Darrel Stinson

[British Columbia, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 125 years ago on July 20 the colony of British Columbia joined the Dominion of Canada. Today it is Canada's third largest province, after Ontario and Quebec, in both size and population.

I was smart enough to be born in B.C., Canada's fastest growing province, which has been described as a large land mass entirely surrounded by envy.

Many eastern and central Canadians envy the fact that British Columbia has Canada's tallest mountains, oldest trees, longest frost free growing season, lowest per capita provincial debt and is the greatest distance from Ottawa.

B.C. produces most of Canada's sawn lumber and plywood. Its ports handle most of Canada's grain and coal and is Canada's gateway to the Pacific rim. Vancouver is closer to Hawaii than to Halifax.

I invite all my hon. colleagues to come to see for themselves as B.C. celebrates 125 years in Confederation.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from 294 residents across British Columbia, mainly from Vernon and the surrounding area, but also from Trail, Rossland, Bella Coola, Merritt, Smithers, Victoria and Campbell River, Fort St. John, Powell River, Kamloops and even Vancouver.

Due to the tragic events Easter weekend at Vernon, the petitioners request that gun permits not be issued for 12 months after the initial report of a threat of violence regardless of whether the threat is investigated.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I wish to present today.

The first petition opposes Bill C-33. It asks Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms by adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

These petitioners state that society does not want privileges of married couples given to same sex couples, which we are already witnessing now that Bill C-33 is passed.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express general support for the changes included in Bill C-23, the nuclear safety and control act.

In part they reflect the changing background against which this act was originally written. The main present day concerns involve: the health and safety of Canadians working in and around radioactive material from the initial stages of mining right through to such things as nuclear power stations; medical and educational purposes; disposal of radioactive waste, both low level and high level; environmental concerns for all, especially for people living in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities; the safe disposal of nuclear waste; and the safe transportation of such hazardous products.

I express general support for the method of putting this legislation together. This included reasonably extensive consultation with the four provinces which use nuclear power or mine uranium: Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

We understand there are concerns from the Government of Saskatchewan that Bill C-23 might hamper discussions regarding regulating the uranium mining and milling industry. There is also the possibility that Saskatchewan may wish to develop proper regulations of its own and may wish to license uranium mining and milling. Apparently the federal government's legal beagle so to speak has said that Bill C-23 does not interfere except where federal oversight is needed to maintain the federal role in nuclear matters.

Reformers approve that regulating is being done on a cost recovery basis after some consultation took place with the industry about the fee schedules, with fees being phased in over a fairly extended period of time since the start of the procedure in 1990. I believe Canadians would strongly approve that hospitals and universities should be exempt from such fees.

On the possible objections to Bill C-23, what bothers me the most is that it has taken 50 years to revamp an act which was passed in 1946. The government of the day, and whether it is Liberal or Conservative it never changes, always blames the other for taking so long to get something done, or for putting an act in place and the other one has to follow through on it. I remind the Liberals that probably for 38 years out of the past 50 years their party was the government so that excuse no longer washes.

I also understand from a departmental briefing that changes to the Canadian Labour Code are needed regarding employees in nuclear industries if we do not want to have the federal government intervening in labour matters which are more properly dealt with by the provincial governments. This is a concern. I sincerely hope somebody has ensured that the changes were made. That was mentioned in a departmental briefing yesterday afternoon. They also mentioned that an update was needed on that point. I would appreciate it if the minister or the parliamentary secretary could confirm that for me.

Another concern arises where the federal government possibly will not do all in its power to eliminate overlap and duplication with the provinces by delegating responsibility for administration and inspection. Would there be one environmental assessment needed for the federal government and the provinces? Another is provincial inspections for normal health and safety of employees. The provinces could add radioactivity which would then not require that a separate federal inspector race around the country checking on this.

I caution that every effort must be made to protect the safety of Canadians as cost effectively as possible. Nuclear disasters are a terrible risk to all of us and we have to have zero tolerance for serious accidents. We also recognize that uranium has tremendous potential to supply the energy needs of future generations, once adequate research has resolved the problems of the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

We also recognize that uranium mining and milling is a developing industry which is significant for provinces such as Saskatchewan. The regulatory process must be kept clear, timely and based on science rather than politics or fearmongering.

I also wonder about this government when, on a trade mission, it sells a nuclear reactor to China. Yet there seems to be great concern in this country, especially from the Reform Party, on human rights in that country. Where is the government coming from? Is it more in love with the almighty dollar than it is with human rights? I am concerned about this.

In conclusion, when I was young I read the story about Rip van Winkle. I would have to say that after 50 years it is Rip van Liberals. Something hit them on the head and they woke up to the fact that they had to make this outdated policy more modern. They say it may be better late than never and I guess it is better late than never.

We will support the bill. It is long overdue. I can do nothing but blame this government for the length of time it has taken.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to second the private member's bill proposed by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley which would provide a sentence of seven years for the offence of drunk driving causing death.

This is a very serious issue in Canada today. Let us look at what happened in Prince George recently. It was the scene of the murder of a young father from Prince Rupert and his two children. The murder weapon in this case was an automobile with an impaired driver at the wheel.

When the offender was sentenced, the entire community, as well as virtually everyone who heard about it in the province of British Columbia was shocked at the extremely light sentence of three and a half years to be paid for taking three lives.

Judges in British Columbia commonly treat lightly the offence of using a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon. Impaired driving is a very preventable form of death. Sad to say, it is very often our young people who lose their lives for making the tragic mistake of drinking and driving.

For example, in February three young women from the city of Vernon in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap paid that price when they decided to drive home from an evening's entertainment at nearby Kelowna. They made it only a few miles north of Kelowna before they turned in front of a logging truck in the early hours of the morning. All three paid the price. They died. Their families and friends were devastated.

It is our duty to structure the Criminal Code in such a way that such unnecessary deaths are prevented, along with the murder of innocent victims by drunk drivers. We should send a much stronger message in the sentences handed out for drunk driving offences.

It is not only the young people who like to party. If we could convince them as soon as they start to drive that alcohol and gasoline are an extremely dangerous and deadly mixture, the good habit of not driving when they have been drinking would probably stay with them all their lives.

A poster which hangs not far from the Parliament Buildings says that if you are old enough to drink, you are old enough to drive: Choose one. That is excellent advice. A very good way to emphasize that message would be to include a minimum sentence of seven years for drunk driving causing death.

There are many sad figures available about drunk driving. For example, there were a total of 6,700 alcohol related accidents in British Columbia in 1994, including 3,231 personal injury claims and 138 fatalities. There were 3,331 accidents with property damage and 11,379 impaired driving offences.

In my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap the total number of impaired offences for 1994 was 406. That number only represents the drivers who were caught by police. For every one caught, many more manage to get away with drinking and driving until that fateful day when a child rides his bike suddenly around the corner or a grandmother suddenly steps into a downtown crosswalk or another driver does something a little too fast for the delayed reflexes of that impaired driver.

The cost of impaired driving is not limited to accidents. An estimated $200 million is spent on enforcement, court, medical and other costs in British Columbia as a direct result of drinking and driving. That does not get into the terrible emotional costs to the families. Look at that $200 million and what it could do. It could pay nurses' salaries. It could help provide essential medical

services like kidney dialysis, x-rays or CAT scans. It could be used to provide computers for British Columbia classrooms. That $200 million thrown away because of drinking and driving represents a great loss to the people of B.C.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia estimates that 21 cents of every premium dollar is spent repairing damage done by drunk drivers. That is a very important point because most families in British Columbia are having a very difficult time making ends meet. Most B.C. families also own a motor vehicle. It is common for families to spend $3 a day or more just to insure their cars, and 21 per cent of that goes to repair damage done by drunk drivers.

We could say that drunk driving increases the cost of every family's premiums by at least 63 cents a day or $4.41 a week. That would buy every family a couple of litres of milk and a loaf of bread every week. Maybe that is not a big deal to the members of Parliament whose inflated egos make them think they deserve the gold plated pension plan they voted in for themselves. I can assure my colleagues that is a very big deal to the grocery budgets of most young mothers in particular.

The dollar costs of drunk driving are not just the numbers on a sheet of paper. They represent a burden to the family income at a time when most families have far too little income as it is. In large measure this is due to the excessive spending and the resulting excessive taxes imposed by Liberal, Conservative and NDP governments, those advocates of big government.

Let us look at drunk driving causing death in a different way. Are today's penalties doing the essential job of preventing drinking and driving? Those penalties include the following: The punishment for a first offence is loss of privileges and a fine of up to $2,000. The punishment for a second offence is a mandatory jail sentence of 14 days to one year. The punishment for a charge of impaired driving causing bodily harm is a maximum 10-year sentence and 10 years of prohibition from driving, which means they can go into court and bargain it away.

The punishment for a charge of impaired driving causing death carries a maximum penalty which includes a 14-year jail sentence and up to 10 years from driving. I do not know of one case that even touches that point. We just heard about a judge who gave three and half years for taking three lives and yet the opportunity was there for him to give up to 10 years.

A recent tragedy involving the death of a 17-year-old youth in my riding has reopened the question of more severe sentences for impaired driving among the residents of Vernon and area. Because the offender had a history of alcohol related offences, concerned citizens of the Vernon area collected 5,000 signatures on a petition calling for stiffer and longer sentences.

In view of the tragic damage that driving while impaired can cause, I strongly support the requirement of much stronger sentences for drunk driving causing death.

Some people may object, especially on the government side, saying that to impose these kinds of penalties is too harsh. Is it too harsh for taking the lives of a mother, father or children, because the excuse will be: "I was drunk when it happened".

The truth is that most offenders who are guilty of driving while impaired have committed one or more previous alcohol related offences. In other words, for those on the other side who are having trouble with this, in most cases it is not the first time they have been charged. In most cases it is not the first time they had been in an accident. Of course, we have no idea of how many times they also drove while impaired and got away with it. We will never know.

I have always believed that the first responsibility of any government is to protect the innocent and law-abiding citizens to the best of its ability. For far too long we have seen that governments have not lived up to that and it is time we started. I strongly urge that we take the first step by supporting this bill. Having a stiffer penalty may be just the kind of tough love we hear talked about all the time that could save lives. In fact, I strongly believe that if such a penalty had been in effect, maybe we could have saved those three women I talked about earlier.

In conclusion, I would like to remind all hon. members in the House that when they stand to address this bill, they have to face the public. They have to go back and look their constituents in the eye. Believe me, there is not one in this House in our term that will not have a case of death caused by impaired driving before them in their own constituency. I hope they all remember that when the time comes.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about separation and self-government. Not long ago in this Chamber, I remember a vote supported by all Bloc members under aboriginal self-government and self-determination.

Will the hon. member respect a vote if the aboriginals in Quebec decide to deal with self-government and allow them to stay with whomever they choose democratically?

Another question I have for the hon. member is this. When he has a chance to go forward with this referendum, will he be looking at population? Is he more inclined to go poll by poll? This would make a big difference in how the rest of us would look at the situation.

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know that time is short and I have just a couple of minutes but there is a question I would like to ask the Liberal government representatives opposite. Have they not stopped to realize for one minute what the main criteria of government is? It is for the safety and well-being of its citizens. It is not for the criminal citizens in this country; it is for the law-abiding citizens. But not according to this government and its ministers who say that the first commitment with regard to crime has to be for the rehabilitation of the criminal. That is the government's priority.

I am hearing that our first concern has to be the rehabilitation of the criminal. If that is not the most sickening thing I have heard as a priority for any government of any country, I do not know what is. The government has thrown out, totally discarded the main reason we have government in this country: the safety and well-being of the law-abiding citizens.

The government, as my hon. colleagues have been saying since this debate began, seems to have gone totally the other way. We have heard about Mr. Olson. We have also heard from some of the victims' families who have to suffer with this every day.

[Mining, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the start of National Mining Week today I am sounding alarm bells about the future of Canadian mining.

Last week the head of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada said: "Canada is losing market share of exploration capital at an alarming rate". As a prospector myself, I can assure the House that unless we fix our mining regulatory mess today, Canada will not have the new mines it needs tomorrow.

We must understand that we have had 15 years of declining mineral reserves from 1980 to 1994. The recent slight increase in investments results almost entirely from only two discoveries: diamonds in the Northwest Territories and nickel in Labrador.

Canada has the geology. We have reliable land tenure. But we do not have a simple, clear and timely system of government regulation. This government must deliver now on its promise of regulatory reform for mining or say goodbye to thousands of future Canadian jobs.

[National Forest Week, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Ed MacDonald, a forester from Vancouver Island, for donating 300 coast cedar seedlings to help celebrate National Forest Week. They are available today in the opposition lobby.

The seedlings remind us that trees clean the air and protect watersheds, in addition to sheltering wildlife and providing both recreation and jobs for people. Eight hundred and eighty thousand people work directly or indirectly in forest industries which produced $49 billion in products in 1995, more than half of which was in the export industry, making us number one in the world.

Even given the limitations of the new softwood lumber agreement with the United States, forestry contributes more to the balance of trade than agriculture, fishing, mining and energy combined. The people of Canada, primarily through their provincial governments, have a big say in what happens in our forests because most of them are publicly owned.

Therefore we must choose wisely regarding land use decisions, including native land claims, to protect forestry, the backbone of Canada's economy.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

Unbelievable.