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.