Debates of May 11th, 2000

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will now move to Group No. 4. I will remind hon. members that the motions in Group No. 4 have already been put to the House.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Winnipeg for pointing out a typographical error in one of the motions in the last grouping. The word “alternative” appears in the phrase “alternative resolution”. It should read “affirmative resolution”. In all the similar resolutions it was written as “affirmative”.

The way this was organized by the government, report stage was scheduled to come up next week. We found out on Tuesday afternoon, a couple of hours before the deadline for submitting resolutions, that the government had bumped report stage up to Wednesday afternoon. At the same time, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration was in committee, where many of us expected we could speak to the report stage motions. Because of that rush, we did not see the error. I thank the member for pointing it out. I hope the error can be corrected as it would be consistent with the other motions presented.

We are dealing with only two motions in Group No. 4, Motion No. 9, presented by the Bloc critic, and Motion No. 23, presented by a Liberal member.

The Bloc motion suggests that along with the citizenship certificate given out at the ceremony, there would be some information from the Government of Quebec given out as well. It is really interesting that we have a party, which wants Quebec to separate from Canada and wants more authority given to the Quebec government, that is now asking the federal government to intervene and ensure that it can hand out this information with the certificates.

The province can decide in any way it wants and in any form it wants to hand out this information if it feels it is something its citizens need to have. It really does not make any sense at all having that included in this bill. I know I certainly will not be supporting this motion. It really does not make any sense.

What we are talking about in this bill is Canadian citizenship, something that most Canadians value very deeply. I would also suggest that it is something most Canadians from Quebec value at a very high level. When we have a citizenship ceremony, we should be accepting certificates that we can proudly display indicating that we are citizens of Canada. I therefore cannot support the motion.

Motion No. 23, which was presented by a Liberal MP, calls for a change to the proposed new citizenship oath. I do not have any particular disagreement with the oath that is in the bill. What is really wrong is the process. How many Canadians were ever asked to take part in developing the oath? The minister said that there were some. I would like to ask Canadians if they were asked to take part. I know I was not.

I do not believe the oath is the real issue. The member is proposing an alternative oath but I do not think it is any better. In fact, it is less acceptable and does not fix the problem. The government thinks it can present an oath that has had no support or input from Canadians. I think the member is taking the same position. He, as a government member, seems to think he knows better than Canadians what should be in the oath. It really is the process that is at issue here. I certainly will not be supporting this motion. I do not think it improves the oath nor does it improve the process.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I apologize to the two members who moved motions. I assumed there was a Reform motion in the group. It was my mistake.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will, if I may, read Motion No. 9 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. Perhaps the Canadian Alliance member will really understand the impact and the concept of citizenship that the Bloc Quebecois is trying to defend.

(2.1) The Commissioner presiding over a citizenship ceremony shall, during the ceremony and in the presence of a representative of the Government of Quebec, give to every new citizen residing in Quebec a copy of the following documents and an explanation of their purpose:

(i) the Charter of the French Language (R.S.Q., c. C-11);

(ii) the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12);

(iii) the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E-3.3); and

(iv) the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations, signed on December 10, 1986.

Why are we asking that new Canadian citizens be given these documents?

There exists naturally, and we would agree with this, a citizenship which, by definition, is a legal citizenship, one which is granted to members of a political community, with civic, political and social rights.

There is also a citizenship that is part of a political community, with rights and obligations as well, which enables citizens to establish relations with one another. We all agree with this civic and legal definition of citizenship.

What we are proposing here is to extend this citizenship. We fundamentally believe that citizenship can and should be based on a collective identity that would not be built solely on rights and responsibilities but could also incorporate concepts such as the potential for citizens to exercise those rights and responsibilities.

This might involve giving people, through all sorts of tools and documents that we have created, a chance to take part in Quebec social and collective life. We also believe that this citizenship should include the possibility for all citizens to become fully integrated into a community.

What we are proposing is a new type of citizenship based on notions of inclusion, pluralism and openness, and of course on notions that would be unifying and open. What we are calling for is for citizenship not to exist only in legal terms, but to be more widely recognized and included in the bill, through this clause and this amendment.

We believe that the amendment we are proposing today should gain support from both those in favour of one big Canada and those fighting for a sovereign Quebec, which would control its own destiny. This amendment stems from a legacy, a consensus and a recognition of the fact that there is a common public culture particular to Quebec. This culture is the most important spur to action at our disposal to take up the challenge of the integration of new Quebecers. This common public culture defines the way and the method by which the citizens who chose to settle in Quebec can and must participate to the public life.

Personally, I do not think I am mistaken when I say this culture is comprised of three major components, three major lines of force at the heart of Quebec society. What are they? First, it is a society where French is the common public language.

It is a democratic society where participation and contribution of all people are expected and promoted. This democratic participation is recognized and guaranteed by the Loi sur les droits et libertés de la personne, which has the value of a charter.

It is also a pluralistic society that, although having rejected multiculturalism, remains definitely open to numerous contributions from the outside, within limits imposed by the respect of democratic values and the need for intercommunity sharing.

In the name of this common public culture, which is exclusive to Quebec, and the development of French society, whose destiny is so special in America, we ask the federal government to agree to this amendment, which is not only moved by the Bloc Quebecois, but which also has been supported by a number of members of the Quebec community and society.

This amendment has already received, in the context of consideration of Bill C-63, the support of a number of stakeholders. I am talking, among others, of the Haitian Christian community of Quebec, which supported the Bloc amendment during consideration of Bill C-63.

I believe this expresses the will of Quebecers to belong to a society that is open to the world, pluralistic and able to protect citizens' democratic freedoms and rights. Our belief in this fundamental values is what prompted us to create the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is precisely our fundamental belief in democracy which moved us to create the Quebec Election Act. It is our belief that pluralism is one of the fundamental values to integration which led the Government of Quebec to issue its declaration on interethnic relations.

What we are calling for today is for the fundamental values of Quebec society, which are characterized by and set out in certain very specific documents, to be handed out to new citizens.

As for Motion No. 23, it is rather odd that my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington would submit such a proposal. His motion reads as follows:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united in God—

I would remind hon. members of the basic values and concepts to which I have already referred. These are values of openness and pluralism. Nothing must be done that would exclude a group of people who do not believe in God, who do not belong to that community.

In my opinion, this is fundamental. And the notions of inclusion, of pluralism must be included in this bill. I fear that Motion No. 23 would really exclude a number of citizens who do not have such belief in God.

My party will vote against Motion No. 23. Needless to say, my colleagues will support Motion No. 9 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

Regarding this motion, I thought it was important to recall the fundamental values enshrined in official instruments passed by Quebec's national assembly. This was done simply to inform new Canadian citizens of the democratic, pluralistic values specific to Quebec's society. These values were accepted unanimously by Quebecers.

Let us inform new citizens of their democratic rights. Let us inform them of their rights and freedoms. Let us allow them to understand clearly that we belong to a French speaking society established in America. The French speaking community in Quebec accounts for 2% of the population of the North American continent. We have expressed our desire to develop and to prosper in French.

Quebec's charter of rights and freedoms shows that. We want new Canadian citizens to know about it.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Motion No. 23 which would change the oath of citizenship as it is in the current bill to another version.

I have to correct the member for Lakeland. The second version that I will read presently is very much a version that was created in this parliament in answer to the fact that after extensive consultation with Canadians the government failed to listen to what Canadians were saying about their oath of citizenship and continued with an oath that is essentially the very same British oath that has been with this country since the expulsion of the Acadians in the mid-1750s.

I will read the oath that is in the bill now. Then I will read the oath that I propose. The oath that is in the bill now says:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

To repeat, this is a direct descendant of the British oath that began two centuries ago. This is in its tone and content an oath that is not born in Canada.

After all the consultation that occurred—I was on the citizenship committee in 1994-95—we received many, many Canadians and many, many ethnic groups that spoke about the current oath and made suggestions. The citizenship committee cycled through this discussion yet again just a couple of years ago and the government did extensive studies. All said that the oath containing the allegiance to the Queen was no longer something that resonated with current Canadians, much less with those new Canadians who come to our country and have to take this oath.

When the citizenship bill was first presented to parliament last year as Bill C-63, and we saw this oath that I just read, a number of us on this side were scandalized. We were absolutely scandalized. Right here the member from Brampton West on this side and the member from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington, we put our heads together and we wrote a new version of the oath based on what we believe in our heart of hearts as parliamentarians is what Canada is all about and based also on what we heard people tell the citizenship committee over three years.

What we came up with is an oath that has three components. It eliminates reference to the Queen. It restores reference to God and it attempts to summarize the principles that are contained in the charter of rights and freedoms which I believe are the principles that motivate Canadians and describe our unique identity. The oath that we came up with, and I will read it now, is this:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.

I propose to deal with each of those three elements and first the Queen. One of the themes that came out of the hearings on citizenship that was absolutely consistent was that people come from all over the world to Canada and when they come to swear an oath of citizenship to Canada they cannot understand the reference to the Queen. In fact the government's own opinion polls find that most new Canadians coming to Canada cannot understand the reference to the Queen.

The Queen is a foreign monarch. It is certainly true the monarchy has a role in Canadian society in terms of our legal entity and our functions as parliament and eliminating the reference to the Queen, as the Australians did in 1993, in no way affects our parliamentary traditions or the operation of this parliament or the governor general or anything else.

The reality is, as we heard in testimony, that many people come to Canada from other lands in which they associate the British monarchy with slavery. Indeed I point out that the original oath of allegiance that was required of francophones, of French Canadians and of Acadians, was required in 1755 and when they failed to swear allegiance to the monarchy of the time the Acadians were expelled. They were taken out of Nova Scotia and scattered down the coast of the United States.

I think most Acadians would now refuse to take an oath containing a reference to the monarchy, because of this dark period in our history.

What are we doing having the Queen, the monarchy, in an oath that describes Canada when we are inviting these people to Canada? I think what I am saying here is that the Queen no longer captures the spirit of what it is to be Canadian. In fact in the context of an oath of citizenship I wonder whether the Queen ever did.

I do not think it is out of place to eliminate the Queen from the oath of citizenship. I think when we do so we repatriate the oath of citizenship, because new people coming to this land realize that it is Canada that they are coming to, not Britain, not to some foreign monarch, not to the British monarchy. They are coming to Canada. That is the first point.

The second point is the oath I propose has the words that new Canadians come and take their places among Canadians, a people united by God. I was very careful in using this reference to God. I point out first that all the other major oaths of citizenships, in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain have a reference to God. What happened in Canada was when we last went through the oath of citizenship we took the reference to God out.

In proposing to put the reference back in, all I am doing is reflecting the fact that we have the reference to God in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not suggesting that a new Canadian coming to Canada should feel that in taking this oath that the person is indicating he or she believes in God or the person is assigning an association with one religion or another.

The reality about the Canadian history, our life, is that every kind of Canadian has had an association with God. Whether we are a Christian, or a Muslim, or an aboriginal, actually 80% of Canadians believe that there is some sort of higher authority. We as Canadians owe our good fortune of having one of the most wonderful countries in the world to something more than just NASDAQ, the stock exchange or our mining riches.

Canadians are more than meat and potatoes. This land is more than fire and water. This land is something that is above our human intellect. Generally speaking, Canadians as a society have held that belief. What we do here is say that a new Canadian who comes to this land is going to be a part of this tradition of a faith in God. This is not an ideology. It is still open to opportunity. The person does not have to believe in God because this is a land where we accept people of all points of view. That is one of the reasons why we can have a room of such tolerance here. We can have separatists and people of different ideologies. That is the genius of this country.

Finally, there are the five principles of equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. These derive directly from our charter of rights and liberties. This is what we are as Canadians. This is the spirit of being Canadian. This is what defines our tolerance. It is not just being equal, it is having equality of opportuntiy. That is why we believe in medicare and why we believe in universal education. Freedom of speech, democracy and all these things are essential to the Canadian spirit.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, these are what define Canadians; these are the principles that define Canadian. I urge all party leaders to allow a free vote on this issue. I heard the member for Rosemont and respect his point of view. But for heaven's sake, this opportunity to repatriate the constitution, to repatriate the oath of citizenship and to bring it back to Canada should surely be a free vote allowed by all party leaders.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Group No. 4 of amendments to Bill C-16.

I will first talk about Motion No. 9 by the member for Rosemont. He will perhaps find this a bit surprising, but I agree with much of what he is proposing, although I think that the citizenship ceremony is perhaps not the right time for these documents to be given out. This should be done long before.

In his motion, the members asks to have new citizens given:

(i) the Charter of the French Language;

(ii) the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms;

(iii) the Election Act;

(iv) the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations...

These are documents it would be appropriate to give to people coming to Quebec. I would go even further and say that this would be useful for any province. However, we are talking about Quebec here. I think that people arriving in Quebec as immigrants should get all these documents. I think they already do, but they should at least be aware of them and their content.

From the time they applied for citizenship, seven years have passed, on average. This is why I think it is a bit late for them to be getting these documents at that point.

As a party, we must unfortunately vote against this motion.

The member for Rosemont also talks of having a representative of the Province of Quebec at the swearing in ceremony, but his presence must not be vital to the holding of the ceremony.

I know that a number of MPs do not attend swearing in ceremonies. I think that it should be important, even a duty. I attend these ceremonies myself at least once a year, and I then send letters of congratulations to all new citizens in my riding.

I would like to talk about Motion No. 23 presented by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington. I definitely have a problem with this motion. I cannot support it and our party will not support it. It is certainly not because I am or am not a monarchist, which is what I will touch on first.

If we were going to get into changing anything as significant as this, we would have to change our constitution first. The Queen is still in the constitution and until we make a major change in it we cannot remove that from the oath. The member talked about different oppressed countries where royalty is feared but it goes a lot further than royalty. It can also extend to politicians and people's fear of them. We have to be careful about how far we go on that.

He referred to a people united by God. I have no problem saying that I am a Christian and I strongly believe in God. But in this day and age, with all the different religions in Canada, I feel we are putting them totally aside by adding that type of phrase to the oath. Because of that, there is no way I can support that.

The other points the member made about the oath are very interesting. I think they are nice, but we have to stick with certain parts of this right now that are already there and a part of a constitution. Therefore, we will be voting against this motion.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against both of the proposed amendments.

First, Motion No. 9 concerns the guidelines for ceremonies celebrating passing the citizenship test. We have to remember that is what these ceremonies are for, a celebration. The testing has been completed. Participants at those ceremonies are there to be celebrated and not to be politicized. They have passed a test. They are there with their families. I have attended many of these ceremonies. They are very joyous occasions particularly for people who have come from countries where there has been heavy persecution and they have had a very difficult time getting here.

The materials for distribution go through the local offices and they are very flexible. No one says that the Government of Quebec cannot, particularly on application for the citizenship test, be aware of this and make sure that the materials are distributed. We do not have any objections to that.

The other thing I would point out is that residents have to live in Quebec for three years before they are able to go through a ceremony. Therefore, there are three full years to make sure that they understand how valuable the French language is and how valuable the culture of Quebec is, and I do not disagree with that.

We cannot force the Quebec government, the Ontario government or the Manitoba government through federal citizenship laws to make sure they have an official at a ceremony that is strictly federal.

I do not think a ceremony of celebration is the place to bring in political debate. I do not think it is the place to try to force other levels of government to attend. We have a hard time in many cases getting MPs to attend some of these ceremonies so we are not in a position to order other governments around and I do not believe the member opposite would want that.

As far as Motion No. 23 is concerned, I am sorry the member for Wentworth—Burlington left because the third part of it is a very interesting proposal. His amendment is much like a smorgasbord; he has too much in there.

I agree with the member opposite that this is not the place or the time to debate the relevance of the monarchy. Many of the people who come to this country come from Commonwealth countries and would not be the least bit surprised to pledge allegiance to the Queen. She is still a very significant part of our Canadian psyche. Regardless, as I said, this is not the appropriate place to get into a debate on that.

Concerning the relevance of God, I also agree with the member from the Tory party who suggested that people have a vastly different image of God. There are many titles for a superior being and 20% or 30% of people who come from other countries actually do not believe in God. The concept that an oath can be sworn to an individual's own God within his or her own heart is very much a part of the ceremony. It is nothing to be excluded. Both of these amendments will not be supported by the government for very good reason.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-16, the Citizenship of Canada Act, previously known as Bill C-63.

I want to take this opportunity to thank our young and dynamic colleague for Outremont. Besides taking an interest in the issue of violence on television and introducing an excellent bill—one I am sure you will insist on supporting, Mr. Speaker, since you have always been against violence—he is our critic for citizenship and immigration.

I think it was very wise on his part to follow in the steps of his predecessor and to revive an amendment which reminds us of the importance of citizenship. Citizenship is important to a society. It is, first, the conviction that we live together, that our way of living together forms a common public culture. In such a common public culture, there is a number of elements.

Members will understand that knowledge of history is important. Otherwise, not only would nobody be able to understand Quebec but nobody would understand why Quebecers aspire to a national destiny. If you would be so good as to nod, Mr. Speaker, this would greatly encourage me to continue.

When we talk about Quebec's national destiny, we are referring to an unfulfilled, uninterrupted quest that will inevitably lead it, in the coming years, to achieve sovereignty and, of course, to create a country. The Premier of Quebec reminded us of that when he said that this whole process was now back on the political agenda.

Our common public culture is our history. It is also our language. No one can ignore that by choosing to live in Quebec, they are also choosing to speak a vernacular language, a language that is not the language spoken by North America's majority, but by a minority, the French minority. There can be no common public culture without participation through a common language. I will get back to this issue, which is rather central to today's proposal before the House.

When it comes to Quebec citizenship, another component of a common public culture that is just as essential as the language is a commitment to democracy. I hope Canadian Alliance members, government members and Progressive Conservative members—who will hold their convention this weekend—are well aware that there is a deep, fundamental attachment to democracy in Quebec.

We hope that all citizens will participate in our institutions and we say that democracy is a very real and dynamic component of the concept of citizenship.

How is that citizenship exercised? If I asked that question to hon. members, they would tell me that citizenship is exercised through the right to vote, through the choice that we make to have elected representatives speak on our behalf on major public issues and voice our concerns in the various assemblies.

We know that the National Assembly is among the most important assemblies in North America. My colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, knows about this issue better than I do, because he is a member of the world interparliamentary association. I think I can say that the National Assembly is among the oldest parliaments of North America. Parliamentarism was born with the Constitutional Act, 1791. Back then, there were few parliaments in North America. Therefore, Quebec can pride itself upon a long and deep rooted tradition of democracy.

Another element of our public culture is intercommunity relationships. We do not see Quebec as an homogenous mass where there is no place for input from other communities. Quebec is a land of immigration for various reasons. Of course, there is the inherent attraction of Quebec because it is at the crossroads of several major cultures, including the United States and France. Our francophile and francophone roots are of course very much present in our heritage and our society, because we still speak French, but also because this language is the expression of our culture. Quebec is a point of contact with North American society. It is no small matter to be the neighbour of the first economic power of the world.

Let us remember what Kennedy said. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when you were a child, a long time ago, you were an admirer of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. What did he say? Here is what he said about the relations between Canada and U.S. “Geography made us neighbours, and history made us friends”.

This is an elegant way of saying that we did not choose to be the neighbours of the most powerful nation in the world. This has its advantages and its disadvantages. This was a disadvantage as far as foreign investment is concerned, but it was also an advantage in terms of sharing a common market that has a potential to be expanded, a potential that has always been recognized by sovereignists. This is why, early in the process, sovereignists supported the previous government in the free trade initiative.

Having said that, I want to discuss our perception of citizenship in terms of the contribution of various cultural communities. For instance, a member representing a Montreal riding—I am a member from Montreal as are my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont, and those from greater Montreal, though I will leave it to Mrs. Harel to define its boundaries—cannot do his or her work without acknowledging the presence of cultural communities that are very dynamic in everyday life.

For example, in the northern part of my riding, there is a Haitian community. I think there is a large Ukrainian community in the riding of Rosemont. In the eastern part of my riding, in Bourget, there is also a small Portuguese community. What does this mean?

I have to make a fundamental distinction here. We are sovereignists who believe in the existence of a political citizenship in Quebec that has to be recognized. I will get back to this later. However, we also believe that Quebec society should benefit from the contribution of various communities.

Unlike multiculturalism, we do not define society as the co-existence of several cultures without a common thread. We believe that, for instance, Haitians who immigrate to Quebec, Portuguese who settle in Montreal or Ukrainians who live in Rosemont may have strong feelings about their culture, but we nevertheless expect them to adhere to a public common culture.

The best proof of adhesion to this public culture is, of course, making the effort to master the language sufficiently to be able to communicate in daily life.

Multiculturalism allows for the co-existence of several cultures and for everyone to continue to master their own culture while considering themselves Canadians. We do not share this vision. It is not the vision of the Government of Quebec and, of course, we do not believe it is not the vision that is most promising for Quebecers.

The proposal of our colleague from Rosemont is extremely reasonable and I cannot imagine that anyone would oppose it. The amendment proposes that, during swearing in ceremonies, the four main symbolic documents underlying the common public culture of Quebec, namely the Charter of the French Language of Quebec, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Elections Act and the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations, be distributed. An official of the Government of Quebec would be there to explain their importance.

Again, Quebec is an land of immigration. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are three major centres of immigration. This means there are three provinces where there is a major centre of immigration. Quebec is one of them. We hope that immigrants will come to Quebec in large numbers and will take an active part in this common public culture.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A division on the motions in Group No. 4 is deemed to have been demanded. The recorded division stands deferred until the end of the period allotted for consideration of Government Orders on Tuesday, May 16, 2000.

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 10, the motions in Group No. 5 have been previously moved, seconded and are now before the House. Motions Nos. 10 to 14 are now available for debate.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to these motions, all of which have been presented by the Canadian Alliance party. They deal with the issue of appropriate punishment for dealing with crimes committed under the citizenship act.

My general feeling is that the penalties are extremely weak, particularly in a situation where a citizenship official breaks the law, takes bribes and so on under the citizenship act. I will speak a bit more about that later but that is the general problem.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says often that citizenship is something to be valued, but she does not have penalties which reflect this when it comes to people who fraudulently trade in citizenship and that type of thing. That is regrettable.

The chair of the committee and other government members told me to bring my amendments to the bill forward at committee rather than at report stage. I did that with this group of motions. They did even not listen. They shot them down automatically. So much for committee functioning. I brought them back at report stage to show the Canadian public what was rejected by the Liberal members at committee. It is important that they know. It demonstrates to the Canadian public just how the government views breaches which allow people to become Canadian citizens through fraud and how weak the punishment is that it puts in place in that regard. That is what this whole group of motions is about, but they are dealing with slightly different things.

First, Motions Nos. 10 and 11 deal with clause 39 which deals with various offences regarding the obtaining of citizenship. They include making false representation, committing fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances. They include obtaining or using another person's certificate. They include knowingly permitting one's certificate to be used by someone else so the person will be identified as a Canadian citizen. We can all understand the kinds of problems that would cause. They include offences of trafficking and offering to traffic in citizenship documents.

These are extremely serious offences. Yet what types of punishment has the government put forth in its legislation to deal with these offences? It has put in place fines of not more than $10,000 and/or five years in jail. Hon. members will know that the maximum penalty is five years in jail. We can certainly see with sentences handed out under the immigration act and under the citizenship act that the penalty which is usually imposed by the courts is very weak and often includes no prison time and a very minor fine.

It is extremely important to increase the penalties which could be imposed to demonstrate clearly that it is a serious offence when one traffics in documents, falsifies documents or gets into the country fraudulently in some way and is recognized as a citizen of Canada fraudulently. Yet the government does not take it seriously enough to put in place appropriate punishments.

One area in particular that I find really offensive is the area of citizenship officials, people who are put into a position of trust in the citizenship department and break citizenship laws by doing things like issuing false documents or false statements that apply to citizenship issues, or commit offences like accepting bribes or encouraging someone else to accept a bribe so that citizenship can be obtained falsely and fraudulently.

Offences such as contravening various provisions of the act by dealing with people who try to bribe citizenship officials and those who impersonate citizenship officials are dealt with in Motions Nos. 13 and 14. I find it surprising that under the bill, the way the government has presented it, that it would impose exactly the same penalty, no more, for departmental officials in that position of trust who break the law as it does for anyone else who is not in a position of trust and is breaking the law. I cannot understand the reasoning of a government that thinks like that. It is completely beyond me.

If we want to deter people who are in a position which lends itself to making a lot of money accepting bribes and handing out citizenship falsely and fraudulently, we have to put in place very serious penalties. They certainly should be more serious than the penalties given to anyone else for the same type of activity. Yet that is not what has happened. I believe what is proposed in here is unacceptable.

Let us think of this in terms of the way the real world is operating right now and in terms of people wanting to enter Canada illegally. If people wanting to enter our country illegally pay to obtain the services of a people smuggler or a people trafficker, they will have to pay between $20,000 and $70,000 to do that. It is a lot of money. That is the going rate for people, depending from which country they are coming, to come into our country illegally with the help of people smugglers or people traffickers. Yet because of the way the government has dealt with that in this law, for a few thousand dollars a person can bribe an official, get a false citizenship document and not only be allowed to come into the country, but become a citizen of the country in the eyes of the officials, if it is done properly, because the person will have the appropriate citizenship documents to be recognized as a citizen.

In any government department, in any business, there will be those people who, for some reason or another, are willing to break the law to make money. There are usually not very many. I would suggest that in the citizenship and immigration departments there would be very few people who would be willing to do that, but they are there.

If given the opportunity, and if the penalties are weak, then the temptation increases. For people so inclined, I believe that a weak penalty would encourage them to become involved in this illicit activity whereby people would become recognized as Canadian citizens by obtaining false documents.

For that reason my motion calls for increasing the fines. The government is proposing a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or not more than five years in jail. What a joke that is. A person could make $10,000 in a good day's work of issuing a couple of false documents.

We know how these things work in the immigration department, and I assume it would be the same in the citizenship department. When cases like this come up they are swept under the rug. The person may or may not be dismissed. Seldom will people ever actually end up in court, but when they do the courts view these things lightly. They look at a five year maximum jail sentence and they do not think it really means that. The courts seem to think that means maybe a suspended sentence or some type of probation.

I think it is important, because of all these factors, that the maximum penalty be increased substantially. We are proposing that when it comes to citizenship officials there should be a maximum fine of $150,000, which is a real threat, a maximum jail sentence of 10 years and/or both.

I think a higher maximum penalty would cause officials working in the department to think twice. Of course, that in itself would not solve the problem. I recognize that, but we have to have a department which is administered and managed properly. That is up to the minister to ensure. The minister has failed miserably, as did the previous minister, as did the one before. The three Liberal ministers of immigration have failed miserably in terms of improving management and administration in the departments. It is not me saying that; it is the auditor general.

The auditor general issued, just a couple of weeks ago, the most damning report he has ever issued, to the immigration department. He said that management was absolutely in shambles, that administration was not working and that enforcement was weak. Many people have said it is the most damning report the auditor general has ever issued.

Putting these more serious penalties in place may cause people to think twice about committing the very serious offence of allowing people to become Canadian citizens when the law would not allow it.

It is shameful that the government is so weak in terms of protecting the security of our country.

How do organized crime figures get into this country? They are the first ones who would be willing to bribe officials. They have done it and they will do it again. They are the first ones who would use people smugglers to get into the country. The top individuals of course have other ways to get in, but certainly they would not hesitate to bribe officials. It happens all the time. It is a sad commentary on the government that it takes this issue so lightly.

Through these weak penalties that the government has put in the bill, it is accommodating organized crime and terrorists, and in a way encouraging them to bribe officials to become citizens of our country completely fraudulently.

Before I end my remarks I want to mention that the member for Wentworth—Burlington spoke to his proposal for a new citizenship oath, and although I did speak out against his oath, there is one aspect of the oath that I really did appreciate, and that is including the reference to God in the oath. God of course is the term that many religions, in fact I would suggest all religions, could consider to be pretty much a generic term. Recognizing that supreme being is extremely important. I think that should be in the oath.

I regret that I did not put an amendment forward myself to do that. I talked about this and I have proposed this several times throughout this two year process which the bill has gone through. It is something that I would like to see changed.

I have talked to members from all parties in the House and I would ask for unanimous consent to make a very minor change. I believe it is a typographical error either on my part or on the part of the clerks. I wish to amend Motion No. 15, which now reads:

“(b) subject to alternative resolution of the House of Commons...”

I wish to change “alternative” to “affirmative”. Therefore, I move:

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 21 with the following:

“(b) subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons, specifying who may make an applica—”

That is completely consistent with the other motions. Clearly it is a little typographical error. I think, Mr. Speaker, you would find unanimous consent to make that change.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Lakeland has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to move the amendment. Does the hon. member have consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, this series of amendments would considerably increase fines and penalties for citizenship related offences. They are very consistent. They would all do the same thing.

Bill C-16 already increases the penalties rather appreciatively. The new penalties are also in line with penalties proposed for existing offences within other federal legislation, including the criminal code.

I am going to resist the urge to editorialize on the propensity for the party opposite to look for incarceration as its punishment of choice. Filling our jails and building new ones would probably be very good for the economy, but not particularly good for the people involved.

Therefore, I would suggest that the government oppose this series of amendments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today the questions on Motions Nos. 10 to 14 in Group No. 5 are deemed put and recorded divisions deemed demanded and deferred to Tuesday, May 16, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

The House resumed from December 3, 1999 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act to amend the criminal code (impaired driving causing death and other matters), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and arduous road to reach this stage of Bill C-18. This provision was part of a private member's bill that I submitted a couple of years ago. However, the bill was lost due to the 1997 election. The official opposition brought the bill back to the Parliament of Canada in the form of a votable supply day motion, which motion was carried unanimously in the House.

We then had a delay getting the original bill to committee. We finally dealt with it last year, just prior to the summer recess of 1999. Indeed, we were able to put through this House about 98% of the original supply day motion dealing with impaired driving. I believe at that time we made a giant leap forward in taking leadership in addressing the issue of impaired driving in Canada.

We were seeking unanimous consent so that we would not lose the previous bill to the summer recess and more delays. We were able to put it through, for the most part. However, members of the Bloc were not prepared to accept the provision in the original bill which provided judges with the discretionary power to deliver a sentence of life imprisonment for someone convicted of impaired driving causing death where aggravating factors were present.

This bill is designed to address simply that, impaired drivers who have multiple convictions, who have refused treatment, who have spent time in prison, who have perhaps driven while their drivers' licences were under suspension, who perhaps have been in an accident causing bodily injury, leading up to the point where they were once again impaired on the road. With all of these aggravating factors behind them, perhaps they then took the life of someone through their criminal act.

This is the tool that we have sought for three or four years to send a clear message to society that the federal government does not regard the incidence of impaired driving as simply another social ill. Rather, it is regarded as a very serious crime, and the crime of impaired driving causing death is the most serious crime of all. We read in our newspapers, we see on our televisions and through the electronic media every day it seems that some innocent life or lives have been taken because of the stupid and criminal act of driving while impaired.

To review, Bill C-18 would amend the criminal code with respect to impaired driving causing death and other matters. The bill would make impaired driving causing death subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

At the present time the latitude a judge has is a sentence of imprisonment of zero to 14 years. Unfortunately the precedents that have been set by judges in this country in dealing with impaired driving causing death have most often been at the very low end of that scale, anywhere from six months to two and a half or three years.

There is one case on record where an impaired driver got eight years. Unfortunately that precedent has not been followed as often as it should have been.

This would increase the latitude of judges from zero to a life imprisonment sentence. When there were some extreme aggravating factors, a judge could say to the person upon whom he was to deliver a sentence, “You are a menace to society. You have taken a life through your criminal act. You have taken a life through your stupidity. You have taken a life because you have refused treatment. You have taken a life because you have not learned through the consequences of your previous actions that it is not acceptable in our society to behave in the manner that you you have been. Therefore, I will give you a sentence of life imprisonment”.

I want to relate some numbers in case anyone may have forgotten the human cost of impaired driving in our country. In 1996 3,420 people were killed in automobile crashes. Where the drivers were tested, nearly 40% had alcohol in their blood for an estimation of about 1,360 fatalities. That means that Canadians are more than twice as likely to die in an accident involving alcohol than they are to be murdered.

The monetary cost for motor vehicle incidents is $390,000 per fatal crash and about $12,000 per injury. Considering the incredibly dire straits of our health care system, would it not be something if we could put forward yet another deterrent against impaired driving that would save lives and prevent the injuries caused by impaired driving. It would also save a lot of money that could be put into health care services.

Let me read another statistic. It is important that we have these numbers to recognize the frequency of impaired driving. In 1998 over 70,000 Canadians were charged with impaired driving. Statistics also show that it takes a repetition of about 20 incidents of impaired driving before there may be a chance of getting caught. These numbers really do not tell us how many people are actually driving while impaired. The numbers are only the people who got caught. It is pretty scary when driving down the street with our families to imagine there could be in any given block at least one and maybe two people who are driving having consumed alcohol.

The alliance party strongly supports this bill. We believe that if ever there was a solid case for deterrence in the criminal code, it is on the issue of impaired driving.

The penalties that we have been able to put forward in the criminal code and the amendments we have made coupled with this final part of this bill which was put forward and part of it passed, would be a wonderful first step. It would send the strongest possible message out to Canadians that if they intend to drive after they have been drinking and they are caught, we intend to deal with that crime in the strongest possible terms. This will give the judges yet another very heavy tool in the fight against impaired driving.

Bill C-82 was the original bill on which we made some serious progress. I want to go over some of the provisions. It is important that Canadians know there have been some changes made. The federal government through the insistence of the alliance party has worked very well to ensure that parts of Bill C-82 went through.

At the federal criminal code level, the mandatory minimum fine for a first offence was been doubled from $300 to $600. Driving prohibitions for a second offence have been increased from two to five years imprisonment and from six months to three years for a third offence. For impaired driving causing death, the sentence has been changed in Bill C-18 from one year to three years, to three years to life.

One part of the bill said that the judge may impose a sentence of from three years up to life driving prohibition for an offence where there was no injury or fatality involved. We should be prepared to look at this and say that is a serious penalty the judges have been given to use. In the event where there has been a death as a result of impaired driving by a person who has simply disregarded the laws of our society, the judge should have the discretion to impose a sentence of life imprisonment.

In Bill C-82 we also passed a provision for the use of an alcohol ignition interlock system. The Canadian public is becoming more aware of this device. It provides that someone may not operate a motor vehicle without giving a breath sample into the device. If alcohol is present in the person's breath sample, the vehicle will not start.

In Bill C-82 the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident that caused bodily harm was also increased. The maximum was increased to 10 years from the previous five years. We in the alliance party were happy about that. We also increased the time limit for law enforcement officers to demand a breath sample. That was increased from two hours to three hours. Many times because of the shortage of officers and the logistics, it has not been possible within the two hour limit to get a breath sample. There is now another hour to work with.

Something I am very happy about is the penalty for driving while disqualified was increased from two years to five years. For so many years all over the country people have lost their licences due to impaired driving. For whatever reason so many of these people have disregarded the fact that they have been prohibited from driving and have chosen to drive anyway. Instead of a two year sentence, which seems a long time to me but maybe to some people they do not think it is too long, it was increased to five years. That was an important change.

A number of changes that we wanted did not make it to Bill C-82. I will go through some of them before I wrap up by addressing the urgency of Bill C-18.

Bill C-82 was a good first step to take. It sent a stronger message to impaired drivers. While we would have wanted to go further in many cases, I think we are going to see some results of the amendments to the criminal code.

Before Bill C-82 got to committee it had been 13 years since the federal government had reviewed the criminal code as it applied to impaired driving. Given the human cost and the monetary cost that impaired driving causes year after year, it was very much overdue but finally it got there after 13 years.

We would have wanted to increase at the federal level the mandatory minimum fine for an impaired driving first offence to $1,000 up from $300. We did not quite make it. We made $600 but we would have liked to have seen it at $1,000.

Another thing we wanted to pursue was to change the criminal code so that only evidence that the breathalyzer was malfunctioning would be permitted as a defence against a charge for a reading of over .08. This would be to eliminate the so-called two beers defence. Too often in the courts judges accept this defence, notwithstanding that the crown has put forward certificate evidence of the breathalyzer results, notwithstanding the report of the arresting officer who clearly gave testimony that the person arrested seemed to be incapable of performing some simple required tests, notwithstanding evidence which the average person would think was enough to convict.

Defence lawyers have been putting forward witnesses for their clients who have said that they were with old George or Jane the whole evening and all he or she had was two beers. In the face of certificate evidence which showed a 0.15 breathalyzer test, judges have been saying “Two beers, are you sure?” “Yes your honour, two beers”. Believe it or not, in far more cases than we can possibly imagine, judges have been accepting the two beers defence. This is absolutely irresponsible on the part of many judges. They simply have not gotten the message.

We had hoped we would also get the BAC, the blood alcohol content limit lowered from .08 to .05. The reason is that while evidence shows clearly that at .08 the person was indeed impaired, there is a built-in margin of error used by defence that has been set by precedence over the years. Judges have accepted a margin of error to the effect that no one, unless he or she blows .1 or more, ever much ends up with a criminal conviction. Had we lowered the BAC to .05 and left a margin of error that would have taken it up to .08, that would have looked after the problem. Unfortunately far too many lawyers were present at the standing committee when we examined this. They rolled their eyes and said that this could be a legal nightmare so we did not proceed in that way.

Bill C-18 is a major step for the Parliament of Canada. It gives notice to Canadians, victims of impaired driving and their families who are left to mourn the loss of their children or other loved ones that this parliament has taken some leadership.

If there ever was a time to address a criminal problem, it is through the passing of Bill C-18, and we support it whole-heartedly.

In closing, I would like to move:

That the question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion is in order. The routine is that we would go right back to debate and that there be no amendment.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-18, concerning impaired driving causing death.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for his work as justice critic for the Bloc. He works tirelessly on this issue, and I thank him very much.

I want to state clearly that the Bloc is against Bill C-18. I want our position to be very clear. I would like the House to know, from the outset, that the Bloc does not in any way condone driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any other substance.

I can already imagine the big guns from the right, not to say big guns at my right, that is to say some members of the Canadian Alliance, getting themselves in a state and crying “This does not make sense. The Bloc should not be against this bill. Drunk driving is a scourge in society. There are organizations like MADD”.

Hon. members receive many documents from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. A women who lost her son and her husband in road accidents caused by drunk drivers founded the association.

I want to stress that the Bloc does not encourage drunk driving. However, we think that the proposed sentence for impaired driving causing death is unrealistic and unenforceable. It is one thing to have a sentence in the Criminal Code, but if it does not mean anything, if judges find it is unenforceable, why bother amending the code?

Members may be surprised to see a transport critic speak to this issue, but there is a connection between driving and road transportation, by car or truck.

I must also specify that my training and my experience as a lawyer before I got involved in politics made me realize that it is important that lawmakers make changes to the Criminal Code or any other law that are enforceable. This holds true for Bill C-18. What the government proposes is impossible to enforce and is also incompatible with other types of sentences provided for in the Criminal Code, and I will come back to this later.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that impaired driving causing death is a very serious offence. Nevertheless, if we were to pass Bill C-18, we would be denying the specific nature of this offence and creating a profound imbalance in our penal system. We will prove this later.

Statistics show that the courts still have lots of room to manoeuvre with the provisions of the Criminal Code. The longest sentence imposed by courts for impaired driving causing death is, currently, 10 years.

The courts, which are in the best position to analyze the characteristics of every delinquent, have not exhausted the resources of the Criminal Code, which sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death.

The percentage of people sentenced to jail upon conviction, by the courts, for impaired driving decreased from 22% to 19% between 1994-95 and 1997-98. The terms of imprisonment imposed in the majority of these cases were less than two years.

There is a provision in the law providing for a much higher maximum penalty, but in all logic and in all justice most of our magistrates and our courts impose penalties of less than two years.

Let us not forget the deterrent effect of the penalty. Let us not forget society's repulsion for offences it punishes. That is why people who do wrong must be punished by having the courts impose penalties on them. That is why we have a penal code, the Criminal Code.

Taking into account what I was saying earlier, namely that most judges impose sentences of less than two years of imprisonment, why should we, as parliamentarians, legislate to allow life imprisonment when the courts are not inclined to fully use the tools currently at their disposal?

Although impaired driving causing death is a very serious offence, it is wrong to suggest that we are now faced with a criminal outburst in that area.

In 1998 in Canada, 103 people were charged with impaired driving causing death, which is the fewest since 1989. I understand that 103 convicted offenders is still too many and that we should aim for zero. But do 103 convicted offenders really represent a problematic situation in Canada, although it is still too many? There had not been this few since 1989.

With the wind from the right wing, the Canadian Alliance, blowing on our Liberal colleagues opposite, we get the impression they feel bound to react with much stronger legislation.

We may only be 12 to 15 months away from a general election in Canada, and we know the Liberals feel threatened by the rise of the Canadian Alliance in western Canada. They feel they have to use the same language, the same words, but with different actors.

With this wind from the right wing blowing ever stronger in Canada, this country has become a champion of incarceration. It ranks second for the rate of incarceration. Behind which country? Which country ranks first? Is this a model of social peace and tranquillity, with safe neighbourhoods, and kids in high school packing guns and killing people?

I am talking about murder, but I could also be talking about all violent crimes. The country in the world that puts the most people behind bars is the United States, and Canada ranks second. We have to wonder what this means.

Let us compare Canada with European countries. As far as I know, it is not the law of the jungle in European countries like France, England, Germany and Italy. They do not play havoc with the legal system. They are not in a state of anarchy. I think that there is a reasonable societal balance in Europe. In Canada, nowadays, our incarceration rate is twice the rate in most European countries.

Even the Supreme Court justice condemn the fact that federal lawmakers are too ready to resort to incarceration in order to resolve delinquency problems. Even the Supreme Court justices, appointed by the federal government on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice who wants to amend the Criminal Code in this way, condemn the increased reliance on incarceration.

This is what the Justices Cory and Iacobucci of the Supreme Court said in the Gladue ruling:

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—

In the United States, there are 600 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants. They put plenty of the people in prison. Is everything going well in the United States, when we see what happens every day at McDonald's, where lunatics who are able to easily obtain weapons shoot people who were quietly eating their hamburgers or what happens to people going for a walk in a shopping mall? Such things are happening more and more frequently in the United States. That is not to mention the 10, 12 and 14 year olds who commit crimes with firearms. In the United States, however, there are 600 inmates per 100,000 population.

The supreme court judges go on to say:

Although the United States have by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialised 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 as risen sharply in recent years, although there has been a slight decline of late...

In the same vein, the Canadian Sentencing Commission, in its 1987 report entitled “Sentencing Reform: A Canadian approach”, says the following:

Canada does not imprison as high a portion of its population as do the United States. However we do imprison more people than most other western democracies.

The Canadian Sentencing Commission Report states further:

In the past few decades, many groups and federally appointed committees and commissions given the responsibility of studying various aspects of the criminal justice system have argued that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and should be limited to the most serious offenders.

These words are important because they set the tone for the next part of my speech, where I will compare this type of offence to other types of offences. If we consider it a serious offence, then we must look at the way the Criminal Code deals with other serious offences.

The Canadian Sentencing Commission goes on:

However, in spite of the number of times this recommendation was made, very few steps have been made in this direction.

As I was saying earlier, by proposing life imprisonment for those who are convicted of impaired driving causing death, the Minister of Justice is ignoring the comments of her own supreme court.

The only solution is prevention. Incarceration should be a last resort. However, the Minister of Justice has not shown that she has used up all the tools at her disposal to fight impaired driving and to protect the public. She has opted for the easy way out by increasing prison sentences. She has opted for the line of least resistance suggested by the Canadian Alliance, when she could have acted otherwise.

There are effective ways other than imprisonment to lower the number of offences related to impaired driving. For instance, there is the ignition interlock device, greater use of which we support.

Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces to impose the use of an interlock device as a condition for a restricted licence for drivers who have had their licence suspended by the province.

An ignition interlock device—we remind our listeners—is a device that determines the blood alcohol level by a simple breath sample from the driver. This system prevents the vehicle from starting if the alcohol level exceeds a certain level.

Currently, only people accused of a first impaired driving offence can have the period during which their licence is suspended shortened by court order if an ignition interlock system is installed.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Criminal Code should be amended to make it mandatory to install an ignition interlock system on all repeat offenders' vehicles. The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the Bloc critic for justice, will soon introduce a bill to this effect.

This type of program would be much more effective than imprisonment. Not only does this system prevent the offender from committing an offence, but it also allows for consciousness-raising activities. Imposing life imprisonment for impaired driving could generate nonsensical situations.

For instance, an impaired driver, who is undoubtedly negligent— we agree on this—could be sentenced more severely than a hired killer who, having skilfully planned a murder, would be given a reduced sentence by becoming an informer.

Should someone who has celebrated a bit too much on New Year's Eve be treated the same way as a member of organized crime? Granted, both individuals have acted wrongfully but it must be recognized that they have very different profiles, a reality which is denied by Bill C-18.

Furthermore, one must take into consideration certain types of sentences related to other offences with characteristics similar to those of impaired driving causing death. In the case of dangerous driving causing death, a prison sentence of 14 years is prescribed by section 249(4) of the Criminal Code.

Other types of offences could be mentioned. For instance, an individual who commits attempted murder is liable to a 14 year sentence; the offence of accessory after the fact may result in a maximum sentence of 14 years; participation in a criminal organization—involving hardened criminals—may result in a 14 year sentence; a person committing aggravated assault is also liable to a 14 year sentence.

The federal government knows only one way to do things about criminal justice, and that is to overdo things. Whether it is about young offenders or impaired driving, the Minister of Justice has once more shown her incapacity to deal with complex problems without using dangerously repressive measures.

This approach is totally unjustified, since criminality has been on the decline in Canada over the last few years. Furthermore, no study proves the effectiveness of such an approach.

In conclusion, we know that a law and order policy yields lots of good results, politically speaking, something the Minister of Justice is very aware of.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is a pleasure to rise on this issue, but it is certainly one we should all be involved in. I feel it is important for our party and all members to take interest in this issue. It is a very serious issue that involves fatalities and injuries to human beings and accidents that just should not happen.

I am certainly pleased to rise on Bill C-18 and to speak strongly in support of all its aspects. Bill C-18 amends the criminal code by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment. It also provides for the taking of blood samples for the purpose of testing for the presence of a drug. The amendment gives police the power to take a sample from the person in question even if this person is incapable of giving consent.

I was a car dealer for 18 years and even before that I was involved in the car business. Part of our business was accidents. Part of our business was wrecks. Many of those wrecks were as a result of drunk driving and most of them involved fatalities. I still remember each one of them. I still remember every day that they came in on the back end of a tow truck, smashed to smithereens and reflecting the injuries and even the fatalities of the people who were involved in the accidents. The losses of life were not necessary.

I think of the young people especially that were involved in many accidents. I think of all those lives that were lost. I think of some of the young people whom I knew well that are gone. They should be here, those tremendous young people, but they are gone and never will be.

In my view there should be zero tolerance for this offence. I totally support the increase in penalties proposed in Bill C-18. We were anxious to see the bill come forth earlier, but even with this delay we are pleased that it is now here. We are pleased to return to the debate on this bill.

It was last debated in December 1999. At that time the party pushed for the government to come forth with legislation that introduces the life imprisonment clause for impaired driving causing death. Since then one year has almost passed and parliament has yet to make much headway.

We are pleased to be back here, but we are worried about the delay and wonder about the priorities of the government. We understand now that it is anxious to bring in Bill C-17 respecting cruelty to animals. Meanwhile this bill, which is such an important one in my view and in the view of my party, lies dormant. It is difficult to justify how the bill on cruelty to animals is more important and should take priority over this one, although cruelty to animals is certainly an important issue that should be addressed.

Yesterday the government raised the question of providing $175 million for road work in western Canada to accommodate the grain industry when in fact provinces all across the country have been asking for money for road work, for highway improvements and reconstruction from one end of the country to the other to help save lives.

The best example is Highway 101 in Nova Scotia where over 50 people have been killed in just six or seven years. Most of those people were in their twenties or younger. Again the government has chosen not to do anything for those highway problems, even though they involved fatalities, and instead put its priority on moving grain. It is putting money in highway improvement for grain but it continues to refuse to put money into highway improvement to avoid deaths and injuries. That points to the government's priority in bills. It is difficult to justify or to figure out what thought pattern it uses when it comes up with priorities.

Another one that often concerns me is that there are 3,400 deaths per year on highways in Canada. There is no federal input or direct investigation into these accidents to find out what caused them. Yet we have the Transportation Safety Board of Canada that investigates every train crash, every plane crash, whether there is death or injury. Even at that there were on average for the last five years approximately 100 deaths per year in plane crashes whereas there were 3,400 on highways. There is no focus on those accidents. Perhaps there should be. I feel strongly there should be more attention on the highway aspects of fatalities than on transportation.

Bill C-18 which will increase the penalties for impaired driving should be a top priority. It should go through the House very quickly. It deals with the life imprisonment provision, which was originally part of Bill C-82, an act to amend the criminal code for impaired driving. That became law in the last parliament. Bill C-18 will allow a judge leeway to invoke life sentences. It does not impose the life sentence, but it gives the judge, after reviewing all the circumstances of the case, the leeway to invoke a life sentence for impaired driving causing death, and we totally support it.

We were disappointed when all parties softened their position in the original debate on Bill C-82 and dropped the life imprisonment provisions in exchange for speedy passage. It was a mistake in my view and in the view of our party, and that is why we support Bill C-18. We hope that it goes through.

We supported Bill C-82 but we wanted it improved. We were disappointed to see it watered down. We wanted the current outdated legislation improved upon by including tougher sanctions, fines and suspensions. The bill did not give police enough power to protect society from hard core drinkers who are resistant to change. When we look at the statistics, it is not the younger people now who are the repeat offenders. It is the older drivers who are into a lifestyle and a habit that are finding it difficult to change. Young people are benefiting from the education programs on impaired driving that the government, the provinces and the education system provides. However it is the older repeat offenders who are causing the problems.

High school proms and summer vacation are quickly approaching. Statistics from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, show that one in every eight deaths and injuries in road crashes is a teenager. In my former occupation in the car business and now in my position as transport critic, it seems to me that the statistics are worse than that. I refer to Highway 101 in Nova Scotia where more than 50% of the people killed on that highway were in their twenties or younger. It does seem to affect younger drivers more than any other. MADD feels that alcohol plays a key role in a great many of these accidents.

In 1997, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 404 youths aged 15 to 19 were killed and another 28,780 were injured in road crashes. The troubling statistic is that 40% of the teenage drivers killed had been drinking. Three-quarters of them had alcohol levels in excess of the legal limit, in excess of 150 milligrams. Dangerous habits developed at an early age become a chronic problem. It is not the younger drivers who are the repeat offenders, it is the older drivers.

Groups like MADD are working hard to deal with this problem at an early age with some success. They are trying to raise the minimum age for drinking. They are trying to raise the minimum age for driving. Many provinces have instituted systems where young drivers get conditional licences and are only approved after a certain period of time when they have proven they can handle the responsibility of a driver's licence. Some provinces have introduced smart card technology to verify the age of an individual trying to buy alcohol.

MADD is not getting enough attention nor enough co-operation from the federal government even though this organization is extremely well-respected and appreciated for the good work it does. Its only purpose is to prevent drunk drivers from killing more people.

MADD is working hard to stop impaired driving among all ages of the population. However, it will not be effective if it does not get the legislation to back up its position and if the police do not get the tools to work with. It appears that the provinces are leading the battle with innovative approaches to drunk driving and impaired driving.

The Nova Scotia government recently passed a tough impaired driving legislation under the Motor Vehicle Act which came into effect on December 1 last year. In Nova Scotia, any driver pulled over with a blood alcohol level between .05 and .08 receives a 24-hour licence suspension. That is not an infraction or an offence. Infractions start at .08, but even before that, Nova Scotia has a new stage where licences are immediately suspended for a 24 hour period. There is no charge laid but it is a good solid warning and gets the attention of drivers. In Halifax last Christmas, the police did 8,000 roadside checks and no one was charged with impaired driving. That was a quite a successful approach for the Halifax police.

Continuing with the get tough approach, the Nova Scotia Conservative government is considering whether it can charge room and board at $100 a day to incarcerate drunk drivers. This idea is only in the initial stages, but putting the extra burden on the impaired driver is seriously being considered. Impaired drivers should be responsible for their actions.

Ontario is another province that is leading the way. It grew tired of waiting for the feds to act so in 1997, with the province's statistics showing more than 300 people killed in drunk driving related accidents, it took action. As a result, in Ontario, if drivers are caught three times for impaired driving, they will get a lifetime licence suspension. It will be lifted after 12 years if the driver installs an ignition interlock. A lifetime suspension takes drivers off the road forever. It has also increased fines to at least $2,000 from $300. This gives judges the leeway to decide what the appropriate penalty will be for the individual and it gives them the tools to work with. The federal government is not giving the judges and the police the tools they need.

It is time the federal government followed the leads of these two provinces. It is time to deal with the issue, to get tough and to took a stand. This is such an important thing because it involves fatalities and injuries, and mostly to young people.

The federal government had an opportunity to send the message that drinking and driving will no longer be tolerated but it has not done it. Every one of these accidents can either take a human life or cause terrible injuries. People who choose to drink and drive and cause an accident or death should be treated the same as if someone took a life in any other fashion. To take a life is to take a life. There should be no excuse and they should be treated the same.

However, the Liberals continue to delay Bill C-18. They show their reluctance to take action on this. They drag their feet. We say that we should not let up on our efforts in the House until the drinking and driving statistics are brought down to zero.

There are positives in Bill C-18 that we endorse and support. Increasing the time limit for the breathalyzer and the ASD testing to three hours, and strictly enforcing the .08 blood alcohol concentration limit are effective amendments that will help police in performing their duties.

Early education is the only way to really begin this process. We support the education aspect. We also support the education of older drivers, those between 35 and 45, who are currently the most frequently charged re-offenders for this charge. It is not the 16 to 21 year old drivers who are causing most of the problem, but the drivers between 35 and 45 remain a startling problem for driving while impaired.

There are also financial consequences that are becoming more substantial all the time. Over a two year period an impaired driving conviction costs at least $5,000 extra in premiums for insurance to any consumer involved. Yet, with all the financial hardship, embarrassment and everything else, it is still not getting through to those drivers 35 to 45 who should know better.

The police have many problems dealing with this issue. It is one of the issues they find most difficult to deal with. It takes a police officer an average of two hours and 48 minutes to process a criminal code charge. They also need the use of mobile breathalysers, physical sobriety testing and passive alcohol sensors to make their jobs more efficient and effective. They do the best they can with the tools they have to work with but presently they just do not have enough to do the job.

Even in light of the one year delay, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice for keeping her promise and reintroducing the life imprisonment provision through Bill C-18. We can only hope that all parties will see the importance of this legislation and give the bill swift passage through the House. Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, we certainly will support it.

Bill C-18 amends the criminal code by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment. It also provides for the taking of blood samples for the purpose of testing for the presence of a drug. The amendment gives police the power to take a sample from the person in question, even if that person is incapable of giving consent.

In closing, I want to say that these are all necessary tools which we must put into the hands of the police. The whole goal is to stop fatalities and injuries. The whole goal is to stop impaired driving and make our highways safer.

In the words of MADD president, Carolyn Swinson, in her correspondence to my colleague's office dated March 31, 2000, she summed up the public sentiment with regard to Bill C-18. She states that her:

...personal goal is to push for the legislation to be passed and receive royal assent in the Senate before summer arrives and the roads are filled with vacationing families.

I and my party concurs with MADD's position on this.