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.