relocation such as this, involving 800 federal employees, is a luxury we could easily do without at this time. Quebec business owners have the same rights as those in Ontario. In particular, they have the right to receive the same treatment as their neighbours in Ontario.

If the minister says that the process put in place by her government for awarding accommodation is open and transparent and that it is intended to ensure equal access to all regions and to all businesses across the country, then she should suit the action to the word. She should go ahead.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to calls for tender. The Bloc Quebecois would like to see a straightforward and transparent process, free of lobbyists, that leaves no discretionary authority to the minister and that will ensure equity and equality for everyone.

The Bloc Quebecois would particularly like access to different government contracts to be based, I repeat, on equity and equality.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member opposite might say, there is no conspiracy against landlords on the Quebec side of the river. This lease in question for Revenue Canada's information technology branch is being tendered in a completely open and fair manner and according to normal procedures.

The member said in his remarks that he wanted a guarantee of openness and transparency. He has it.

What the hon. member must understand is that each requirement for space is considered by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on a case by case basis. The department then proceeds in the most appropriate manner based on the needs and constraints of the client department involved.

Decisions about obtaining office space are based on an number of factors. These include the length of the lease required, the cost of moving the client department, how much investment has been made in the location, government downsizing, security requirements, accessibility to the public, to name a few.

The bottom line in all cases is finding the best possible solution at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer in an open, fair and transparent manner.

Let us briefly examine the facts of this instance. The lease for the Fontaine building expires November 30, 1996 with no option for renewal while Revenue Canada will have an ongoing five-year requirement for about 1,200 square meters of office space.

We are proceeding with an invited tender based on a recent market survey. This is one of the normal processes by which we acquire leased space. In the case of the requirement in question there is no reason not to proceed in this fashion. The preferred approach is always the competitive route.

Let me make it clear that the owner of the Fontaine building has been invited to participate and will have an equal chance. If the Fontaine building's offer represents the best value for the crown and the taxpayer, Revenue Canada operations will stay where they are.

Contrary to what the member from Chicoutimi has stated, our purpose in doing this tender call is not to relocate public service employees currently in Quebec to Ontario. Our purpose with this tender call is to ensure that all the property owners in the national capital area who can meet this space requirement have a chance to submit an offer. This is an open and fair process to ensure that we get the best value for the government and for the taxpayers.

Furthermore, the number of employees affected, 750 in this branch of Revenue Canada, represents less than 1 per cent of the total federal public services employment level in the national capital area.

What we are talking about is a process that is fair and open to scrutiny resulting in the best deal for the government and the best deal for the taxpayer. That is the way it should be and that is the way it will be.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)