Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon following my colleagues from Laval Centre and from Joliette, who have both dealt in their remarks with the human side of the problem which should be taken into consideration before the government has this bill passed by the House.
I will draw the attention of the hon. members and of the government to statistics that are relevant to this problem, because I feel it is important. Beyond the remarks of my two colleagues, it is important to tell the government that statistics currently available show that the courts have not used the full range of sentences allowed by the criminal code. Far from it.
The stiffest prison sentence handed down for impaired driving causing death has been ten years. That is the maximum sentence imposed on offenders these days.
Judges, who are in the best position to consider the specifics of each offender, have not been using the whole range of sentences allowed by the criminal code. The criminal code already sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death. The ratio of offenders sent to prison after a conviction for impaired driving has dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in 1997-98.
The prison sentences brought down in these cases are for the most part less than two years. Hon. members heard correctly. The courts could sentence offenders to 14 years, but sentences are currently less than two years.
Why then pass legislation to allow life sentences if the courts are not inclined to make full use of the tools available to them already?
I would also like to cite other statistics. The offence of impaired driving causing death is not on the increase at the present time. In 1998, 103 people were charged with impaired driving causing death, the lowest figure for this offence since 1989.
In addition to what is stated in this bill, there are some preventive programs that have already had an effect.
Canada has become a champion as far as imprisonment is concerned. When something is going wrong, instead of looking into the problem, let's throw them in jail. Good riddance, we don't have to deal with the problem any more.
To echo the words of my colleague for Laval Centre, take the person, put him in a box and lock him up, that is all.
This runs counter to what the supreme court justices concluded in Gladue , where they faulted the federal legislator for being too quick to imprison delinquents. These are not my words. It is what two honourable justices of the supreme court said.
I will read a few excerpts from the decision in Gladue :
Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the areas of progressive social policy and human rights. Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a world leader in putting people in prison. Although the United States has by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialized democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest. Moreover, the rate at which Canadian courts have been imprisoning offenders has risen sharply in recent years, although there has been a slight decline of late.
I think that everybody in this House knows it, but many choose to ignore the day-to-day realities of our society. Since being elected as the member for Jonquière, I have noticed that, in its ivory tower, this government unilaterally adopts bills that are totally out of touch with the realities faced by the people when it comes to taking action.
This government is listening closely to the Canadian extreme right, which believes that the solution to any and every problem in Canada is the law of retaliation. These people believe that we should condemn first and then say “The longer you will stay in jail, the better it will be for you and for society”.
It is not true. This is not the way Quebecers think. This is not what we think. I find that the Quebec society is ahead of its time in many areas.
Prevention is required. What could be more beneficial to find solutions, to find an ideal way out and solve problems in society, than prevention programs?
This government is ignoring the prevention means we are advocating to help people. I am not saying that driving a vehicle while impaired is not serious, especially when lives are lost. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that, right now, we should establish prevention and education programs. We must start educating our children when they are young. In Quebec, we have very good prevention campaigns, aimed at society as a whole, which that drinking and driving is a crime.
That is certainly true, but we must also consider the fact that nobody can say it will never happen to them. Everybody has surely had a drink or two when they were extremely tired and then got behind the wheel. An accident could happen.
Such people are not criminals. I do not think that they are criminals. If something happens, it is just an accident. The notion of accident will have to be considered. In Quebec, we consider alcoholism a disease. We will have to invest a lot of money in research so people have places to go to be treated for alcoholism.
As my colleague for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said earlier, there is an ignition interlock system with a breathalizer available in Canada, particularly in Quebec and in Alberta. The criminal code should be amended to allow judges to order an offender to have such a system installed on his or her vehicle as a condition of parole or in exchange for a reduction of the driving prohibition period.
I can see in the document that was given to me by my colleague that this system has been proven effective. Why not require all car manufacturers to install such a system on all vehicles?
We could also give tax breaks to those who have such a system installed on their vehicle. It would be a way to reduce the number of people who drink and drive.
As my colleague from Joliette said, during the holiday season, in Quebec, we have Operation Nez Rouge. I do not know if there is such a thing in the other provinces of Canada, but Nez Rouge is an organization that tells people “You want to celebrate during the holiday season; leave your keys and your car where you are, dial this telephone number and someone will come and pick you up and drive you home.”
Because of that, in Quebec, since Nez Rouge has been in operation, the number of people driving while impaired has significantly decreased during the holiday season. The success rate is extraordinary and I would like to say, incidentally, that this not for profit organization is manned by volunteers who provide the service. That is another way of saying that we have to deal with alcoholism.
It is not through legislation imposing life imprisonment that we will deal with the problem. This is not the way to make people more responsible. I am not talking about people who have repeatedly driven while impaired, who have no social conscience and get behind the wheel even though they know they are not allowed to drive. I am talking about individuals who are doing it once in their life and whose families and fellow workers will be branded for the rest of their life. That is not the way we should act in Canada; that is not the way the government should act to improve the situation and make society more responsible with regard to this scourge, which is less prevalent in our society, according to the statistics I mentioned earlier.
I ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill. It is not constructive, it is repressive. I want to warn her and tell her that she is on the wrong track with the young offenders bill. It takes the same approach.
I think that right now this government is assuming that the people of this country are second-class citizens, that they lack judgement, that they are not aware and that they are not able to improve. That is unacceptable. The federal government has only one speed when it comes to criminal justice: overdrive.
This bill goes too far. In both the young offenders bill and the impaired driving bill, the Minister of Justice reveals her inability to manage complex problems without resorting to dangerously repressive measures. There is no justification for this attitude, because crime, I repeat, has been on the decrease in Canada for several years now. Furthermore, there are no studies showing that such an approach is effective.
We must guard against inflated sentencing, which bears a dangerous resemblance to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Nobody will win in this mad race except the jailers.
But law and order politics are very popular politically, as the Minister of Justice is well aware. As for justice, and more specifically youth crime, there is also opposition to this bill because of the simplistic measures proposed by the federal government.
I think that this government will have to stop and think, that it will have to get back in touch with what people really experience every day, if our society is to improve and not be undermined by bills such as this one.
There is still time for the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill and I and my fellow members of the Bloc Quebecois urge her to do so.