Debates of March 8th, 2005

The Budget

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. The member for Québec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who will question the government about the aboriginal peoples and the content of this budget said to be very generous towards aboriginal peoples and towards the provinces as well.

This is a budget that the Liberals are bragging about. Clearly, their speeches are full of praise for the budget. It is only fair, however, that opposition parties be on their toes and in a position to criticize it.

To listen to the Liberals, there is something for everyone in this budget, and they have listened to the public in general, and social groups in particular We also listened to the unemployed and that is not what we heard.

In fact, many people in several segments of the population as well as the provinces have been ignored. For these reasons, one might say that this budget fails to meet the expectations created by the Liberals during the last election campaign.

We know that the Liberals had promised to address the fiscal imbalance. There was in fact a commitment to that effect in the Speech from the Throne. It was not referred to as fiscal imbalance, but as pressures on the provinces. One can certainly say that, with this budget, these pressures will not be addressed. For 2004-05 alone, the provinces' shortfall amounts to $2.3 billion. This represents the imbalance in relation to the needs of the provinces, so that they could provide programs that meet the needs of the public

The Liberal Party has no reason to brag or say that it has met expectations and that we in the opposition, which includes the Bloc Québécois, are doomsayers. We are not. We are informed persons who have been very close to their fellow citizens and their needs.

We need only think of the fiscal imbalance. At this rate, by 2015, there will be $166 billion in the federal coffers, while the provinces' shortfall will be $70 billion, putting them at risk of falling back into a deficit. That is what the real fiscal imbalance is all about. The Bloc Québécois went much further, of course. A parliamentary committee presided by my hon. colleague from my hon. Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will be touring Canada to bring back real solutions to the government. Let us hope that the government will listen.

We also know that for employment insurance there are two reports in this House for which there was unanimous support. However, the government was unable to respond and make real reforms.

The Minister of Transport and member for Outremont told us that expectations had been met and it was done. But this $300 million is just tinkering with reform. The government knows very well that this amount is completely unacceptable in view of the measures that were requested in the reports, which were unanimously adopted. It should not be forgotten that members from all parties sat on the committee.

What was requested was 360 hours. Rather than that, we are given a reduction of 60 hours out of the 900 hours that one has to work before qualifying for employment insurance.

There is talk of being able to go back to the 14 best weeks. We had agreed that it would be the 12 best weeks and that there would be 50 weeks of benefits at a rate of 60% and not 50%. Instead of a meagre $300 million, these measures amounted to $1.9 billion. This sum could have been covered by the $46 billion that has been taken from the employment insurance fund. The government thinks that it can wash its hands of this and no longer owe anything to the employment insurance fund, that is to say, to unemployed Canadians.

The government could have started to return the money, $1.5 billion a year, and it could also have set the contribution rate at $1.98, meaning 3¢ more than it is now, which would have amounted to $270 billion.

So this is how the government could have responded to expectations and to a unanimous report of the House concerning which the Liberals voted for all the reforms that were requested. We did not hear much in the way of criticism from the Liberals of the measures that were taken in regard to employment insurance.

There is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. In any case, we are still very far from declaring victory for this budget, even concerning tax deductions, while we wait for another budget. We will see the vote-minded budget that will come probably just before the elections. It is odd. That is when they will loosen the purse strings. We will see whether there will be money for flirting with certain client groups.

Consequently, there is a fiscal imbalance. I cannot say that this government gets five stars. It is the same for employment insurance. For social housing, it is terrible. The Liberals had actually committed themselves to $1.5 billion over five years. But there is zero, not a cent more. It is the same for day care.

The government is proposing $5 billion over a five-year period. Out of that amount, $700 million will be deposited. The government said Quebec would not be accountable and that there would be no strings attached. In the second year, an accountability exercise will take place to see what the provinces did with that $700 million.

However, we expected, and justifiably so, that $1 billion would be deposited. Why is the government holding back $300 million if it wants to create a true national child care program?

In my opinion, there is no incentive for the other provinces to get on board. Indeed, we all know that, in Quebec, $1.4 billion is invested in a quality child care program that meets the public's needs. I want to point out that the cost is very minimal to the Liberal government. Indeed, since Quebec set up its $5 a day child care service, which had to be increased to $7 a day, or $35 per week, the federal government saved money in tax deductions for families, which represented $35 per week. Over the past five years, the federal government was able to keep $1 billion in its pockets. This means that, with $1 billion per year over five years, it saved a bundle. The Liberal government is also getting money since it no longer has to pay tax credits to Quebec taxpayers.

Therefore, we say yes, the budget is generous as regards child care, but when we look at the real figures and at what Quebec is no longer receiving as regards the tax deduction, we realize that the Liberal government is not nearly as generous at it seems to be.

As for seniors and the guaranteed income supplement, there, too, nothing is coming tomorrow. In fact, it will be 2007 when seniors receiving the GIS finally get the meagre amount of $36 more each month. It has been said that this will be a good thing and a fine present for seniors. On the contrary, I would say it is an old, recycled present, since the Liberal government kept $3.2 billion from another generous gesture made in another budget, in terms of the guaranteed income supplement, because we know that many people who were entitled to it did not apply for it, since they did not know about it. Quite often, measures are put in place that the taxpayers are not aware of. They do not know this generosity exists, because it is hard to understand the information and, quite often, the public is not told any more than necessary.

And so $3.2 billion stayed in the coffers. We in the Bloc Québécois have been demanding this money on behalf of those who were entitled to it. We have carried out a huge information campaign. I can assure the House that the government did not want to act retroactively. It kept this money in its coffers and now it says to them, “This is the second time we are being generous with the same money we already promised you”.

The Liberals are praising their budget to the skies. In my opinion, that is verbal inflation. As for the provinces and the fiscal imbalance, we can say that if there has been any good faith involved, that would have been the first problem tackled.

The provinces are responsible for meeting the public's primary needs. That is where the institutions are located and that is where the people can go before their legislatures to demand their fair share with respect to the provincial responsibility for people's quality of life.

You are saying that my time is up. That is too bad because I would have liked to continue in the same vein and criticize a few more of the Liberal government's activities.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the public who are watching us that we are discussing the amendment by the member for Calgary Southwest, seconded by the member for Medicine Hat. I am going to repeat myself a bit maybe, and the member who just spoke can give this some thought and answer me. Is she telling me that they are going to support a motion that is totally contrary to what they have already said in this House? Is that in her speech? For example, the motion states:

—the budget does not reflect conservative principles—

They are telling me that they are going to support this motion, which talks about conservative principles. The motion is against the Kyoto accord, which the Bloc Québécois has always supported. It is also against the national child care program, which the Bloc Québécois has always supported. The member even mentioned it in her speech. In addition, the motion is against the gun registry, which the Bloc Québécois agrees is a good program, despite everything.

The Conservatives are against something else, namely federal government investment in research in Quebec.

All that is mentioned in the motion. I would like to know, after what the hon. member said, whether she is in favour of the motion, because it is really contrary to everything she said in her own speech.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a vote shortly and the member will be able to see where the Bloc Québécois stands on this issue.

However, I want to allow my colleague to speak because I know that it is important he get his 10 minutes. Aboriginal issues are important to him. So, I will save this time for my colleague.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not answer my question. She has all the time needed to answer. Will she support the amendment before us? That is the subject of today's debate. This is not a debate on the budget. This is a debate on the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to know, after everything she and other members of her party have said, how they can support a motion that goes against everything she said in her speech?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member need only wait for the vote, which will be held in a few minutes. She will be there to see. I am giving the floor to my colleague, who is going to talk about aboriginals. This is an extremely important matter.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the answer. I would like to know—and the hon. member will have enough time to present his position on the aboriginals—if she has really read the amendment moved by the Conservatives, and if she agrees with it. That is the question.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do as the Liberals do. I will give the same answer. She should wait for the vote, which will take place in a few moments. I can also tell her that my colleague has seven minutes remaining to speak on the aboriginal issue.

[Bernard Cleary, Bloc, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of first nations political leaders have denounced the recent budget, the first under the current Prime Minister. He has been promising the sun and moon ever since he became Prime Minister, promising to eliminate what he called the shameful conditions they face.

Unanimously, loud and clear, the political leaders of first nations and Inuit groups have said that the budget, even after all those round table meetings, amounts to very little.

In the budget speech, the finance minister went so far as to say that for too long and in too many ways, Canada’s aboriginal people have been last in terms of opportunity in this country.

Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, has pointed out that the Prime Minister's commitment to transformative change must be backed up by real investments by the government.

I will add that the first nations will never experience transformative change if they continue to manage their poverty and social stigma, and the government continues to impose its disrespect.

The royal commission on aboriginal peoples in Canada documented this state of affairs in its report, which was released in 1996. Jean Chrétien shot down the work of that commission. He sabotaged it on the cynical pretext that there was no money available, whereas, as we were to learn later, his Liberal cronies were engaged in the dishonourable act of pocketing public sponsorship funds. We will be finding out how this government was accumulating indecent surpluses, which were camouflaged in foundations well sheltered from Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

Where were the aboriginal Liberal MPs and senators? Were they also more interested in greasing the palms of certain members of the Liberal family than in supporting the royal commission in its recommendations for remedying the historical wrongs against the first peoples. Could it be that the party line imposed by Jean Chrétien was more seductive than their patriotic attachment to their aboriginal roots?

A year later, Jane Stewart, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs of the day, in an unexpected gesture of reconciliation, spoke out against a large part of what had been done to the Indians. She made it clear that Canada was anything but proud of this and regretted its past behaviour. Jean Chrétien again attacked this statement by demoting the minister to another portfolio.

After that, the commitments made in “Gathering Strength”, which was meant as a response to the recommendations of the royal commission, ended up in the wastebasket.

The budget has proven that there are resources that could be allocated to measures to remedy what the Prime Minister has described as the shameful conditions our aboriginal people have to deal with.

The Minister of Finance is boasting of a situation that is the envy of all the other members of the G-7. He ought not to be so boastful, because he is concealing from them the fact that Canada has not lived up to the commitments it inherited from the historical treaties of colonial times. What is more, the Dominion has not kept its own promises in its various numbered treaties. Canada has deceived the first nations by helping itself to their ancestral lands and resources without properly compensating them. Then it put them in minuscule reserves. The minister has also not told the G-7 about Canada's refusal to fulfill its fiduciary role, by depriving these people of the funding they require to develop properly.

The national chief of the AFN has postponed any concrete measures to improve the deplorable conditions of the first nations. According to Phil Fontaine, they had “brought our best ideas and our best experts to these roundtable sessions and participated in good faith with the goal of making progress.” That progress was not forthcoming.

I must point out that I had a whole lot more to say. We will get back to this later on, since some people are having fun dragging out the debate by asking questions that are not always pertinent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

It being 5:50 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved that Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,Bill C-275, which is now being called Carley's law, is in memory of 13 year old Carley Regan who, on January 6, 2003, was fatally struck by an automobile driven by Paul Wettlaufer, an individual whose licence was under suspension and who had no less than 11 driving prohibitions and citations in the preceding six years. He also injured her younger sister and her friend. With a reckless disregard for the welfare of the victims, Wettlaufer then proceeded to leave the scene of the accident in a subsequent attempt to conceal what he had done.

That is not an isolated incident. Research indicates that in 70% of hit and run cases, and they are in the thousands every year, the driver was likely impaired. In this case, witnesses testified that Wettlaufer was swerving back and forth in a manner consistent with being impaired while under the control of a vehicle.

I think it is important to go through the chronology to point out the tragedy and the seriousness of this event.

After turning himself in the following day, Paul Wettlaufer pled guilty to three counts of hit and run and one count of driving while under suspension. This perpetrator, who averaged approximately one driving infraction every six months for the prior six years, was never required to stand trial for dangerous driving causing death or impaired driving because of a plea bargain. Under the plea bargain agreement he received an 18 month sentence which was reduced to 14 months for time served. He served a total of 10 months for this terrible crime.

Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, would ensure that perpetrators of such violent and criminal acts are held responsible and accountable for their actions. The bill is long overdue. It would eliminate plea bargaining for hit and run offences, which is sorely needed. It would provide a minimum sentence of seven years in prison for those convicted of hit and run causing death, which is sorely needed. It would provide a minimum of four years in prison for those convicted of hit and run causing bodily harm, which again is sorely needed.

To date, perpetrators of hit and run offences causing bodily harm or death have almost never received more than two years for this violent crime. The tragedy of our justice system is that it has become so sick that people who commit violent crimes are simply not dealt with in a manner that is acceptable to our society.

Whenever we read something like this in the paper where the convicted person was let off with a slap on the wrist for a violent crime they committed, I, like Canadians all across this country, just roll our eyes and ask where the justice is. What is wrong with our justice system that this could be allowed to happen over and over again?

Bill C-275, Carley's law, would bring sentences for hit and run offences in line with sentencing guidelines for other violent crimes, namely manslaughter and attempted murder, because it is as serious a crime as manslaughter or attempted murder.

Currently too many hit and run perpetrators are afforded the luxury of pleading no contest or guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a combination of reduced jail time, house arrest, and/or conditional sentences.

One of the most common occurrences in a hit and run incident is where a driver, knowing he has hit a person and knowing he probably was impaired, if that was the case, flees the scene only to show up or call his lawyer the next morning saying that he thinks he hit a deer last night but that he is not sure. The lawyer tells him that an incident did happen in the area he described and tells him that he should go with him to the police station and turn himself in. At the police station the lawyer says that his client believes he hit a deer last night but that he was not sure and therefore called him this morning. That is almost an every day occurrence in the event of a hit and run incident and it has to stop. Bill C-275, Carley's law, can help that.

Under our current system, in almost every case it is often more advantageous for impaired drivers to flee the scene of an accident in which bodily harm or death has occurred than it is to face the consequences. With the precedents the courts have set and the plea bargaining that has gone on for so many years to drive the sentences down where they mean nothing, it is more advantageous to flee the scene of an accident where a person has hit someone and caused death or bodily harm than it is to stay there and wait for the police.

The strict penalties for impaired driving causing death and manslaughter serve as a disincentive for remaining at the scene of a serious accident. That is another story. The laws are on the books but the courts are simply not using them.

Fleeing the scene of an accident should not allow perpetrators to flee their social and legal responsibilities and obligations. During the discussion in the debate on the Criminal Code as it applied to impaired driving, I made a point in the House and I think we have to apply that point to this. I said back then that it was time to stop regarding impaired driving as simply another social ill and begin to regard it as the violent criminal act that it is. We have to apply that type of thinking to hit and run perpetrators who flee the scene of an accident. Let us stop thinking of hit and run accidents as simply another social ill for which the court will apply a slap on the wrist type of penalty and out the perpetrator walks in a very short time.

There are many documented cases in which the lack of action on the part of the perpetrator immediately following an incident has directly affected the victim's survival. How many needless deaths from hit and run incidents could have been prevented if drivers had remained at the scene? This poses a serious safety risk to the Canadian public and the perpetrators of hit and run offences must be considered violent offenders.

For my Liberal friends across the way, and my hon. friend from Thunder Bay knows what is coming next, it is interesting to note that the majority of this country's provincial justice ministers and attorneys general support the elimination of conditional sentencing for violent crimes. It is important that the Liberals across the way know that to be the truth and that it be reflected when it comes time to determining where the bill should go.

I know the Liberals love to govern by polls so I have another point to make. Public opinion further indicates that 70% of Canadians oppose the use of conditional sentences for persons convicted of violent crimes and approximately two-thirds support the elimination of these sentences for violent impaired driving offences.

Those are Canadian people who are sending the government the message that they have had enough. They are waiting for the government to start taking crimes of violence such as this seriously and sending a message to the courts that the penalties are on the books and it is time for the courts to start using them.

It is tragic to say that in 2001 some changes were made to the Criminal Code as it affected impaired driving. Prior to that bill being passed, the latitude for sentencing for impaired driving causing death was from 0 to 14 years. The average sentence for impaired driving causing death was about three to four years. Most often it was on the lower range.

A bill was passed in the House which increased the latitude from zero to life imprisonment, a sentence that could be given to someone found guilty of impaired driving causing death where there were aggravating factors. There have been a lot of aggravating factors since that bill was passed.

Everyone would probably be interested to know that the average sentence given to a person convicted of impaired causing death after the latitude was extended to the possibility of life imprisonment is still in the neighbourhood of two to four years. How does one figure that? The people of Canada are outraged that this is still happening despite the fact that the Criminal Code was changed to allow for higher sentences.

People are still getting into their cars drunk, killing people, fleeing the scene and serving little or no time for the offence. It is time the courts were sent a message and this is where it can happen, in this place, which is the highest court in the land.

I expect my Liberal friends will stand and say that we cannot talk about minimum sentences of seven years for hit and runs causing death or fleeing the scene of an accident or a minimum sentence of four years for fleeing the scene where bodily injury has been caused. The Liberals did it all through debate on the impaired driving bill. They just cringed at the thought of minimum sentences because they said that it would throw the justice system completely askew.

I admit that the justice system is not working but it is not because of minimum sentences. I think about 28 sections of the Criminal Code call for minimum sentences. We are saying that if there are 28, there should be 30, 2 more, as it deals with fleeing a scene of an accident where someone has caused death or bodily injury.

It is absolutely time that we start applying appropriate sentences for these violent crimes in the hopes of reducing the number of hit and run incidents in this country and my colleagues across the way know that.

Too many families have been faced with the tragic loss of loved ones while the perpetrators who killed them spend less than two years in prison for what they have done. It happens too often. This bill is a necessary first step in holding those in our society who have a reckless disregard for human life accountable for their actions.

I plead with my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP to recognize the seriousness of this and do everything they can to ensure that this bill goes to the justice committee. If they want to add some amendments to it and tailor it so as not to affect the effectiveness of it, we would welcome that.

I humbly ask for the support of my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP on Bill C-275. We really need to get this bill to the justice committee and I hope my colleagues will support it.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is not supporting Bill C-275, nor am I. In opposing the bill, I want to tell the member opposite that I simply do not agree with him that Bill C-275 is in the category of an ultimate solution to the member's concerns.

Parliament has created in section 252 of the Criminal Code the offence of failing to stop at the scene of an accident with the intent to escape civil or criminal liability. Let me be very clear. I fully support the existing provisions in section 252 of the Criminal Code that are aimed against the pernicious behaviour of leaving the scene of an accident in order to escape liability.

In no way does my opposition to Bill C-275 mean that I condone leaving the scene of an accident to escape civil or criminal liability. The present maximum penalty under section 252 for leaving the scene of an accident is five years imprisonment where the prosecution proceeds by indictment. I note that the procedure for the indictable offence is a more serious procedure than the procedure for a summary conviction offence.

Bill C-275 does not propose to change this maximum penalty of five years. At present, in a case where the fleeing offender knows that a person has died or knows that there is bodily harm and is reckless about whether death ensues and death does occur, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment under the Criminal Code.

Bill C-275 does not propose to change this. I note that life imprisonment is equal to the maximum penalty for manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving during a police chase causing death, and impaired driving causing death.

In a case where a fleeing offender knows that there is bodily harm, the current maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. This maximum penalty is equal to the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Inexplicably, Bill C-275 proposes a new maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the bodily harm situation which equals the maximum penalty for leaving the scene where there is a death.

Not only does this defy the principle that there should be proportionality in the criminal penalties with respect to the harm, this proposal in Bill C-275 would make the maximum penalty for the bodily harm in leaving the scene situation completely at odds with the maximum penalty that Parliament has set for each of the other Criminal Code bodily harm offences that I have just named.

Further, the bill proposes to create a minimum penalty of seven years imprisonment for the offence of leaving the scene of an accident where death is involved, and a minimum penalty of four years imprisonment where bodily harm is involved. I note that the similar offences which I have already mentioned do not carry these seven and four year minimum penalties.

As much as I am concerned about the maximum penalty provision for leaving the scene of an accident in a bodily harm situation and the bill's minimum penalty provisions, Bill C-275 contains an even more alarming proposal. This is the provision that would eliminate the mental element of the offence of leaving the scene of an accident in those cases that are the most serious forms of the offence, namely situations where death and bodily harm results.

Each criminal offence must contain in its definition not only an act, but also a mental element, sometimes referred to as a guilty mind in English or mens rea in Latin. The mental element can be framed in the terms of intention, knowledge or wilfulness. Outside the criminal law we may find offences for which there is liability based only on an act without any mental element, for example, in some regulatory matters.

However, I emphasize again that in criminal matters, an offence must not only have an act, but also a mental element. The more serious the offence and the resulting penalty, the more important it is that the offence contains a mental element.

Bill C-275 turns this fundamental principle of criminal justice upside down. In Bill C-275, the proposal is not to retain the mental element for leaving the scene where there is no injury or death but to eliminate it completely from the more serious cases of resulting injury or death.

I find it absolutely astonishing that the bill proposes that where there is a more serious act and a more serious penalty, there would be no mental element in the definition of the offence. This is beyond belief. One expects to find a mental element and not the complete elimination of the mental element for any criminal offence, let alone the more serious criminal offence.

It is highly likely that if such legislation were enacted by Parliament in the face of all logic, that courts would find that the combination of the disproportionate minimum penalties and the elimination of the mental element would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution.

I remind members that the Constitution is the supreme law against which all other laws must be tested. As parliamentarians we must keep in mind that legislative proposals must respect the charter, including its guarantee that no one be deprived of liberty, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In my view, it is extremely important to have the offences and penalties that now exist for drivers who leave the scene of an accident with the intent to escape civil or criminal liability, especially where someone is killed or injured.

To the extent that the particular convicted offender will be deterred from repeating the behaviour and to the extent that there will be a general deterrence for others who in the future might contemplate such behaviour, the existing Criminal Code provisions are necessary and appropriate in the context of the charter.

We often hear the claim that the charter protects the wrongdoer. Such rhetoric misses the point. The criminal law is society's strongest sanction against improper and injurious behaviour. Therefore, fundamental principles such as the need for the mental element for a criminal offence protect each of us who might without a guilty mind do something purely accidentally. Without the requirement of a mental element for a criminal offence, the pure accident would be criminalized.

Think for a moment of a driver who leaves the scene of an accident with the intent to get help for an injured person. If the offence is simply leaving and there is no requirement of the mental element of intending to escape liability, the driver who leaves the scene to get help would be committing a criminal offence under the proposed Bill C-275.

Keep in mind that such a person who left the scene under Bill C-275 would be convicted and given a seven year minimum period of imprisonment if an injured person died. The court would not have the discretion to hand down a lesser sentence, no matter how favourable the reason for leaving was or how favourable the personal circumstances of the offender were.

Bill C-275 has the aim of reducing situations where someone leaves the scene of an accident where there is death or bodily harm. However, it is so contrary to the important principles of fundamental justice that it would be cynical to pass Bill C-275 knowing that it will most likely run afoul of the charter.

If members truly believe that fundamental principles of justice are unimportant, then there should be a constitutional amendment to the charter, the fundamental law against which all other laws are tested and not an end run that attacks these fundamental principles by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.

I am sure that all of us in this House are highly sympathetic to the victims who have been injured and to the surviving family members of victims who have died in accidents where the driver fled from the scene with intent to avoid criminal or civil liability. Such an offender's behaviour is despicable.

Our reaction is to want to do something so that the behaviour will not be repeated by that offender or any other driver. The proposals in Bill C-275 are not that something. The bill simply does not respect the fundamental criminal law principles nor the protection afforded by the charter. Bill C-275 accordingly must be opposed.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in this debate on Bill C-275.

I too would like to preface my remarks by saying that in no way does my position and that of my party mean that we condone implicitly or explicitly the criminal behaviour of individuals who leave the scene of a car accident. Such behaviour is unacceptable and reprehensible, and it should be severely punished.

On November 15, 2004, the bill entitled an act the amend the Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident) was introduced by the Conservative member for Cariboo—Prince George, who spoke earlier. The bill was put on the priority list on the same day. This was the third time that this bill was introduced, because the same enactment had been introduced in the second and third sessions of the 37th Parliament by the Conservative member for Abbotsford over there, as Bill C-453, which never made it past the first reading stage.

I would like to read at this time the summary of the bill. It reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that an accused who has control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft and who fails to stop at the scene of an accident is guilty of an offence for which the minimum punishment is seven years’ imprisonment and the maximum is life imprisonment, if another person suffers bodily harm and dies as a result of the accident.

If another person suffers bodily harm but does not die as a result of the accident, the accused who fails to stop at the scene of the accident is guilty of an offence for which the minimum punishment is four years’ imprisonment and the maximum is life imprisonment.

These provisions apply whether or not the person knew that another person had suffered bodily harm or had died as a result of the accident, and whether or not the person had the intent to escape civil or criminal liability.

And finally:

A prosecutor may not make, to an accused charged with leaving the scene of an accident, an offer allowing the accused to plead guilty instead to an offence with a lesser penalty.

Let us analyze this. Bodily harm is defined in the Criminal Code as meaning any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature.

If the victim dies as a result of bodily harm, what recourse is allowed under the current legislation? Currently, under the code, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment ,and there is no minimum sentence for a person who fails to stop his vehicle that is involved in an accident,with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, and that “person knows that another person involved in the accident is dead” or that “person knows that bodily harm has been caused to another person and is reckless as to whether the death of the other person results from that bodily harm, and the death of that other person so results”.

The intent to escape civil or criminal liability is presumed once it has been proven that the person failed to stop their vehicle.

Bill C-275 proposes adding a minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment and eliminates the requirement regarding the intent of the accused, meaning that, if the bill is adopted, it would no longer be necessary to demonstrate that the accused knew the victim would die from his injuries or was reckless in spite of that knowledge.

What does the legislation say if that victim suffers bodily harm but does not die? Subsection 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code provides for a maximum sentence of 10 years for an accused who failed to stop his vehicle involved in an accident with the intent to escape all civil and criminal liability, knowing that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident. Here, the code makes no mention of presumption. The crown must, therefore, first prove the intent of the accused to escape his criminal liability and prove that the accused knew the victim had suffered bodily harm.

Bill C-275 proposes the addition of a minimum penalty of four years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment if another person suffers bodily harm but does not die as a result of the accident. The crown would no longer have to prove the intent of the accused to escape his criminal liability nor that the accused knew the victim had suffered bodily harm.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the provisions currently set out in the Criminal Code are reasonable. We consider it dangerous to eliminate, with regard to this offence, the need to prove the intent to escape criminal liability.

We believe the current system is adequate in that it facilitates the work of the Crown by presuming that the accused had the intent to evade criminal responsibility, because he did not remain. The presumption is, in our opinion, reasonable, since it affords the accused an opportunity to present evidence that he did not intend to evade responsibility and that he left the scene for other reasons.

In fact, taking the accused's intent into account makes it possible to take special circumstances into account, thus reducing the risk of injustice. We must not forget that in the case at hand, a person risks losing his freedom for a number of years. Removing the criteria of intent to evade responsibility may make the crown prosecutors' task easier, but at the same time, once it is proven that the person left the scene, it removes the judge's discretion to decide, in a particular case before the court, whether the accused person should be found guilty.

Moreover, the Bloc Québécois also thinks that the minimum sentences proposed in Bill C-275 are exaggerated and out of proportion. The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to minimum sentences in principle: we have proposed them in Bill C-303 for persons convicted of sexual crimes against minors. Still, we feel that minimum sentences should be used with caution because, in the end, they tie judges' hands and too often complicate their task.

Sometimes minimum sentences can also have a perverse effect. That is, when a judge thinks a minimum sentence is inappropriate in a particular case, he might prefer to find a person not guilty even though that individual might have deserved a prison term of a few months.

The position of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-275 can be summed up simply: the Bloc believes that the judge is in the best position to analyze the individual's reasons for leaving the scene and determine the appropriate sentence. Consequently, Bloc Québécois members will be asked to vote against Bill C-275, while maintaining that leaving the scene of an accident should and must be severely punished. Nevertheless, we believe that the current provisions in the code are sufficient to achieve this goal and objective of our society.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a bit of trepidation to speak to Bill C-275. From the address we heard from the member for Cariboo--Prince George, it is quite clear how strongly he feels about the circumstances that have led him to present this private member's bill to the House.

I have a great deal of sympathy for him and for the family of the victim who was killed in this incident, which prompted this legislation to come forward. It is somewhat difficult, recognizing those circumstances, to have to stand here and say that the members of the NDP, like the Liberals and the Bloc members, are unable to support this legislation.

If we take a quick look at the legislation, we will see that it sets out a number of provisions we have difficulty with. In effect it provides for the removal of criminal intent to charges that deal with individuals who have left the scene. It sets mandatory minimum sentences in a variety of ways. Finally, it removes the discretion that prosecutors in this country have to negotiate appropriate sentences in exchange for a guilty plea.

In each one of those cases we have as a party on a number of occasions taken the position that we are not prepared to deviate from those fundamentals that in effect underlie our criminal justice system in this country. Again I recognize that it almost sounds crass to be talking about these fundamental rights when family members still grieve and still mourn the loss of a family member as a result of the conduct that we heard described by the member for Cariboo--Prince George.

When we are here as members of this House, as legislators for this country, we have the added responsibility of taking into account not only those facts and trying to deal with them as best we can, but also the facts in a number of other cases and in fact all of the cases that will eventually come before our courts when one is being faced with these types of charges, specifically, leaving the scene of an accident with the intent to escape criminal or civil liability.

One could pose a number of questions. Why is this being done in this particular section of the Criminal Code? Why not others that are also very severe? There are numerous answers to that question. One is that in fact these principles underlie to a great degree the development of our criminal justice system over a period of hundreds of years.

I want to address specifically the issue of removing the concept of criminal intent. We can come up with any number of scenarios whereby the person either negligently or with criminal intent, or maybe without either, that is, completely innocently, leaves the scene of an accident, perhaps because the person is not aware that there has been an injury. Perhaps the person is going to seek help. We have in these sections the necessity of criminal intent so that individuals in those cases would not be faced with minimum time in jail as they would under this bill. That is a mandatory minimum, which in this case runs from four or five to seven years depending on the section that is being applied.

Let me talk about what we have determined over the passage of time. It is not a perfect system. Again I think the family will probably not accept that, but it is not a perfect system. In this case, from their perspective, and I do not know the facts well enough to be able to say I agree with them, the criminal justice system has failed them. But we know that day in and day out the system we have built generally works. It actually works much better than any other system that I am aware of in the world, but it is not perfect.

The replacement of mandatory minimum sentences, taking away the discretion of judges to make those determinations, and the removal of criminal intent would, I believe, create a worse system than the one we have now, a worse system than that found in a number of other countries. We need to retain these.

More specifically and with regard to the issue of minimum sentences, I have spoken out on this issue on a number of occasions. The member for Cariboo--Prince George mentioned the fact that there are minimum sentences in our Criminal Code. In fact, we are up to 29 now. For a number of them, quite frankly, I would be opposed to having them in there.

However, there are some that have worked. There are times when minimum sentences do work. I believe they are the exception to the general rule, but there are times when they do work. For instance, some of the minimum sentences that we have imposed in impaired driving cases, which are much less severe than what is being proposed here, have worked. However, I think it worked primarily because it was coupled with a very strong public education program that got a positive reaction from the community. I think this is somewhat of an exception.

The automotive club here in Canada came out with a study last week which showed that a further extension of minimum sentences in impaired driving situations would no longer work. They have been effective up to this point, but expanding them would not in fact produce any additional prohibitions or prevent crimes of that nature.

The other point with regard to minimum sentences that I tend to press upon is the fact that such severe minimum sentences as those being proposed in the bill would result in a substantial increase in the number of trials that would have to be conducted. Individuals who might have been willing to plead guilty and avoid the trial and avoid putting the family through the trial would plead innocent in an attempt to have the charges dismissed. They would seek an acquittal. That would happen in a good number of cases. That certainly is not in the interests of grieving families or the victims of the crime, but it is a reality.

A number of states in the U.S. have moved quite extensively to the use of minimum sentences. This has resulted in a substantial increase in not guilty pleas. Inevitably when that happens the more trials there are and the more acquittals there are as opposed to getting guilty pleas in advance.

There is another point I want to make and again I am not sure that this will be of much solace to the families. In the early 1990s in the province of Ontario, and across the country, quite frankly, significant backlogs resulted in the withdrawal or dismissal of over 50,000 criminal charges in Ontario alone.

If we do not to some degree take a practical bent on this, which includes the right of our Crown prosecutors to be able to negotiate guilty pleas for appropriate sentences, if we do not keep that system in place, we are going to be faced with another backlog and the potential of a huge number of charges being dismissed because the Charter of Rights says that people are entitled to a trial in a reasonable period of time.

For all of those reasons, and as much as we sympathize with the member for Cariboo--Prince George, we have to oppose Bill C-275.

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to all the victims of hit and run drivers out there that it will not be easy, but the other three parties are opposing the bill. I will summarize the reason they are doing that, but first I want to say a little something about Carley Regan.

On January 6, 2003 around 5:10 p.m., Carley Regan, a 13-year-old child, lost her life unnecessarily at the hands of a hit and run driver. Carley's sister Jessica, 11, and friend Raelene Campbell, 10, were also struck by the car in Aldergrove, British Columbia. Carley was alive when she got out of the ditch and died because somebody was not there, in particular the person who hit her.

This issue did not start with Carley Regan; it began to end with Carley Regan. One day the offence of hit and run will become law in this place. The politicians just do not know it yet and do not know how diligent I can be on these issues, although they should know by now.

Before I came into the House, I thought I would check to see how many hit and run situations we have found since writing the law. Actually, there were too many to bring into the House today. This is not something that just happens in Langley, Abbotsford or Aldergrove, British Columbia; this is something that happens in all members' ridings all the time.

Members should listen to these: February 22, 2005, “Man walking home killed by hit and run driver”. March 1, “City cop hurt in hit and run”. That was in Ottawa. In Miramichi, New Brunswick on January 6, “30-year-old New Brunswick man accused in a fatal hit and run accident”. December 13, “Grief and anger grip family after driver sought in fatal hit and run”. That was in Calgary. In Kingston, Ontario, “Witness sought after man killed in hit and run”. Here it is March 8 and I look at my own home area of Maple Ridge, British Columbia where an individual got $12 worth of gas, ran away from his responsibility of paying for it, ran over the attendant and murdered him.

This is happening every day. We cannot come into the House of Commons and say that for one technical reason or another we cannot do anything about it.

I want to acknowledge two people. When I wrote my bill in 2003 I worked with a lot of victims across the country, but in particular, Barry Regan, Carley's dad, and Debbie Graw, Carley's aunt. Debbie is a hero of mine actually. She is a brave, intelligent lady whose life has been changed forever by the death of her niece.

What is the bill about? It is about getting the law reviewed in the justice committee. Politicians here will find reasons why it cannot even go before a committee. It is about paying attention to a serious problem in our society that needs addressing: hit and run. It is about all politicians removing their political bias and doing what is right on a problem that is very wrong. It is about showing Canadians that elected people can work together. I know this is an extremely partisan place, but this is not about that. It is about an evil that exists in our country.

What has occurred? As I said, it did not start with Carley Regan. That was the beginning of the end. The good people of Langley and Abbotsford have had to share this kind of misery more than once. I have read case after case. I could read 100 of them, but what good would it do at this point? I have a few minutes to convince my colleagues that the bill has to get to the justice committee for review. If not, then I have to go back to the drawing board and once again convince those parties that political bias takes second place to the need for changes in our society.

Let us look at what the Liberals said about this just a moment ago. They are not supporting it. They are supporting the status quo essentially, section 252 of the Criminal Code which gives a five year maximum. If we could only get a five year maximum for a hit and run in this country, that would even be nice, but we are getting two years to no years, no time at all. That is the problem we have been trying to tell those folks.

The Liberals say it defies the principle of proportionality. What is proportional about hit and run and murdering people through hit and run and getting a year for it in prison? They say they need an act and a mental element. Tell that to the victims. Tell them they want a mental element in this bill.

Of course the big one that always comes here, my favourite, is that it will violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not necessarily violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It might and so we should not do it because of that. How many times have I heard this? As I prepare to leave the House of Commons, I wonder if the Charter of Rights will ever be used for something really valid that all people in Canada want as opposed to an excuse for not doing what all people want.

Also, my Liberal colleague has given a ridiculous example, actually. This is another thing in the House of Commons; if one does not like something, bring up some ridiculous example that will set a precedent, maybe. I cannot believe it. He did say that he was highly sympathetic. He was highly sympathetic, but not sympathetic enough to let the bill go to the justice committee. It is incredible.

Of course my colleague from the Bloc said that he is not supporting it, that it has been the third time in the House. However, he did not mention that each time the House had closed and it was not through debate that it was lost. He also said that the status quo is A-okay and the provisions now in the Criminal Code are reasonable. He called the situation of hit and run causing death, or hit and run with injury and somebody getting zero to two years maximum, reasonable.

We are here to challenge that. What I say is if hit and run causes death, then the penalty should be seven years to life. If it causes injury, it should be four years to life. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what people are asking for.

I am going to deliver to each one of the members a case, or two, or three, of hit and runs in each one of their ridings. I want them to go home and justify to the families of the victims of those murders or attempted murders--they are not accidents--why they would do nothing in the House of Commons but accept the status quo, basically zero to two years, which is all that is being given for these crimes.

When we look at the perpetrator of the crime, the person who ran over Carley Regan, we should ask ourselves exactly what his situation was and why he would get such a very small penalty. Here was a guy who was driving under suspension. He maintained he was not drinking, which is kind of standard, yet surveillance tapes show him purchasing beer. He said he did not return to the scene, but a witness placed him there. Then he said that he was there but he panicked. He left the scene twice. At the time of the accident he had 11 B.C. driving prohibitions and citations since 1997. That is disgraceful. All he got was a minor penalty.

This is the first time this has come up for debate, but I can guarantee it will not be the last. I will be here to see this through, or my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, will be here to see this through.

God bless Canada. God bless Carley Regan.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by saying a few words of tribute to the hon. member for Abbotsford. He and I have crossed paths, swords and probably a number of other metal objects throughout the years. He was the House leader for his party when I was the House leader for mine some years ago. We inherited along with others the pizza Parliament as it was known in 1997 and we sat down to rewrite a number of the rules to make this place work.

As things would have it today, the media informs us that the hon. member will not be seeking a mandate in the next Parliament. Hopefully he will at least remain with us until the end of this Parliament. I hope that it is at least a reasonably long one in that regard both for him and for me. Of course I intend to run again but in his case, we want to have him around a little longer.

I thought that I would seize this moment that has been given to me to speak to offer these words of tribute to our colleague, a very distinguished member of Parliament for his province and indeed for the entire country. Hats off to the hon. member for Abbotsford. I sincerely hope that over the next year or two or possibly three that could be left in the life of this Parliament we will have an opportunity to work together again. I offer him these regards on behalf of my wife, MaryAnn, and I. We both have gotten to know him very well over the last several years. I ask him to convey our regards to his family as well.

Today, we are debating Bill C-275, which was introduced by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George. This bill is a reincarnation of former Bill C-453 introduced in the last session of the previous Parliament by the hon. member for Abbotsford, who just spoke.

The purpose of Bill C-275 is to increase penalties for failing to stop at the scene of an accident in which death or serious bodily harm has occurred. It is also designed to make it considerably easier for the crown to get a conviction when death or bodily harm has been caused.

While I certainly do not condone leaving the scene of an accident to escape responsibility, I do have serious concerns about Bill C-275. I can see that the Minister of Justice shares my concerns.

Whether we like it or not, any concept of minimum sentences often has a perverse effect in matters of justice. Whether we admit it or not, this perverse effect is often that, if the judge is convinced that the minimum sentence is greater than the one he had in mind, he has no other choice but to acquit an individual who would otherwise have been declared guilty of the offence. The end result is that guilty people are exonerated, because the judge felt that the sentence was too stiff.

There is a serious problem when we impose minimum sentences. This does, of course, give the impression that a minimum sentence is better than no sentence. Perhaps that is right in principle, but when the sentence is longer than acceptable in the eyes of the judge having to reach a verdict, he has only one choice, to acquit someone who would otherwise have been found guilty.

With this bill, a driver who leaves the scene of an accident causing death is still subject to life imprisonment, as is the case at present. If the accident causes only bodily harm, the present 10-year maximum would also become life imprisonment.

Returning to what I said previously, if the judge finds this sentence excessive, unfortunately the person who would otherwise be found guilty will be acquitted.

I would like to point out that the maximum sentence for criminal negligence leading to death and impaired driving leading to death is life imprisonment, as it is for someone who leaves the scene of a fatal accident. The maximum for criminal negligence causing bodily harm and for impaired driving causing bodily harm, however, is 10 years.

Why would the maximum sentence for leaving the scene of an accident causing bodily harm have to be life imprisonment? Hon. members will see that a less serious offence would have the same penalty as an offence leading to death. Once again, I return to what I said previously: this would likely lead to some judges choosing to acquit someone who would otherwise have been found guilty.

Bill C-275 is intended to provide for tougher penalities by setting a minimum sentence for offenders guilty of not remaining at the scene of an accident causing death or bodily harm.

The gist of all this is that I do not question the merits of this bill, but I do feel that it would do far more harm than good for the reasons I have given, and for many others I would have given if there had been more time.