House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was death.

Topics

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

Noon

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period you asked me to withdraw something I said, which I did.

I appreciate the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is correcting the answer he gave me, because it is his answer that caused me to use the word I then had to withdraw. He had mislead the House with his answer. I recognize that he has now corrected his answer.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

Noon

The Speaker

So the matter is closed.

House Of CommonsOral Question Period

Noon

The Speaker

I have the honour to lay upon the table a report entitled “Building the Future—House of Commons Requirements for the Parliamentary Precinct”, October 1999.

Columbia River TreatyRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Algoma—Manitoulin Ontario

Liberal

Brent St. Denis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada for the year ending September 30, 1997.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, October 19, 1999 in relation to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee studied Bill C-2 and is reporting it with amendments.

Bank ActRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an act to amend the Bank Act (definition of infant).

Mr. Speaker, the bill is to ensure compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Seat Belt ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-392, an act to provide that all vehicles under federal jurisdiction must be equipped with seat belts and to require the Minister of Transport to consult with the provinces to maximize the use of seat belts in school buses.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill will do, as you have said.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Consumer Credit Information ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-393, an act to require federally regulated financial institutions, credit bureaus and federal corporations to advise consumers before giving any information on their financial history to a credit grantor or credit bureau and to allow for correction of a record following an objection by a consumer.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will do just that.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Deficit Prevention ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-394, an act to prevent deficit budgets.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will ensure that there is no deficit incurred by the House or any government in the future.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Protection Of Privacy (Social Insurance Numbers) ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-395, an act to protect personal privacy by restricting the use of social insurance numbers.

Mr. Speaker, this is also to restrict the use of the social insurance number except by an agency or organization authorized by law.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

December 3rd, 1999 / 12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (donors to food banks).

Mr. Speaker, the bill will allow somebody who makes a contribution to a food bank to receive a tax receipt.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting today a number of petitions with thousands of names of people who draw the attention of the House to the significant contribution that adoptive parents make.

The petitioners call on the House to recognize the contribution and costs that are often incurred in adopting children. They are seeking House support for a private member's bill that I put forward, Bill C-505, that would recognize the costs to adoptive parents and allow them a tax deductible expense.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Mississauga Centre Ontario

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and other matters), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, before oral question period, I was trying to show that Bill C-18 should not be passed because it is not in keeping with what the justices of the supreme court and provincial superior courts, some legal scholars and all justice committees have said in the last few years about prison terms being useless in reducing the crime rate.

According to the justices of the supreme court, there are way too many prison terms handed down in Canada. Offenders are often sent to prison when other measures could have been better for them and, in particular, could have protected society better. I was just beginning to give examples to show that Bill C-18 is not consistent with the Criminal Code structure we have be using for years.

I gave several examples, one of which I will repeat so that the Liberals can understand that something is wrong with this bill.

Here is the example I gave. I talked about a drunk driver, who was clearly negligent, who had decided to drive after having a drink and who hit and killed someone. This is extremely serious. This is a crime. However, this person could receive a stiffer sentence than a hired assassin who deliberately set out to kill someone. The hired assassin could receive a reduced sentence for becoming an informer; he will often be accused of a lesser and included offence and get off with a shorter sentence than the drunk driver who has killed someone.

There is a principle of law called mens rea, whereby it must be established the individual acted with the intent to kill. It is not the case here. He did not intend to drive off while under the influence and kill someone. I realize, however, that some recidivists should get harsher sentences, but the Criminal Code already provides a 14-year prison term in such cases.

The judges have already tried recidivists, individuals as they are referred to in the lingo of lawyers, who have a criminal record one mile long. There was one case in Canada where the judge handed down a 10-year prison sentence for impaired driving causing death. There is only one such case in all of Canada. Judges therefore have the necessary leeway to hand down sentences of up to 14 years.

The other example I gave had to do with reckless driving causing death.

The Criminal Code provides a 14-year prison term for reckless driving if the same driver kills someone while deliberately driving recklessly. He was not impaired, but drove recklessly. He is not accused of impaired driving, but of reckless driving causing death. The maximum sentence provided by the Criminal Code is 14 years.

Having reviewed the jurisprudence concerning this section as well as the sentences handed down for reckless driving causing death, we find that the Canadian appeal courts imposed prison sentences averaging 19 months for this type of offence.

How can the minister justify the fact that an offender who killed somebody in cold blood by driving a car dangerously will receive a lesser sentence of imprisonment than a driver who was impaired by alcohol? I want the minister to give a logical response to that. I want her to tell me how that makes sense.

Moreover, let us not forget that imprisonment is a last resort solution to any delinquency problem. Again, the Supreme Court, whom I quoted extensively in the first part of my speech, was very clear on that subject.

I will quote once again what the justices of the supreme court said. They said this:

In the past few decades many groups and federally appointed committees and commissions given the responsibility of studying various aspects of the criminal justice system have argued that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and/or that it should be reserved for those convicted of only the most serious offences.

The Minister of Justice has not demonstrated that she has exhausted all the means available to her to deal with the issue of impaired driving to protect the public.

Instead, she decided to choose the easy solution by proposing to drastically increase the term of imprisonment set out in the Criminal Code. She opted for a Reform policy when she could have acted differently. To win a few easy votes, she decided to play with the criminal justice system and upset its balance. This shows a lack of courage on her part.

We must look at the whole picture. It is an extremely serious problem. What is the main objective of any legislation on impaired driving? To try as much as possible to make people understand that impaired driving is a criminal offence a serious one.

We did this last June through a series of amendments. Let us wait and see the results before amending the Criminal Code again.

While impaired driving is a serious offence, there are other effective alternatives to incarceration that can minimize its impact, including the use of alcohol-ignition interlock devices. There are two provinces where this device is in use, Alberta and Quebec.

At the committee stage, it was the Bloc Quebecois that sold the idea of this device and convinced the committee members that it had to be included in the legislation so that provinces wanting to offer such a program could do so.

The Bloc Quebecois won its case for a first offence. The first time an individual is arrested for impaired driving he can, in order to reduce the period of his driving license suspension, have his car equipped with an alcohol-ignition interlock system.

However, in terms of prevention and education and especially in terms of reaching the first objective, namely changing the driving habits of drinkers, we would have liked, in the case of a repeat offence, the driver or the repeat offender to be compelled to have his car equipped with an ignition interlock device.

The government took the easy way out by proposing these amendments.

I could go on all afternoon about impaired driving and the implications of the changes the minister wants to make through Bill C-18. I am sure whoever was in the Chair would pay as much attention as you are now, but my time is limited.

I think I have demonstrated to everyone that the justices of the supreme court and of superior courts, legal experts, psychologists, chairs of parliamentary commissions and committees who studied the issue all found that incarceration does nothing to change bad habits and lower the crime rate. Education and prevention as well as effective and active measures the provinces can implement the answer.

Members also know what the Bloc Quebecois thinks of this bill. I checked to see what reporters and columnists covering Quebec courts thought about this issue.

In June 1999, La Presse , which surely cannot be called a separatist newspaper, ran an article with a catchy headline “The Bloc is blocking”.

For once, Mr. Pierre Gravel was of the opinion that we were doing our work by creating a filibuster to stop Bill C-82 in its tracks, because, among other things, the bill provided life sentences for impaired driving causing death. He agreed with us that this was absurd.

He said this about the Bloc Quebecois. “On the contrary, it is its”—meaning the Bloc Quebecois'—“firm attitude that put a damper on the over-zealousness of the proponents of zero tolerance”—meaning the Liberals.

Today, there is another editorial, by Mario Roy, entitled “Drinking and driving: let's not lose our heads”. It is clear he is talking about the minister, because she lost her head a long time ago.

What does Mr. Roy say in this editorial? He says that the minister is making a mistake. He also says that, having consulted legal experts and watched what goes on in court, he can tell her bill makes no sense. He gives several examples. I will read this one because it is a good one.

Those who follow court proceedings know the real purpose of the Criminal Code provisions dealing with manslaughter.

Members opposite explained that they chose the life sentence because the Criminal code provides for life sentences in the case of manslaughter, and killing someone when driving under the influence is just as serious as manslaughter.

Speaking of what those who follow court proceedings know about what the Criminal Code provisions dealing with manslaughter stipulate, Mr. Roy added:

The crown prosecutor and defence counsel often resort to plea bargaining, sometimes with the approval of the jury, even in cases of horrible, cruel and premeditated murder.

Manslaughter is a lesser and included offence as compared to premeditated murder.

The Liberals equate an impaired driver who hits and kills someone with a murderer who planned the crime. The driver did not plan to kill. Unfortunately, he had one drink too many, and what he did was criminal, I agree, but those opposite are comparing him to a murderer who planned his crime in advance. This journalist finds that unacceptable, and justifiably so, especially after consulting those who am familiar with the courts.

I was reading in Le Droit this morning that certain Quebec lawyers are critical of the minister's approach in this matter. Worse yet, the chief of police in Aylmer is opposed to it and says it makes no sense. He wonders whether it will be applicable and applied by the courts.

I know that the minister, and especially the government House leader made a deal with some of the opposition parties in June to let the bill pass. I also know that a number of members on the government side oppose this bill.

I know that the member for Brome—Missisquoi, a former president of the Quebec bar association, does not support giving a life sentence to an impaired driver who has caused death. I would hope he will be man enough to rise and criticize the Minister of Justice's backward approach, which, clearly, will never achieve the objectives sought.

Stiffening the sentence and putting people in prison for life is not going to change the habits of drinkers who get behind the wheel at the end of an evening.

The holidays—Christmas and New Year—are coming. They should think of their relatives, friends and colleagues at the office party. Some of them will be driving while impaired. If they kill someone, should we treat them as criminals? Perhaps, but not in the same way as a hired killer.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this subject. I know I speak on behalf of my constituents when I stand to address the issue of drunk driving.

I would like to begin by commending the work of one of my constituents, Geraldine Dedrick, who is a very active member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the Halifax region. Geraldine faced the terrible tragedy of losing a son to an accident related to drunk driving. I am honoured to stand here to support her efforts and those of countless others who are working today so that people tomorrow may be spared this tragedy.

The whole issue of impaired driving causing death is a very important issue in the province of Nova Scotia. The current president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is Mr. Pat Dutton, who heads the Halifax, Annapolis Valley and Digby chapters. I commend him for his very important work in this area.

Every day people living in the riding of Halifax West face a very real and possibly fatal threat. Every day in my riding people are concerned about someone they know who may be drinking and driving. I am sure it is the same throughout the province of Nova Scotia and across Canada.

Since the criminal code was amended to deal with persons who drink and drive, it has been estimated that 20,400 Canadians have died at the hands of those who choose to drink and drive. At the same time, up to 1.5 million Canadians have been injured during the time span since these laws were enacted. The death and casualty numbers read like those of war. The government has the tools at hand to reduce this carnage.

I and my colleagues of the New Democratic Party support the review and enactment of legislative measures to enhance deterrents and to ensure that we use the tools of legislation to do what we can to put in place laws to reduce these accidents.

When we talk about this issue, we are not talking about people who have sacrificed their lives for our country or for any higher ideal; we are talking about people who have had their lives or their good health ended because someone chose to drink too much and subsequently turned their vehicle into a terrible weapon out of control.

Even while I am speaking, it is likely that a Canadian will lose his or her life due to drunk driving. An average of more than one Canadian every five minutes is injured due to drunk driving. An average of one Canadian is killed every six hours. This is simply obscene.

While clearly the loss of life and limb is paramount, let us not ignore the incredible toll that this takes on our health care system and the ripple effect on other costs to taxpayers. This is not only an issue of death and injury, it is an issue of responsibility in so many ways.

Clearly the responsibility lies at many levels. There is the level of the individual. We all have individual responsibility in this matter. I have chosen not to drink at all. I know several others who have made this choice. I know there are many other responsible social drinkers who would never climb into a vehicle with anywhere near the legal blood alcohol limit. Then there are others who are social drinkers who occasionally make the wrong choice about drinking and driving. This wrong choice is estimated to be responsible for a death every single day in this country.

Then there are the repeat offenders, many with serious drinking problems who cause much of the carnage.

Then there is the responsibility of the community. More and more communities are banding and working together to change the laws. It is largely due to their efforts that the backwards social philosophy of “one for the road” is increasingly becoming a thing of the past, and we are very thankful for that.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and many other organizations have become very sophisticated and involved and have done much of our homework in this particular area. It is good to have such community-responsible citizens who are taking up their responsibility to make sure this tragedy does not persist. This enables us as legislators to help address the problems.

There are many small business owners who serve alcohol who are undertaking initiatives in their businesses to curb irresponsible drinking and to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. I commend them for their efforts.

It is foolish to think the entire problem can be legislated away. It is no more than criminal not to make every change we can as parliamentarians to address the loss of life and health through drunk driving accidents. The government should have no fear of addressing this issue if it is concerned about the polls because nine out of every ten Canadians believe this is a problem for the government to address.

Almost three of every four Canadians support lowering the blood alcohol concentration level from 0.08 to 0.05. We would not be breaking any new ground here. Many countries are ahead of us. Australia, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and France have all lowered their legal levels to 0.05.

Some provincial governments have taken the lead on this issue. Newfoundland has implemented a 24 hour licence suspension with a $100 licence reinstatement charge if a person's level is over 0.05.

I am pleased to inform the House as to what Nova Scotia has done in this area. As of the beginning of this month, new legislation is in place that has been approved by all the parties in the legislature in Nova Scotia. These new drinking and driving laws taking effect include the immediate 24 hour suspension of a driver's licence for someone pulled over with a blood alcohol level of between 0.05 and the legal limit of 0.08. For the first conviction there is a one year revocation of driving privileges. A second conviction warrants a three year suspension, up from the current two years. Three time offenders will lose their licence for at least 10 years. A fourth time offender will never drive again. These are very important changes under the motor vehicle act of Nova Scotia. They underscore the significance of the whole issue that we are talking about.

Mr. Pat Dutton, president of the Halifax, Annapolis Valley and Digby chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, compared these new laws to a Christmas list being fulfilled. He said: “Today all the things that are being put in place are things that are on our list”.

It is very important to see this kind of involvement by communities, to see the changes that are taking place in various provinces and to see that all this is working together to try to ensure that lives are protected and that people do not suffer needlessly as a result of impaired driving.

The last time I spoke on this matter I indicated the concern among my constituents of Halifax West that there should be the capacity under provincial legislation to confiscate cars involved in these offences. That is a very important issue.

Let us explore in committee the possibility of automatically requesting from drivers breath and/or blood samples in crashes resulting in serious injury or death. Let us review the current two hour presumption limit to obtain a breath or blood sample. Let us review all these things with a view to trying to improve this situation. Let us not be afraid to examine the code, to expand the reasonable or probable grounds on which law enforcement officers can investigate crash scenes that involve death or serious injury.

One of the big concerns in my riding of Halifax West is the extent to which we are able to determine the role alcohol plays in accidents causing death. Let us look at ways to ensure that we know if alcohol has played a part in someone's death or injury due to a traffic accident.

The policy statement Mothers Against Drunk Driving includes this very important phrase: “While an individual's decision to consume alcohol is a private matter, driving after consuming alcohol or other drugs is a public matter”.

I would like to just comment briefly at this point on the impact the whole matter of drunk driving can have upon the lives of families and on the lives of people who are affected.

We need not lose someone through drunk driving to know how serious it is and how much pain one can feel when a loved one is lost. I lost a nephew a number of years ago. He was aged eight. It was as a result of a serious vehicle accident. The young fellow was driving his bicycle on his way home and was crossing a busy highway when a truck hit and killed him. We do not know in that case whether there was alcohol involved, but whether there was alcohol involved or not, the pain is still the same when we lose a young life like that.

I remember this young fellow when I was actively involved in karate. He wanted me to break some boards for him. Sometimes in karate we have a technique where we break one inch boards. He said, “Can you break a board for me, Uncle Gordon?” and I said, “I suppose I could”. He ran down to his basement and came back with a big 2x4. I looked at it and said, “I think maybe I will have to do this on another occasion”. Sadly, the other occasion did not arrive. I did not have the opportunity to break a board for him because his young life was cut short at the age of eight due to the accident.

When we add to that the loss of a loved one through drinking and driving, we can imagine how much more pain and suffering we go through knowing this life did not have to be lost.

Turning to Bill C-18 which deals very specifically with the whole issue, it is an act to amend the criminal code and to deal with the issue of the penalty. This legislation amends the criminal code in order to strengthen impaired driving provisions to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect on potential offenders and that the sanctions to be imposed for offences involving impaired driving reflect the gravity of the offence as well as the degree of responsibility of the offender. Bill C-18 would raise the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment.

The amendments implement recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its report, “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”. The committee's recommendations on the provisions of this bill are in response to public pressure spurred by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, police associations, victims groups and members of parliament from all parties.

The NDP fully supports the legislation. The criminal code amendments strengthen the penalties and increase the deterrent values of the impaired driving provisions in the code. The legislation addresses the seriousness of impaired driving in our society by both strengthening the penalties for offenders and increasing the options and powers available to the police and the courts to more effectively combat drunk drivers.

We believe that passing legislation to ensure swift implementation of the new provisions will save lives. It sends a very important message that impaired driving is an avoidable criminal act which carries unacceptable risks of injury and death. In 1985 parliament added the offences of impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death to the criminal code with maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment where the result is death and 10 years imprisonment where bodily harm is caused.

To the extent that penalties can discourage those who might leave an accident to evade getting caught for impaired driving, the changes to the offence of leaving the scene will send the message that running away from a collision where someone is injured or killed is a very serious behaviour and it carries a serious penalty.

Estimates found there were roughly 1,300 deaths due to impaired driving in 1997. Information from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation study in Ontario suggested impaired drivers comprised 55% of the driving fatalities. The 1999 report by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia indicated that in each of the years 1995, 1996, 1997 more than 80% of the impaired driving deaths in British Columbia were comprised of impaired drivers and their passengers.

The NDP would like to see zero tolerance on drinking and driving on our streets and that these horrible statistics be greatly reduced or eliminated so future generations of Canadians need not suffer the horrible losses of this terrible crime.

It is incumbent upon all of us as individuals to do what we can to try—especially as we approach this holiday season when we know a lot of people engage in frivolity, in celebrations and quite often in drinking too much—to exercise due care and responsibility to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost on the highways.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Questions and comments.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, are these questions and comments for the government House leader or for the previous speaker, because I would like to ask how many times the government has invoked closure at this point in the parliament.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

We are not getting into a question period on a point of order. The government House leader got up on a point of order. He made his point of order and I am afraid that is the end of the matter.

If the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the hon. government House leader would like to have a discussion about this, I suggest they do it in the lobby.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and other matters), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is always with pleasure that I rise in this House, and particularly now to address this bill. I believe it is critical that the minister recognize this important issue and have this legislation introduced before Christmas.

I am very pleased that after months of delay the government has come forth with legislation that will reintroduce the life imprisonment clause for impaired driving causing death. This is a very timely introduction of the bill.

The life imprisonment provision was originally part of Bill C-82, the act to amend the criminal code with respect to impaired driving, which came into law and into effect in the last parliament.

Bill C-18 will allow a judge the discretion to invoke a life sentence for impaired driving, in essence strengthening the existing provisions of the code. Obviously it is contemplated for the worst of all case scenarios, most aggravated circumstances, repeat offenders, high readings and the like.

This simply raises the ceiling for this type of offence. Vehicular homicide is murder, let there be no doubt. When it comes to the result of a reckless and negligent act, the intrusion that this places upon the victims of these types of offences, the harsh reality is that a person killed by a car is just as dead as a person killed by a gun.

These imprisonment provisions came in exchange for speedy passage in the House. Some of the parties in opposition backed away from this particular provision at the justice committee when the legislation was to be introduced. Now they have recapitulated and come forward in support and I am hoping that support will continue throughout this debate.

The Conservative Party felt that these provisions were very important and thus assurances were received from the Minister of Justice that these clauses would be reintroduced as separate legislation. I congratulate the minister for having had the integrity and foresight to follow through with that.

The Conservative Party does support Bill C-82 but felt that there were areas for improvement, this being one of them. Bill C-82, without a doubt, improves upon the current outdated legislation and introduces tougher sanctions in the areas of fines and suspensions. But the bill itself did not give police sufficient powers to protect society from hard-core drinkers resistant to charges of impaired driving, nor did it allow for automatic breath and blood samples to be taken from those who were involved in impaired driving related accidents.

Tragically, most people have experienced or know a person directly or indirectly whose life was affected due to careless and negligent acts of a drunk driver.

Criminal offences involving drunk drivers have declined 23% since 1994. However, this is a bit of a misleading statistic. In 1997, we know that the statistics started to level off again. It is misleading because many individuals involved in this type of activity simply do not get caught. We know that with the cuts to police forces across the country, detachments are often understaffed and officers simply do not have the sufficient equipment and patrol cars to be out on the roads to combat this most serious problems.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving released a press release in November 1999 in which Carolyn Swinson dealt with the stats over the last 15 years. The press release stated:

Jurisdat (did the statistics) reports that 103 people were charged with impaired driving causing death. Yet Transport Canada reports that 1,350 were killed due to impaired driving. Jurisdat reports that 886 were charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm. According to 1996 figures, there were approximately 46,000 Canadians seriously injured in alcohol related crashes...in some cases, police are opting to suspend an impaired driver's licence with provincial administrative sanctions rather than lay a federal criminal code charge.

This is because provincial governments proceed quicker through the courts when a code section is invoked under those provisions. As well, provincial governments do not collect statistics that reflect this. Therefore, to suggest that the statistics are truly indicative of the numbers of impaired drivers on the highway is quite wrong.

British Columbia does collect statistics of provincial licence suspensions that arise from these types of problems, and these do increase proportionately to the same number that are showing up in the federal statistics.

The problem itself is quite clear. Hard core drinkers continue to get behind the wheel irregardless of efforts that are made either through federal or provincial statutes. We should not be content until we have tightened up both federal and provincial legislation to deal with this problem in every way possible. Where we can accomplish the saving of lives, it stands to reason and is a statement of the obvious, that we as legislators and elected persons should be putting every effort into the task of ensuring safety on our roads and highways.

Positive steps that do come from this legislation include provisions that would increase the time limit for breathalyzers and approved screening devices in the testing of impaired drivers to three hours, and also encouraging and strictly enforcing the over .08 provision of blood alcohol concentration. All these amendments will assist police officers in the performance of their duties.

The previous speaker from the NDP spoke about the province of Nova Scotia and the efforts made there to toughen its impaired driving legislation. Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm has just introduced and ushered in legislation that would suspend drivers for 24 hours if .05 trace of alcohol was found in a person's blood while operating a motor vehicle.

Premier Hamm and members of his administration, like Jim DeWolfe, Bill Dooks and Ron Chisholm, are all working very hard for all Nova Scotians and their constituents in this particular legislative area. Yet, sadly, the problem persists. It does not only persist with young people, which is another misnomer about this particular problem. The Canadian Automobile Association, CAA, says that its message to drunk drivers and the dangers that flow from this is getting through to the age group of 16 to 25, but impaired driving remains a stubborn problem with respect to those in the age group 35 and older.

In 1997 in Ontario, more than 300 people were killed on the roads as a result of drunk driving. If all of these drivers were caught, that would hopefully stem the problem. However, it does not stem the problems for the victims of these related accidents. We know that lifetime suspensions that can result are one way to deal with these particular drivers as an after the fact approach.

However, drivers do have the provision and option now to install interlock devices that will get them back on the road sooner. These are very encouraging steps that the government, in co-operation with the opposition, has worked toward bringing into fruition.

Fines can be increased to at least $2,000, with judges being given the option of imposing higher fines if the circumstances dictate.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that over a two year period an impaired driving conviction costs at least $5,000 in terms of additional premiums to consumers. There are obviously spinoff costs that relate to this problem as well. It is surely not to suggest by any means that this is just a fiscal problem, because the cost in human life and limb is the most prevalent and serious aspect of the issue.

Yet even with financial hardship, embarrassment, publication of names and this type of information, there are still individuals who take the chance or stubbornly refuse to give up this type of lifestyle and activity. The message has to be sent and sent clearly.

There is often reference in the criminal code and in the court rooms across the land to deterrents and denunciation. However, the seem to be, in many instances, bad words or words that are not quickly embraced by the justice system in the country. They are noticeably absent from the new youth criminal justice act. However, deterrents, both general and specific, still very much have a role to play when judges and our criminal justice system are attempting to send a message to individuals. That is to be coupled with all sentencing provisions and all of the considerations that judges must take in when crafting a sentence.

To combat the problem itself, we must assist police officers. Police on average indicate that it takes two hours and forty-five minutes to process a criminal code charge relating to impaired driving. Police need better access to mobile breathalyzers, physical sobriety testing and passive alcohol sensors to make their job more efficient and to enable them to assist the public in this battle against impaired driving.

Police officers do an amazing job with the tools that they have but they are faced with fiscal undermining and a very complicated and ever-increasing active criminal element in the country. The police do the best they can to the best of their abilities but they are increasingly frustrated. Warnings and fines do not work on hard-core drinkers. The police need to have their powers enhanced in some instances to get that message across.

As I indicated earlier, the Minister of Justice is to be commended for reintroducing the legislation. I hope, and the previous speakers have indicated that there will be broad support for the legislation. I hope it will receive swift passage through the House.

When it comes to the age of majority and the age of drinking, one has to recognize that with privileges come responsibility. Some consider a driving licence to be more of a right, than a privilege, but it is in fact a privilege. It is incumbent upon the legislators in this place to remind Canadians that there is responsibility associated with that. Giving additional powers to police officers to demand breath and blood samples whenever an accident occurs would also be a welcome inclusion in the criminal code when the accident that results from an impaired driver leaves a person dead or injured.

I understand that the demand for a breath or blood sample without sufficient evidence raises problems in the legal community. There is a strong argument to be made about the violation of an individual's rights, the presumption of innocence and the charter implications, but on balance the need for these powers to gather evidence and protect society from impaired drivers, and because of the prevalence of this particular type of offence, I suggest it is justified. This minor infringement is certainly in the public interest. Currently an officer is allowed to request a roadside breath sample based on reasonable suspicion.

Based on an accident, this, in and of itself, is a suspicion that an officer should and could rely on for the demand for a blood or breath sample. In the confusion of an accident, it stands to reason that officers are often very much concerned with assisting injured individuals and evidence is simply lost. Instead of forcing police officers to make sometimes very tough judgment calls, everyone should be subjected to a breath or blood sample within the discretion of the officer when the circumstances arise. This eliminates the judgment calls and relies on technology to determine the guilt or innocence based on an approved screening device.

Inevitably there is a lengthy and legal wrangling that will result over the admission of this type of evidence and the police are very often put on trial in these types of criminal code offence prosecutions.

This will allow a police offer to better do his duty. I also suggest that it would free him up to be back on the street sooner doing the job that he or she is entrusted to do.

I am suggesting that the strengthening of impaired driving legislation will help the country. It will help all citizens in improving the safety on our highways. It certainly will strengthen the criminal code in its approach to this type of offence. Bill C-18 is but a part of the puzzle. I am hopeful that the House will also consider future changes to the criminal code in this particular area.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other such administrative arms have done a terrific job in raising the profile of this issue. We can do a great deal more in terms of educating people about the problem itself. We do have to do more to send a message to habitual offenders who continue to endanger lives on the highways.

Judge Clyde MacDonald, in my hometown of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, often used to say that an impaired driver under the influence of alcohol driving down the Trans-Canada highway, pointing the vehicle at innocent oncoming traffic, was no different than pointing a gun at a person. That is the type of realistic approach that we are hoping judges will take when combating this problem.

We hear time and time again from the government, and hopefully with all sincerity, that public safety has to be the number one concern. I encourage all Canadians to support and embrace Bill C-18.

I would like to recognize all members of the justice committee who participated and worked extremely hard on this legislation. I also want to thank the numerous witnesses who appeared before the committee and gave their expertise and insight into this issue, many of whom had been affected directly and gave heartbreaking stories about how their lost loved ones had been taken from them by impaired drivers.

For these people and for all Canadians, we have to send a message that impaired driving will not be tolerated. As they did with Bill C-82, I am hopeful that all members of the House will put aside partisan politics and work together in this public interest and vote in favour of Bill C-18.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to wish you and all members of the House the best for the holiday season, a healthy and safe holiday season.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I work regularly with the Progressive Conservative member who just spoke. I know that he is very attentive, knows his issues very well and is a lawyer by training. He did practise law and, if I am not mistaken, he was a crown prosecutor. The hon. member is therefore very familiar with the whole structure of the Criminal Code.

He also knows that some offences are more or less comparable to impaired driving causing death. I know that the hon. member has read several studies—if he has not, I would invite him to do so, but I believe he has— regarding the impact of imprisonment on an individual.

If a prison term is imposed on a person, what will be the real impact of that measure on the individual when he gets out of prison? Will that person have understood? Are there studies showing that an offence that can lead to life imprisonment is a deterrent to such a person?

Earlier I made a speech and I quoted justices from the supreme court and the superior court. I also quoted some reports from parliamentary committees. After studying the same subject nearly every year for the past 20 years at least, we have come to the conclusion that imprisonment will not help lower the crime rate.

In this case, the possibility of life imprisonment will not deter an impaired driver from getting behind the wheel of his car.

My question is very simple. A reading of the supreme court decisions shows that it feels that there are far too many prison sentences handed down in Canada, that Canada is one of the countries that hands down prison terms the most in the western world. Committee reports say imprisonment is useless. In their reports, the legal experts say that it is not the right way to deal with those who have drinking problems.

By increasing the present 14-year sentence for impaired driving causing death, no longer even imposed by judges, to life imprisonment, does the member really think that it will effectively reduce the number of offences of impaired driving causing death? Does he really believe that it will have an effect on those who drink and drive?