Debates of May 11th, 2000

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak when you are in the Chair. It seems to me that you are doing a lot of overtime there these days.

Before I get into the substance of the bill before us, I would like to remind hon. members that on May 13, this coming Saturday, I will be turning 38. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have sent me birthday wishes.

The Chair has been so kind as to send me a little greeting. I want to remind those who have not already done so that there is only one day left. It is always a great pleasure to know that people are thinking of us on the very personal occasion of a birthday. I have not yet had many cards from the NDP, but there is still time to remedy that. I would therefore like to issue a reminder to them. On the government side, things have also been pretty quiet, but anyway they have one more day. Since I have a twin brother, I will share your wishes with him as well.

Now, getting down to business. Sadly, I must inform the House that, despite the traditional co-operation the Bloc Quebecois has always shown when bills were reasonable, we will not be able to support Bill C-18.

A few weeks ago, I shared my concerns about the Criminal Code with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. As she knows, I even went so far as to register for a course in criminal law given by Mrs. Grondin, at the University of Ottawa. She is an excellent professor.

The exam was really a tough one, I must admit, but a person cannot have too much knowledge when he has to reach decisions here as a legislator. I can say that readily because I know that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine herself studied law at UQAM in the early 1980. Those were the days when the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine was not only Liberal, but perhaps even a little Bolshevik at times. That being said, she has always had social concerns, which is, I must say, to her credit.

We cannot support Bill C-18, because it is unreasonable. A bill requires a degree of measure, flexibility, rigour and balance.

Before getting to the core of the issue, I want to say how much the Bloc Quebecois caucus benefited from the expertise of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is himself a great legal expert, one of the brightest of his generation, even though he can sometimes be stubborn. Still, I think he is one of the most brilliant legal experts in the House.

I express, on behalf of us all, the hope that the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm will seek a third mandate. I know that he can count on the support of the president of the Liberal association in his riding, who had extremely harsh words for the Prime Minister. The riding of Berthier—Montcalm is a breeding ground for dissenters, a riding where critics are very vocal. I would not be surprised to learn that, in that school where criticism is a requirement, the member for Berthier—Montcalm taught a few classes.

I salute the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I would ask to send me his wishes for a happy birthday on May 13, since he is no doubt the member of this House to whom I am closest.

Coming back to the substance, Bill C-18 goes too far. How can the government ask us, parliamentarians, to impose life imprisonment—these words have a meaning after all—for impaired driving causing death or bodily harm resulting in death? We must set things back in their proper context.

Let us examine what the Criminal Code is all about. The Criminal Code is a law. Some might think it is not a law, but it is. It is a law containing several hundred sections—on procuring, on criminal interest rates, on property given as security, on homicide, on defamatory libel, section 347 on criminal interest rates. It is a key piece of legislation. But in a society that wants criminal law to be taken seriously, there must be a balance between the sentences proposed to us as lawmakers and the offences committed.

We know that our justice system is an adversarial system, with the crown, represented by those defending the government, on one side, and the defence on the other. Even though lawmakers have suggested a number of sentences within the Criminal Code, these are always discretionary.

I would like to interrupt my speech to read a message which I will not hesitate to make public, with the kind permission of the House. I am touched. It reads: “Happy birthday, love and kisses, Svend Robinson”.

I would like a round of applause because May 13 will be my birthday. Thank you to all those who remembered to send their good wishes to me and my twin brother. It is this sort of thoughtfulness that makes it all the nicer to work together. I thank all my colleagues. I will be 38, and 40 is just around the corner, but I must say that I think I am in rather good shape for my age. Once again, I thank our colleague, Svend Robinson.

The Criminal Code must therefore reflect what we see as effective sentences. The House will remember how, a few years back, we amended the Criminal Code. I must pause again for all the congratulations.

A man much liked by the House, one of the most brilliant defenders of the working class, has sent me another birthday telegram “Happy birthday, and many more, Yvon Godin, Acadie—Bathurst”. I thank my colleague, and on behalf of—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that we cannot read out the names of members, only their ridings. Everyone knows that, and the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst may be cited without the need to mention his name. I hope the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will comply with the Standing Orders.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

You are right, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that, in this special moment of celebration as we focus a bit on our private lives, you might be a bit more indulgent. I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who, as we know, has been an outspoken advocate of workers in the House. I think he deserves our recognition. That, I think, closes the birthday period.

I want to return to the extremely important Bill C-18, in which there has to be a balance between sentencing and the offence being considered. This is so true that, a few years ago, we amended the Criminal Code to provide that in social terms there were certain circumstances and certain offences that would result in a harsher sentence.

We adopted provisions on crimes of hatred, for example. We agreed as a society and as parliamentarians that in certain instances, such as when people beat others up because of their sexual orientation, the judiciary would have no choice but to mete out a harsher sentence to those doing so.

The question today is whether it might be a bit excessive to want to put a person in prison for life for impaired driving causing the death of another.

Obviously we must take every measure available to us to prevent people from driving under the influence. The Bloc Quebecois supports measures that are along the lines of education campaigns.

We remember the education campaigns aimed at drinking and driving carried out in co-operation with a number of cable companies. We all recall the campaign “Drinking and driving is a crime”. I believe we are right not to tolerate this kind of behaviour. But it seems to me that between trying to deter people from driving under the influence and sentencing them to life in prison, there is quite a step that we as parliamentarians should not take.

The member for Berthier—Montcalm, whose huge talent we all appreciate, did tell us in caucus that it was extremely important.

I must stop once again to bring to the attention of the House that I have received a gift of flowers, little red roses from an anonymous donor. As we are all a little bit on the socialist side in this House, I wish to thank the anonymous source, it gives me a great pleasure nonetheless.

I resume by saying that the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with the government members who want us to allow the judges to sentence to life in prison individuals guilty of impaired driving causing death.

In spite of the deep emotions I am feeling right now, allow me to share with the House an editorial from La Presse .

This is really unbelievable. I hardly know how to react, but I will share this message with those listening “Happy birthday to a brilliant and charming colleague. Vive le Québec libre”. And it is signed “the premier”. Well, really, my life is complete. And I have the piece of paper to prove it. But, moving on.

Journalist Pierre Gravel, who is not on the payroll of the Bloc Quebecois and who is known for his seriousness, integrity and analytical mind, wrote the following editorial a while back, on June 3, 1999. It is therefore fairly recent. He said:

The Bloc Quebecois has often been criticized for systematically blocking Ottawa's every move just to prove that the federal system cannot work. But this is a charge that will not stick in the case of its stand in the debate on sentences for impaired drivers.

On the contrary, in this debate, it is the Bloc Quebecois' firm stand that has been largely responsible for tempering the excessive zeal—

I repeat:

—for tempering the excessive zeal of the champions of zero tolerance and thus putting the entire debate into a reasonable perspective, in which the sentences handed out for impaired driving will not be out of proportion to those for equally serious crimes with much lighter sentences.

With the number of serious accidents due to impaired driving climbing year after year until there is now a crisis, federal authorities have been concerned about this problem for some time now. In 1997 alone, there were no fewer than 193 accidents in Canada related to alcohol consumption that resulted in the death of at least one person.

The publication of statistics like this would have been a signal to any responsible government to review the preventive and punitive measures that might stop the slaughter.

The article also says:

This was in fact the mandate of a Commons committee on justice, which, in recent months, applied itself reviewing all laws that might have an effect on this so as to make recommendations to Minister Anne McLellan in preparation for the tabling of a proposal to change existing legislation.

But, when the government—

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to be especially attentive, along with my colleagues in government. I will not read too quickly so it will not be too difficult for the interpreters. I will table this document so it will be easier for debates.

It says:

But when the government, as is the case at the moment, runs headlong into an ultraconservative and populist opposition such as the Reform Party—

Members will understand that this was before the day the right united in the hope of one day forming the government. All this, members will understand, is just wishful thinking, but this is not what the author was getting at.

But when the government, as is the case at the moment, runs headlong into an ultraconservative and populist opposition such as the Reform Party, which always advocates stiffer sentences to ensure that law and order prevail everywhere, we run the risk inevitably of having—

This is the heart of the author's argument.

—really radical solutions emerge, which do not always take into account the whole picture. And their main merit is quiet the rumblings of an exasperated public whose desire for vengeance is constantly thwarted by a bunch of demagogues.

The expression does not come from the Bloc Quebecois, I remind members, but from journalist Pierre Gravel.

When, moreover, the party in power—

I am talking about Liberals, including you, Mr. Speaker.

—feels an urgent need to increase its popularity with a group of people who support the intractable attitude of the opposition, we end up with an unacceptable bill—

I hope the members of the government have understood.

I wish members on the government side would open their ears and hear correctly.

I have said it in English to make sure the Liberals get it. Continuing, then:

—we find ourselves faced with an unacceptable and vehemently opposed bill, the opposition by the Bloc Quebecois being totally justified in this case.

Here then we have a tribute to the lucidity of the Bloc Quebecois being made by La Presse , a paper that cannot of course be suspected of any sympathy for the sovereignty cause.

Continuing to quote the editorial:

It must have been obvious to those drafting it that, regardless of the opinion of the supporters of unqualified severity, it was total madness to call for life imprisonment for impaired drivers involved in a fatal accident. All one needs to do to convince oneself of this is to look at how any murderer or hit man can reach deals with the authorities, plea bargaining for a lesser sentence in exchange for some co-operation, or some more or less spontaneous admission. As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has in fact pointed out, it is a kind of aberration to insist on a life sentence for a driver who has done something stupid, something of enormity but nevertheless unpremeditated, while a criminal who has carefully planned someone's death can get off with fourteen years in the penitentiary.

This is the most basic of inconsistencies. Continuing to quote Mr. Gravel:

Undeniably, a clear message must be sent to all those who are irresponsible enough to drive when they are drunk. But if wisdom starts with fear, we ought perhaps to start out by letting them know that judges will have more leeway in future for imposing more severe sentences. They also need to know, however, that these sentences will really have to be served.

I will stop for another brief aside, as I have received another message of good wishes. I shall make it public because we are paid to make our points of view public:

Dear colleague,

Have a happy birthday. Best wishes for a happy day to you and your twin brother. From an MP who keeps an eye on you and who is far better looking than you.

I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine on your behalf. It is always nice to enjoy an atmosphere of open camaraderie.

We will, therefore, not be in a position to support this bill. We hope that the government will rediscover the character of reasonableness the taxpayers expect from the party in power. I thank all those who have made this speech possible.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague, who lost his concentration a few times because of his birthday, but who made serious remarks about this issue, since we must also think about the victims who die in accidents caused by impaired drivers.

As my colleague mentioned, we must avoid going too far because sentences that are too harsh may have a negative effect. I was at the committee last year because there were cases that had to be mentioned, in my riding as well as elsewhere.

If the sentence is too harsh, it will encourage what is called hit and runs. Imagine someone who causes such an accident. If the sentence is too harsh, such as life in prison, that person will be inclined not to face up to his or her responsibilities, to flee the scene of the accident without trying to come to the victim's aid, even if it is just by calling for help as soon as possible.

In applying such a harsh sentence, I think we must look at the negative effect it can have. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Last year, the House rectified one situation, and we all agreed that people involved in hit and run incidents had to be dealt with as harshly as those who caused death, involuntarily of course, because they were driving while impaired. There is a new balance. It was something that had to be changed.

It seems to me that if a life sentence is maintained in such cases, it will encourage people to flee the scene of an accident. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse the very qualified and judicious comments of the hon. member for Lévis-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, whose pragmatism has always benefited this House.

My colleague reflects the view of our caucus when he says that there is a point beyond which sentencing, because of its excessive nature, becomes counterproductive. I also heard the hon. member for Chambly, who is also a legal expert, and whose comments were just as judicious. He reminded us that the practical consequence of a bill like this one, if it is passed, is to authorize and encourage hit and run offences.

Is this what we, as parliamentarians, want? As I remember, the Criminal Code includes a provision requiring people to provide assistance when a person's life is in danger, although I cannot tell members which section it is.

We are acutely aware of the fact that we must deter people from driving under the influence. We do not believe that, from a social perspective, that objective can be achieved through excessive sentencing. We must think about it: life imprisonment.

The sentence is of course imposed by the bench, but the practical consequence of the proposed legislation is to allow a judge to impose life imprisonment on a person who drove under the influence, when those who commit the most serious crimes— those who terrorize us—can get away with a 14 year sentence.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand. It seems to me that the point of view defended by the Bloc Quebecois is a balanced, reasonable and rational one that calls for a fair trade-off between what the Criminal Code allows and the integrity to which we must aspire as individuals.

What I am asking the government to do—and I do not think it excessive—is to recall the bill, not to put it on the Order Paper for consideration by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We are not in any way minimizing its importance. I would not like it myself if my sister, my brother or my little nephew were killed in a collision with a drunk driver. As parliamentarians, we do not wish to experience this in our personal lives, but I think that we must not go to extremes and pass bills as radically unreasonable as this.

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is with us today. I say to him, as we have always done—we are a responsible opposition—that when the government introduces balanced bills, bills that are in the best interests of Quebec, we vote in favour. The list of bills that we have supported is a long one. We have always done so with this same sense of proportion and responsibility that must transcend political differences.

I repeat: this bill cannot be supported because, as the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has said, it goes too far.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask my question without first wishing my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve happy birthday.

I would like to know if my learned colleague, who knows and studies every single piece of legislation introduced in the House, would agree that, in the responsibility placed on citizens and in the degree of criminality assigned to the actions of citizens, there should be some kind of gradation whereby sentences should also take criminal intent into account?

I totally agree that nobody should drive while impaired. Only a fool would say that it is acceptable, except that in Quebec—and the same thing must be happening throughout Canada—there is an increase in hit and run incidents.

Will the harsher sentences provided for in this bill cause a further increase in hit and run incidents? For example, when the person who inadvertently exceeds the speed limit has to pay a heavier fine than the man who assaulted his neighbour with a baseball bat, there must be something wrong.

I would like the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to tell us if it is fair to say that the penalty imposed for a reprehensible act must be proportionate not only to the act itself but also to the intent of committing that act? The mens rea, or guilty intent, principle seems to be totally ignored in this bill. We know that there is no crime without the two main elements, namely actus reus and mens rea, the act and the intent.

Here is an example I studied in law school. Someone breaks into a residence, stabs the occupant in the back—and it has happened —and the occupant panics and jumps from the second floor to escape the aggressor and dies from the fall.

The courts said that the actus reus, or the act of stabbing the person, was not the cause of death. Some will say that this is an aberration. The bill before us must not lead to similar aberrations. Perhaps the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is celebrating his birthday today—time flies—could tell us if this is one of his concerns. Could our brilliant colleague, who is also a legal expert, tell us that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Chambly for his erudition. We all know that he is one of the few people in this House who can talk about the history of France and the last referendum and quote from the criminal code from memory.

I think his is one of the most brilliant minds in this House, are there are not too many of them. However, we can say there are quite a few on this side.

In conclusion, I must say that the member for Chambly has understood the main part of the Bloc Quebecois position. He touched the essential of our preoccupations. We believe that there is a huge gap between the objectives of the bill and the means used to achieve them.

I do not know if I have enough time left to explain briefly the notions of actus reus and mens rea.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

For the benefit of this House.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having heard all the birthday wishes that were made to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I wonder if we could offer him a gift. With the unanimous consent of the House, we could perhaps allow him five more minutes to explain those notions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps, but he can always do so at another time. As we all know, his time is now over.

Is there unanimous consent to authorize the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to continue for a minute?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on debate, but I wanted to take a quick opportunity to wish the brilliant and charming member opposite a happy birthday from this side of the House.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, it is important to discuss Bill C-18, a bill dealing with impaired driving causing death.

This bill introduced by the federal government goes too far. It provides for life imprisonment for an offender who is condemned for impaired driving causing death. I think this is going beyond the objectives we should have in the criminal code.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-18, even if it considers impaired driving a very serious offence. We think that, by passing Bill C-18, we would negate the specific nature of this offence, and create a serious imbalance in our criminal justice system.

Sentences already provided for are said to be underused by the courts. Statistics show that the courts have not used, far from it, the full range of the sentences provided for in the criminal code.

The most severe sentence ever imposed by the courts for impaired driving causing death is ten years. The judges are in the best position to analyse the specific case of each offender, because it is their responsibility to do so, and they have not used the full range of what is already provided for in the criminal code, which sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death. In other words, there is a gap between what is actually being done and what is allowed in the code. Right now, the average sentence is 10 years, but sentences could go up to 14 years.

On top of that, the ratio of offenders sentenced to prison for impaired driving has dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in 1997-98. Most prison sentences are less than two years.

Why should we pass legislation to allow life imprisonment sentences when the courts are not fully using the tools they already have?

In Canada, partly because of the practice in the United States and partly under the influence of the right wing movement represented here by the Canadian Alliance, we have often believed that we would solve problems by imposing harsher sentences under the Code. Each time we have a problem with the behaviour of offenders in our society, we think the best way to deal with the problem is to amend the criminal code and increase the sentence.

The legislation before us today is a case in point, and so was the bill on young offenders; the Liberal government was somehow intoxicated by this right-wing approach according to which it is absolutely necessary to strengthen discipline, make it very harsh, and offenders will only change their behaviour if we strike them hard.

Today's case is a perfect example of this new philosophy which is influencing law in Canada. I think we can safely say that this approach is more widespread in the provinces with a majority of English-speaking people and much less so in Quebec.

We have shown that showing compassion and openness, by giving young offenders a chance to rehabilitate themselves for instance, often produces better results in the end. It actually allows us to have a more just society, which is always the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is not just to punish as much as possible.

The purpose is to create a just and balanced society and, in this case, the Liberal government's attitude appears to be based much more on its desire to please people, namely the right wing in Canada, who are asking for stiffer sentences. This does not seem to be an interesting solution.

The number of offences involving impaired driving causing death is not rising. No one denies the fact that impaired driving causing death is a very serious offence. We must judge these situations very carefully and make sure we find the right solutions.

However, it is false to claim that we are facing a rash of crimes in that area. In 1998, 103 individuals were charged with impaired driving causing death, and this is the lowest number of cases since 1989.

We have a situation where rumour has it that things are terrible. Rumour is often magnified by the media and by the focus which is put on events. However, statistics based on a 10 year period show a situation which does not correspond to the isolated events reported on TV. From that perspective, the current situation in Canada does not justify such a serious measure to deal with the issue.

I referred earlier to the right wing. It appears that Canada is becoming a champion of incarceration, second only to the United States. Canada incarcerates twice as many people as most European countries.

Besides, in the Gladue case, the supreme court justices condemned the federal lawmakers' excessive reliance on prison sentences to deal with delinquency problems.

This is yet another example of our need to be responsible in this parliament. We are not here only to ride social trends. We are here also to legislate and make decisions that reflect reality.

We have realize that, under this legislation, we would treat a drunk driver like a hitman. We have a double standard, here.

Members who spoke before me have made it clear that for a crime to be committed, there must be an act and an intent. A hitman, for example, has clear intent from the beginning and his act is deliberate. On the other hand, in the case of the person who commits the crime of impaired driving causing death, something horrible that must be punished, motivation and full knowledge are not as obvious.

I believe it would be a mistake to give, under the criminal code, equal importance to these two things. This could lead to discrepancies. For instance, a drunk driver, who has undeniably been negligent, could receive a harsher sentence that a hired killer who, after skilfully plotting the death of his victim, can be given a reduced sentence as an informer.

Members can imagine this: an individual is given life for impaired driving causing death, and even though it is his first offence, he receives a very harsh sentence for an offence which is certainly serious but which, in our opinion, does not warrant such a sentence, whereas a hired killer would be sentenced to less time in prison because of his being an informer. This is a double standard and it is unacceptable.

Both individuals committed very reprehensible acts. However, their profiles are quite different, a fact Bill C-18 does not recognize. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill.

Moreover, one must take into account other sentences related to offences the characteristics of which are comparable to impaired driving causing death. For instance, under the criminal code, dangerous driving causing death is punishable by a 14 year sentence. Since 1985, for this kind of offence, the average sentence handed down by appeal courts in Canada has been 19 months.

How can the minister justify sentencing an offender who killed someone in cold blood and in full possession of his faculties to a shorter prison term than a driver whose faculties were diminished by alcohol? Again, this is not consistent with the rules on which our laws are based.

Here are further examples of serious offences, the perpetrators of which are fully aware of what they are doing, leading to lesser sentences than impaired driving should Bill C-18 become law.

First, let us look at attempted murder. An individual who has attempted, without success, to murder someone would get a lighter sentence than someone convicted of impaired driving causing death. Pursuant to section 463( a ) of the criminal code, this individual would be liable to imprisonment for a term of 14 years. As members can see, an individual who attempted knowingly to murder someone would face a lighter sentence than someone convicted of impaired driving causing death. There is a double standard here, and it is unacceptable.

Another example is the case of accessories after the fact. Someone who has helped a murderer to elude the authorities would face a lighter sentence than someone convicted of impaired driving causing death. Pursuant to section 463( a ) of the criminal code, this person is now liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Another type of crime is participation in a criminal organization. As everyone knows, the issue of organized crime is dramatic and terrible nowadays. A confirmed criminal who is part of a criminal organization and who participates in its illegal activities is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, pursuant to section 467.1(2) of the criminal code.

These are three examples of a double standard in comparison with what is proposed in Bill C-18: attempted murder, accessory after the fact and participation in a criminal organization.

I will add a fourth one: aggravated assault. An individual who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of someone commits an aggravated assault. Pursuant to section 268 of the criminal code, an individual who commits such an offence is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

This bill would impose a life sentence on a person who causes death in an accident because of impaired driving, while a person who assaults, injures, maims or disfigures someone or puts their life in danger gets a maximum of 14 years.

There is a clear lack of logic in the current position. The reason for that is that this position is not based on legal considerations, but rather on political considerations, in that the Liberal government wants to please the right wing, which is found mainly in English Canada.

Like the person accused of impaired driving causing death, the person accused of causing bodily harm did not foresee the consequences of the offence. Yet, one is given a much harsher sentence than the other: ten years for the one who caused bodily harm and life for the one who caused death.

What makes impaired driving causing death more negligent than impaired driving causing bodily harm? Both offences are identical in terms of intent, with regard to the consequences of the offence.

Even though the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the sentences for both offences must remain different, it does not want that difference to be disproportionate. In maintaining the sentence at 14 years imprisonment, as is the case now, for impaired driving causing death, we would make a distinction that is proportionate to the consequences of both offences, while recognizing their similarity in terms of intent.

All that, when we already have in Quebec and Alberta the possibility of using far less drastic means that would produce equally satisfactory results: the ignition interlock system.

Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces to impose ignition interlock systems as a condition for the issue of a restricted driver's license for drivers whose driver's license has been suspended. In other words, someone whose license is suspended, known to be a repeat offender is obliged to use an ignition interlock system, and the problem is solved at source in most cases.

Rather than send someone to prison for life for something he did not intend to do—it is a serious act and should be punished—it might be a good idea to try to prevent the recurrence of this act by applying practical solutions such as the ignition interlock.

This system determines blood alcohol level from a sample of the driver's breath. It prevents the vehicle from starting if the driver's alcohol level is higher than a set level.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the criminal code should be amended to make it mandatory to install these interlock systems in the case of a repeat offender. I think this is a practical solution that could be implemented. It is a preventive measure that eliminates the problem at source and limits potentially tragic mistakes as well.

People who are very responsible citizens could do something unacceptable in a given situation, such as driving while intoxicated and by doing so have caused a death. The situation is not necessarily the result of a life of crime. It is not the result of continual delinquency, but a situation that occurred once in a person's life. Few people in this House could say that they might not do the same thing.

The practical solution proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, and I hope the government agrees to it, is the alcohol ignition interlock system, to put a stop to these situations at the source. In ten years, we will see, if the Bloc proposal is chosen, fewer and fewer sentences and fewer and fewer deaths caused by the irresponsibility of a drunken driver.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member still has five minutes left. If he wishes, he may conclude his remarks after Oral Question Period. We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Lachine Wharf

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, May 4, I made an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Transport on the transfer of the ownership of the Lachine wharf from Transport Canada to the City of Lachine.

Under the terms of this transfer, Transport Canada will make a $250,000 financial contribution, which represents the costs of repairs slated for completion within the next year.

Under the national marine policy announced in December 1995, regional/local port sites, 37 of which are in the Quebec Region, are being transferred to other interests over a six-year period ending on March 31, 2002. In some cases, ports are being transferred as operating ports; in other cases, for other uses.

The Lachine wharf is used regularly for sport fishing and other leisure activities. This infrastructure is used as an extension of the municipal park facilities. It also serves as a sheltering structure for a pleasure boat ramp.

The transfer of the Lachine wharf to the City—

[The Hon. the Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

Northwest Corridor Development Corporation

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard work and vision of the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation headquartered in Prince George, B.C.

The NCDC was established in 1998 as a self-sustaining organization aimed at promoting Canadian trade to and from Asia Pacific markets through this capable route.

The northwest transportation and trade corridor spans four western provinces providing an existing system of northern road, rail, air, pipeline, marine and telecommunications from the prairies to the Pacific. Currently the corridor services Canada's major resource sectors yet it is severely underutilized.

Western Canadians have always been at the cutting edge of political and commercial innovation. The northwest corridor is a shining example of public and private sector partnership.

I want to congratulate Jeff Burghardt, chair of NCDC, and his team for taking routes travelled in the 19th century and turning them into economic arteries for the 21st.

Youth

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a seminar entitled “There's Something About Money”. Two schools in my riding, Lisgar Collegiate and Nepean High School, hosted sessions. The seminars drew on the talents of community volunteers like Tammy Drapeau from Scotiabank.

I compliment the Canadian Bankers Association for developing this timely seminar series. This partnership between business and the community is helping young people make wise decisions about their financial future.

During National Youth Week, this is one more example of youth getting involved in preparing themselves for the future. I encourage organizers and participants to keep up the great work.

Manitoba

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 130th anniversary of the creation of my province of Manitoba. Thanks to the efforts of Louis Riel and his provisional government, the province was carved out of what was then the North-West Territories.

Since May 12, 1870 Manitoba has grown and prospered. Its ethnically diverse population comes from every corner of the world, a fact celebrated in Winnipeg's annual Folklorama festival.

As the gateway to the west, Manitoba has grown from its early dependence on agriculture to one of the most diversified economies in the country with strong manufacturing, transportation, financial and high tech sectors. Despite the growth, Manitoba remains a land of unspoiled natural beauty. It is a land where the lakes and forests of the Canadian shield meet the tall grass and wheat fields of the prairies. It is a land that truly bridges east and west.

Please join me in congratulating Manitoba on its 130th birthday.

Sierra Leone

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy unfolding yet again in Sierra Leone is an outrage as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said. It is also an international scandal having regard to the inaction of the international community undermining the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations and the doctrine of human security.

The minister has said “This is where we must take a stand”. I urge the government to take the lead in organizing a human security package for Sierra Leone including buttressing the mandate, the numbers and resources of the UN peacekeeping force and establishing a rapid action force with our participation.

After the tragedy of our inaction in Rwanda we said never again. The time to act is now. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol to excess can permanently harm her baby. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect today are well understood by scientists and health care workers. Learning is blunted. Many youth so afflicted are antisocial. A significant number of people who commit crimes are FAS youth.

Many women have no idea about the difficulties alcohol can cause to infants in the womb. One way to educate the public would be to label alcoholic beverages. A graphic label showing a pregnant woman in profile with an x across her would be a warning even for illiterate Canadians to be cautious.

The recent murder of little Jessica Russell in B.C. by an alleged FAS victim should be a clear reminder to all brewers and distillers that they have a responsibility to act voluntarily to educate and prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

Child Safety

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to offer condolences to two families in my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford who are undergoing the horrific tragedy of the suffocation deaths of their small children in a trunk in the attic of one of the family homes. These little playmates were inseparable and during a game of hide and seek clambered into an old trunk with a hasp that locked and thus sealed their fate.

In spite of their heartache, these families have indicated their wish to heighten awareness of the potential dangers posed by common household items.

A trust fund has been set up and proceeds will go to Codrington Public School, where two of the children attended, to educate children about safety issues.

No parent, grandparent or guardian can afford not to be continuously on guard in their homes, cottages, garages and sheds to ensure that there are no potential risks to the health and safety of our children.

Importation Of Plutonium

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberal government's environmental management is insufficient in a number of ways. The importing of MOX is a good example.

After last-minute changes relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd's shipping plan, the federal government imported 120 grams of plutonium by plane, a procedure that is illegal in the United States.

Yet shipping by air had been judged far too dangerous last fall during consultations with Atomic Energy of Canada.

Russia is now preparing to ship 600 grams of plutonium over here, which is five times more than initially planned. The federal government has a duty to consult people on the principle of importing plutonium.

To date, 152 municipalities and regional municipalities in Quebec have passed resolutions in opposition to this. I would invite the public to come and sign petitions available in all riding offices of the Bloc Quebecois members.

Ben Soave

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 6, Superintendent Ben Soave, who has had a long and brilliant career with the RCMP, was awarded the Order of the Italian Republic and named a Knight Officer of the Order of Merit, an order similar to the Order of Canada, by the Consul General of Italy.

Superintendent Ben Soave heads the Toronto based Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. This unit is made up of provincial and federal police forces, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Criminal Intelligence Service of Ontario.

Under Superintendent Soave's leadership, this unit was responsible for the arrest of some of the world's most notorious criminals. In June 1998 project Omertà dealt a significant blow to one of the largest and most established drug smuggling and money laundering organizations in the world.

Today the government is honoured to recognize the award bestowed upon Superintendent Soave.