Debates of March 17th, 1999

Budget Implementation Act, 1999

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a thoughtful question, one I suspect a lot of people are asking.

We have heard in the House repeatedly that one of the attractive features to lure foreign corporations to Canada is the low wages they are able to pay. This seems to be some kind of good news. It is a rather warped sense of good news.

One of the realities is that the radical changes to the employment insurance program resulted in that the majority of Canadians who paid into that program are receiving no benefits at all.

Mr. Speaker, imagine what it would be like for you to lose your job. When people lose their jobs and have no income, they become vulnerable to people who could exploit them in terms of paying for their services of one kind or another.

I am aware, and I know the hon. member is as well, that because of the changes to the employment insurance program, when some people get their employment insurance cheque, the amount is actually as low as $32, $50, $75. Mr. Speaker, I know you are a very frugal man, but imagine trying to live for a couple of weeks on $32. This is tough. Anybody who is trying to live on $32 a week, $100 a week or $200 a week will be vulnerable to people who are prepared to exploit the worker's skills, background, talent and so on. That is one of the reasons so many people today are in a very difficult situation.

That was one reason. The other reason is our taxation. It is fair to say that Canadians by and large with a few exceptions are paying too much tax, income tax and other kinds of taxes. It goes back to my friend who asked what we would propose, and that is a tax cut that would benefit every single man, woman and child in the country, not this group or that group.

There is a tax cut that every single person would benefit from. Even a little kid buying a teddy bear would benefit, or a parent purchasing a needed vehicle or a washing machine would benefit from a cut in the GST. This would benefit every single person.

Guess what the people who would benefit most from a cut in the GST would do with that saved money in their pockets. They would spend it. People are pushed to the wall and their savings are minimal, if they have any at all. They would spend those dollars.

Those dollars would go from business to business to business around that little community. They would support the small and medium size businesses. Those dollars would circulate around and around in the community benefiting the small businesses which hire people and provide employment opportunities. But instead, those dollars are coming to Ottawa to be used for some questionable purposes from time to time.

I do not know whether I have been thorough in my answer but those are some of the reasons Canadians are having a tough time getting by and why employers are able to pay such low wages and salaries.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from Kamloops on the budget implementation act.

We have considerable concerns, and I think all members of the House do, for the future of young Canadians. The task before us is to prepare policies that will create a more prosperous future for young Canadians.

I am greatly concerned about the loss of so many young Canadians to the U.S. We have seen an unprecedented level of brain drain over the last several years. We have lost talented young Canadians to the U.S. Every sign is that that will increase unless we address some fundamental policies, part of which is tax policies.

One hon. member referred to the birthday of her father today. Today is the birthday of my nephew Seth who is three years old. I think of young Canadians like Seth and how they will prosper in the future. We have to work very hard to ensure that the policies we create are sound, not just in terms of what is good for today, but what is good for the future.

This government seems to be very intent on providing labels for its budgets. The label for last year's budget I believe was the education budget. All members in the House recognized student indebtedness as being a huge issue. Student debts grew by 100% from 1993 to last year, from an average of $12,000 to about $25,000 last year. In the year after the education budget which was to address the issue of student debt, over 12,000 Canadian graduates declared bankruptcy.

I am a parliamentarian who is very concerned about the future of health care. If last year's budget was the education budget and the result a year after its implementation was 12,000 graduates declaring bankruptcy, I would appreciate the hon. member's insight on what he predicts to be the effect of this year's health care budget on Canadians and on our beleaguered health care system. The health care system has been absolutely devastated and decimated by the Draconian slash and cut approach of the Liberal government.

What does the hon. member expect to be the effect over the next 12 months when Canadians need a stronger health care system? Can they expect a significant improvement based on this government's reinvestment? He mentioned that in five years the federal government will have only reached the 1995 level of federal government investment in health care. Yet the government spent $3.6 million of Canadian taxpayers' money to tell them this was a great budget for health care. Does the hon. member feel that perhaps that money should have been spent on health care as opposed to telling Canadians about this health care reinvestment which by and large is smoke and mirrors?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again it was a very thoughtful question from my friend from Kings—Hants. I think he has answered the question himself.

He described the mythology surrounding this so-called health care budget, just like last year's education budget. He acknowledged that very little moneys will go into the provincial coffers for health care next year as a result of this budget.

My short answer to him is that I would be surprised if Canadians noticed any change at all in Canada's health care system as a result of this federal budget. He pointed out a major flaw in the mythology the government has been trying to perpetuate.

I think we all agree with his suggestion, and I know my leader has said the same thing, about the millions of dollars the government has spent trying to tell people that it has done a good job in health care. If that money was going directly into health care, it would be money better spent.

May I suggest that if a government or an individual is doing a good job, there is no need to advertise that they are doing a good job. People understand that. They will know that. But if they are not doing a good job, then they have to advertise.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from December 7, 1998, consideration of the motion that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, particularly because of the person who has proposed it.

The member for Wild Rose has been absolutely tireless in his efforts on behalf of not only the people in his constituency but indeed all Canadians in bringing more common sense to the whole area of justice in Canada. He has a tireless history in our party of continuously working on behalf of the justice issue, and I commend him for that.

Bill C-219 is an act to amend the Criminal Code by adding the following after section 334:

Every one who, while committing an offence or while attempting to commit an offence or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence, operates or uses a motor vehicle that he has stolen or knows to have been stolen is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of one year.

If I could refer to the October 20 edition of Hansard , in presenting the bill my colleague from Wild Rose said:

My private member's bill amends the Criminal Code so that a person guilty of an indictable offence must be sentenced to one year imprisonment if the person operates or uses a motor vehicle that the person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing or attempting to commit an offence.

He made the point that the bill put the police chiefs' resolution into practice. As I mentioned, my colleague is tireless in making sure he is in tune not only with the Canadian public but indeed with the Canadian Police Association and the Chiefs of Police. He said:

This bill puts the police chiefs' resolution into practice. It will clearly serve as a deterrent to those considering these types of criminal acts.

He also noted:

There are three primary motivations for auto theft: one, joyriding; two, transportation for criminal purposes such as breaking and entering, robbery, and drive-by shootings; and three, when a car is stripped for parts or exported to other provinces or countries for sale.

I was particularly interested to note that the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister then followed my colleague and said:

A person found guilty of this indictable offence must be sentenced to one year's imprisonment.

I put emphasis on the word must because there is nowhere in Bill C-219 or in the comments of my colleague that says this is a mandatory sentence. She was wrong. It must not be a sentence to one year's imprisonment. She went on further to state:

This offence must be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

This is again wrong. There is nothing in Bill C-219 that prescribes whether it be consecutive or concurrent.

In the short time that I have had the privilege of being the solicitor general critic for the Reform Party I have been on a very rapid up-ramp of learning. What I have learned is the difference between consecutive and concurrent.

The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that even if a person was found guilty of this offence, should the bill indeed pass through the House and become law, he or she would be liable for one year's imprisonment. That would simply be served at the same time as the penalty for whatever other criminal offence was being served.

In effect the minister is prejudging that the court system would say it is one extra charge and it will be served concurrently. It would be served at exactly the same time so it would not make any difference. What a waste of time if that were the case, and indeed it is not.

If that were the case it would be a pattern much like the government has chosen for very violent offences, very violent rapes and sexual offences, very violent multiple murders and all the events surrounding multiple murders. Basically the government has gone into the business of volume discount. In other words, although it is true that one cannot serve more than one life sentence, one can be incarcerated for an extended period of time if life sentences are served consecutively, that is one after the other.

If a person were able to apply for parole after the end of 15 or 25 years, depending on the precise circumstance, and there were more than one murder or more violence surrounding the event, the penalty for all the other surrounding events would have been paid at the same time as that for the longest event because the longest sentence before one can get parole in Canada is 25 years.

The government is out of touch with the Canadians with whom I speak in coffee shops in my constituency and with whom my colleagues speak on the streets of Calgary. Most members in the House, and I dare say even a few Liberals when they talk to their constituents, must know that the constituents are after some feeling of public safety. The government is not giving any sense of public safety.

I get back to the bill at hand. Bill C-219 takes a look at the issue of someone, during the course of committing an indictable offence, stealing and making use of a vehicle. It basically says this must be put in place as a deterrent. The fact is that it is only for one year. Because of the parole system, if a person has a one year sentence it is quite possible to be out on day parole within one-sixth of a year, in other words within two months.

The government is not even involved in truth in sentencing. It says they will get one year if they use a car for a joy ride. Such is being used, for example, in Cornwall as we speak where people involved in smuggling weapons, guns, liquor, drugs and tobacco were using vehicles for high speed chases. All sorts of things are going on. As a result of the sentencing regime under this government, even for a one year sentence the offender upon conviction would not get one year because that is the maximum. Even if he or she got the maximum, the offender would potentially be out on day parole within two months.

This is why my colleague brought the bill before the House. In his usual thoughtful manner he will have worked through the process and will have taken direction from the people responsible for public safety, safety on our streets.

Also as solicitor general critic I must say that I have a deep concern about the entire issue of tracking vehicles. We know that stolen vehicles end up at the Canadian police information centre on CPIC. If a police officer sees a vehicle he or she can access CPIC to find out the status of the vehicle. If the vehicle is stolen or there is something irregular about it, it will show up on CPIC.

It is my position on behalf of our party that there be an upgrading of the CPIC system so that vehicle identification numbers, not just for stolen vehicles but indeed for all vehicles in Canada, would be available to police officers. If Bill C-219 is enacted, CPIC and the vehicle registration system would become part of bringing Bill C-219 into full force and effect.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand to debate Bill C-219. It is a little frustrating the hon. member for Wild Rose is not here to speak to it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member knows it is contrary to the rules to refer to the absence of hon. members. I am certain his mistake was inadvertent. Nevertheless, I would urge him not to pursue the idea of who is here and who is not. That is contrary to the rules.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I must say that the bill of the member for Wild Rose, Bill C-219, is something that we on this side of the House cannot agree with because of the way in which once again the Reform Party, in its eternal wisdom, has decided to handle minor acts of indiscretion such as joy riding.

I do not know about the riding of the member for Wild Rose. I know on occasion he likes to play sheriff. Perhaps some of his constituents would be absolutely petrified to go joy riding.

However, in my riding, the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, on occasion people have gone joy riding. As a matter of a fact a cousin of mine went joy riding one time. I know the hon. member from Kootenay would probably say it was the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who did it, but it was a cousin of mine.

Should the government incarcerate a person for a one year term because of a minor indiscretion? Goodness gracious, members of the Reform Party continually come forward with notions on how to mete out justice. They would throw them in jail and throw away the key. They would not worry about the person. They would not worry about the indiscretion. They would throw them in the slammer and they would be done with them: out of sight, out of mind.

That is not the way we on this side of the House would handle the judicial system. The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia somehow extrapolated from joy riding to death. The little munchkin is at it again. If members opposite want to listen to the great justice that is being done by the Liberal Party of Canada, all they have to do is pay attention for a short while. I do not use that in a derogatory connotation against my hon. friend on the other side.

It is absolutely disastrous that the Reform Party would continually mete out something like Bill C-219. I know the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia said that the member for Wild Rose was a tireless worker. In my estimation he is rather tiresome when he puts forth agendas such as this one. This is not what the Canadian judicial system is all about.

[An hon. member]

The police chiefs want it.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The police chiefs do not want it. Reform Party members are infamous for standing up and saying there is one police chief, one person, one child or one priest and extrapolating that to include the entire Dominion of Canada. That is absolutely ludicrous and they know it. That is what I was getting to when I said “tiresome”. It is tiresome that they would bring forth that type of logic.

In our view the objectives of the private member's bill now before the House are already well served by the tools provided by the common law principles of sentencing and legislation which is currently in place. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough would agree with me because he has a legal background. He knows that the Reform Party would bring into place scurrilous innuendo against the judicial system. That party is trying to tell judges exactly what to do. What is the Reform Party's agenda? If a person is not elected they do not know what they are talking about. Once again it is an attack on judges and the judicial system. My goodness gracious, I do not know how some members of the Reform Party actually got elected. I think they were appointed.

Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, would create an indictable offence for using a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following the commission of an offence. If found guilty, everyone who commits this indictable offence would be liable to imprisonment for a term of one year, to be served consecutively with any other punishment imposed arising out of the same offence.

What kind of gibberish is that? To begin with, it is flawed. Even the notion of the bill is flawed. The summary of the bill is flawed. Under Bill C-41, as everyone in this House knows, including the hon. member opposite, we have already looked into this. We have already done justice to this particular matter.

Why would the member want to bring up Bill C-219? Why the hon. member for Wild Rose would propose this particular piece of legislation is beyond my belief and beyond the belief of most Canadians. The way we handle justice in this country is not by throwing people in jail and throwing away the key. But that, in the infinite wisdom of the Reform Party, is the way to handle the situation.

We on this side of the House believe in rehabilitation. We do not believe in complete incarceration just for the simple reason of it. We cannot qualify it. Reform Party members know that. They know they cannot put a maximum or a minimum on sentencing. That is up to the judge's discretion. We cannot do that.

[An hon. member]

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to respond to the hon. members opposite, but if anyone does not know what they are talking about it is the hon. member's party on the other side.

That is the party whose leader came out on the front page of a very reputable paper saying “Guess what, fellow Canadians, fellow Reformers, the Reform Party can't win so we are going to have to form a new party”. That is unbelievable. The captain of the ship is saying “Listen, if we get on this ship it is going to sink”. Members opposite are on a sinking ship. They want to join the Conservative Party, which has already said it does not want them. The NDP does not want them. My goodness gracious, I just do not know where the Reform Party is coming from.

This is the type of thing Canadian people do not want. The Reform Party, with its self-serving demagoguery and its sanctimonious attitude, believes it knows what is best for the entire country. Under this—

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that somewhere in this blather we are going to get some relevance. I wonder if we could have some.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member began by talking about the bill and he seems to have got on to the Reform Party. I know that perhaps he intends to talk about the Reform agenda in relation to the bill and I think it might be helpful if he did so to keep us on the straight and narrow.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you, but I certainly do not apologize to the party opposite. Correct me if I am wrong, and we can check Hansard , but whenever the hon. member speaks he makes very vituperative remarks about the great Liberal Party. I took a little offence to that. But I will go on to the end.

If while in flight—and the hon. member was in full flight, although he was not in as full flight as the hon. member for Wild Rose when he discussed this bill—in a stolen motor vehicle following the commission of an offence the offender posed a danger to the lives of persons—and I might add that the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia could pose a danger as I have actually seen him drive a motor vehicle—for example due to excessive speed, this too would be considered an aggravating factor meriting a harsher sentence.

The sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Code also enable judges to exercise their discretion to impose consecutive sentencing upon offenders where appropriate. Our sentencing is comprehensive and provides the flexibility needed to tailor sentences to the factual circumstances of the offender's conduct.

The proposals contained in Bill C-219 are simply not required to address the conduct of offenders using a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following the commission of an offence. We already have the tools at our disposal to deal with this situation.

Bill C-219 is flawed. Members opposite know it. The Canadian public knows it. We on this side of the House will certainly know it and we will not participate or partake in such a flawed bill because we know what is right for the Canadian public.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

It is important that we understand that Bill C-219 deals exactly with that. I will repeat that for members opposite because they seem to have missed the point. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose. Although we have not always agreed on remedies for the justice system, there are many problems in our justice system and I agree that the Liberal government is not always there for Canadians to strengthen the Criminal Code. Tougher provisions are needed in many places.

As mentioned by previous speakers, the bill would amend section 334 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to classify those found guilty of operating or using a motor vehicle that a person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing an indictable offence, during flight or attempting to commit an offence. It is fairly simple legislation that is being proposed. All we have to do is stick to the facts.

The sentence for such an offence would be a term of imprisonment for one year. It would also require that the sentence be served consecutively of any other punishment if it arises out of the same set or series of events that contributed to the conviction for the first offence.

All of that is to say in common parlance that there would be greater emphasis placed on an offence that was committed while using a stolen vehicle. In short, Bill C-219 would act as a greater deterrent for such offences. Certainly it would be commendable for this type of legislation to come from the Parliament of Canada.

I commend the hon. member's efforts in this regard and I am supportive of the bill. This is a positive measure that the member for Wild Rose brings forward because it addresses two key areas in which there is need for improvement in our Criminal Code. It would toughen the criminal sanctions for those individuals who use a stolen vehicle to assist in the commission of a criminal act. This would be a welcome change because it would additionally punish criminals for the additional steps they have taken, namely to have stolen a vehicle to commit another offence.

The second area of the intended amendment proposed in section 334.1(2), which is very much a truth in sentencing provision, ensures that the sentence imposed on the criminal, mainly the driver, would be served consecutively. That is, it would not be simply dealt away, which is often done in criminal proceedings by a plea bargain. The sentence would be cumulative. It would be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently. This would send a strong message to the thousands of Canadians who lose their vehicles through theft or someone who would commit a robbery and forcibly take their vehicles. It would result in greater accountability and would certainly send a message to the criminal element.

It is important for everyone to understand that when a vehicle is stolen it is often damaged and often never recovered. The person the crime is committed against is greatly inconvenienced. People experience a psychological feeling of invasion when their property is taken or damaged. It is similar to when a person's home is invaded. The purpose of the hon. member's motion is to amend the code to put greater emphasis on this type of offence. I believe it to be a positive one. I would therefore hope there is support at third reading for Bill C-284 brought forward by the member for Calgary Centre.

Those of us on this side of the House, at least those who are interested enough in this bill to speak on it here today, certainly see that voting in favour of this type of legislation is a deterrent to the very thing the hon. member had brought forth.

No matter how well meaning, legislation will go nowhere without the ability to implement and enforce it. I would therefore like to outline some of my concerns with respect to the government's persistence in underfunding a host of law enforcement issues. The solicitor general has often stated publicly that public safety is a strategy and a priority for the government. Instead of talking perhaps the solicitor general could also do a lot to demonstrate that commitment to public safety by supporting legislation such as the initiative brought forward by the member for Wild Rose and by paying greater attention to what our police community is telling him. Quite bluntly, police officers are getting the shaft from the Liberal government.

According to the information revealed by the government's own organized crime committee last April, the national police service needs an additional $200 million over the next four years or it will functionally expire. That will have a great impact on every part of the country. We have already seen a situation evolve where large detachments of the RCMP are underfunded. The solicitor general and the Liberal government decided to cut $74.1 million from the RCMP's organized crime budget.

This is not about leadership or providing resources for the law enforcement community. It is quite the contrary. When you cut 13% from the budget in one fiscal year what do you expect the people who are supposed to uphold the government and the law in this country to do? The RCMP is not the only police force that feels the effect. Municipal and provincial police forces are inevitably forced to pick up the slack. Many of these forces are already burdened by the abandonment of the ports police and are struggling to fill the void left by this government's axe.

We need a real commitment to law enforcement, not just talk, not just debate in the Chamber but real legislation. The government has to bring in legislative initiatives if we are to see real concrete improvements. I applaud the member for Wild Rose for taking such an initiative. it is quite disturbing to think the government would not embrace such a positive initiative on the member's part. I would expect the government to support this legislation since it is votable and as we in the Conservative Party will be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-219 today on behalf of my colleague from Wild Rose. I listened to the rant of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. It was very clear he had no understanding of what the bill is all about. As I listened to him I was reminded of an old saying from many years ago that if you stare at something long enough and hard enough, you begin to take on some of the characteristics of what you are staring at. Considering the long career in harness racing of member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I see there is a lot of truth to that saying. He has obviously spent a lot of time staring at the back end of a horse.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On behalf of Standardbred Canada, of which I am proud to be a member, and on behalf of the horse racing fraternity across this country, I take exception to the hon. member insinuating that there could be a member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who is a horse's ass.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think the hon. member went that far. I am sure if he had he would have been called to order by the Chair. I am sure he would not have wanted to suggest any such thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke believes he is a horse's ass I will grant him that.

Getting back to Bill C-219, it was obvious the member did not understand what he was talking about. The concept of this bill put forward by the member for Wild Rose originated in August 1996 at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. One of the resolutions that came out of that meeting was the unanimous consent to add a minimum jail sentence when a stolen vehicle is used in the commission of a crime.

Bill C-219 would amend the Criminal Code to provide for a minimum sentence to be levied when someone used a stolen vehicle in the commission of a crime. There is not rocket science about that but the Liberals have a hard time understanding what this bill is about. This would simply put the police chiefs' resolution into practice.

The member for Wild Rose did receive a letter from the Canadian Police Association. For those Liberals who do not know, these are the frontline workers who deal with crime on a daily basis and are witness to crime committed using a stolen vehicle. They say to the member for Wild Rose: “The measures proposed in Bill C-219 are therefore necessary to address this public safety concern and we appreciate and support your efforts in this regard”.

The last Liberal member who spoke said that support from the Canadian police chiefs and the Canadian Police Association did not exist. I am happy to inform him that it does exist in a letter of support for this bill.

Let me deal with another statement. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said we should not be hard on someone who has had a minor indiscretion and steals a vehicle and goes for a joyride. I have never heard such a ridiculous statement in my life. Does the member know that there are many people killed in this country by people who have had, in his words, some minor indiscretions? They have stolen a vehicle, gone for a joyride only to wipeout some pedestrian on a street corner, or on a crosswalk, or slam head on into another vehicle and kill someone. Does he understand that when he makes that statement? I find it pretty hard to take statements like that considering the consequences of this so-called minor indiscretions.

He also says the Canadian judicial system does not want or does not need an amendment to the Criminal Code like this. He says that in his opinion and in the opinion of the government Canadians are well served by what is in the Criminal Code now. The Criminal Code does not, even in Bill C-41 which he talked about and which I do not think he understood either, provide for an additional sentence to be levied against someone who commits a crime using a stolen vehicle. It does provide for an additional minimum sentence for someone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Threatening with a firearm, using a vehicle or using any other type of device in a commission of a crime and being a threat to public safety, should there not be a provision to address that and to provide not only a penalty but perhaps deterrence? Stolen vehicles in this country are at an epidemic stage. Around 20% of all vehicles stolen are stolen for the purposes of committing a crime. They are used as get away vehicles or for whatever purpose.

While the government may make light of the member for Wild Rose's private member's bill, I think it is a little misinformed about the statistics. It is also misinformed about the opinion of the police who are out there on the streets every day. It is also misinformed about the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the support it has for the bill.

Since 1988 auto thefts have grown about 80%, another 9% in 1996 alone. This is the eighth straight year of dramatic increase in the theft of vehicles.

The primary motivations for stealing cars or trucks are joyriding, transportation for criminal purposes, breaking and entering, robbery, drive-by shootings, or they simply strip the vehicles for parts.

This costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars every year to the provinces. I think the government has an opportunity here to provide not only a penalty but perhaps deterrence. Deterrence and penalties are foreign words to the Liberal government. We have seen it and are seeing it in its approach to the impaired driving issue.

I want to go to that because we are talking about deterrence and penalties. The justice committee has a mandate to amend the Criminal Code to enhance deterrence to impaired driving and ensure the penalties reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Yesterday, I understand, someone was arrested who was drunk. The person was handcuffed and put in a police car. Somehow the person got the handcuffs in front of them, stole the police cruiser while intoxicated, took off down the highway, smashed into another car and killed two people. This was in Quebec. Under the Liberal philosophy on how we should treat this person, it is not their fault. They were obviously discriminated against in their childhood and it is society to blame, not the person.

I just hope the mandate received by the justice committee to amend the Criminal Code to enhance deterrence and assess appropriate penalties to impaired drivers is somehow recognized in the next few weeks. I do have my doubts, given what has happened thus far.

I think it was absolutely highly irresponsible of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to refer to the stealing of a vehicle for the purpose of joyriding as some sort of brief indiscretion, considering the carnage that has been caused by just such an act. He should apologize to the families of the victims who have been killed by joyriders and those who have been left with permanent injuries as a result of minor indiscretions by joyriders. He should be ashamed of himself for making a statement like that in the House. It proves that if we look at something long enough we will take on the characteristics of it.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to add to the debate this evening.

It is interesting how one would react to this issue. We have seen pretty well both ends of the spectrum on this reaction. There are those who think that when a young person steals a car, particularly a person too young to even have a driver's licence, it is just one of those things that kids do. Let us not get too excited about it. Let us just carry on. Then there are others who view it much more seriously.

What I would like to do in the few minutes I have available is talk briefly about the attitude that leads up to this. For many years I have been involved in teaching children. As many members know, I was involved for many years as part of a children's camp. Part of our program was to teach them morals and how to behave properly. I also taught for many years in our church in what is called family Bible hour. We tried to relate life decisions to some broader principles.

One of the things I emphasized over and over and in which I strongly believe is that there is not a single person who at any age suddenly one day goes out and commits a serious crime. I am of the conviction that is first practised in one's mind. What one thinks about one becomes. It has been my observation and my experience. I will not give any details but I will shock and surprise members by indicating that I am not perfect.

[An hon. member]

You're kidding.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

No, I am not. I have done some things which at my age now I regret.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Next you will be saying there is no Santa Claus.