Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
Self-Government November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the lack of this government's leadership on aboriginal issues was shown once again as courts were left to make controversial rulings about logging rights on crown land.
As aboriginal leaders and premiers meet today to discuss constitutional issues, will this government now show leadership and state support for both ongoing formal participation of aboriginal leaders in constitutional talks and for constitutionally recognizing aboriginal peoples' inherent right to self-government?
Petitions November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition for a public inquiry into Ipperwash. This petition concerns the fatal shooting death of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash Provincial Park where over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women.
The petitioners ask that the House of Commons support a full public inquiry into the events surrounding the fatal shooting on September 6 to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about governments, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Stoney Point people.
Louis Riel November 17th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of the death of Louis Riel was yesterday. I know I speak on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Churchill River in Saskatchewan, who is Metis, and the rest of the New Democratic caucus when I call upon the government to correct horrible historic injustices.
Now is the time to officially exonerate Louis Riel and with it the dark cloud that hangs over the federal government. Now is the time to go beyond recognizing Riel as a founder of Manitoba and officially recognize him as a Father of Confederation.
The refusal of the federal government to acknowledge that the Metis fall under subsection 91(24) of the constitution is one of the worst forms of official federal discrimination according to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
The anniversary of the death of Louis Riel would be a very fitting time to correct these injustices.
South Asian Community November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House that 1997 marks the centennial of the south Asian community in Canada.
It was in 1897 that the first official documents regarding the arrival of south Asians in Canada were recorded. The year 1997 marks a century for a community that today contributes fully to the cultural and economic dynamism of the country, yet continues to fight daily against discrimination.
Only in 1947, 50 years ago, were the south Asians awarded full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.
Today Canadians of south Asian origin are active in all sectors of our society: professors, skilled workers, doctors or here in the House of Commons. This remarkable achievement should remind us of the importance of an open immigration policy based on the recognition of immigrants' contributions to development. Diversity is at the heart of our country's history and future.
For this reason I want to join my voice with others in congratulating Canadians of south Asian origin and heritage and commit to working against any initiative that would threaten to weaken—
Education November 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, by the year 2000, 45% of new jobs will require 16 years of education, yet a government study shows that since 1980 public transfers for education have been cut in half, from $6.44 per each dollar of student fees in 1980 to less than $3 in 1995. Even then the government continued to cut.
How can the government turn its back on young Canadians by cutting the very programs that would lead them to jobs in the future?
Supply October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the comments made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. It is very important that we not allow the focus of this motion to be deterred by looking at the broader issue of justices and the appointment of judges.
While the hon. member on the opposite side has raised some valid concerns, that justice must be tempered with mercy, the examples that he cited earlier are among the minority of the tragic cases that we see resulting from drunk driving. I believe it is appropriate that the House agree on this motion and refer it for proper study to a committee so that those issues can be dealt with.
We should not get lost in the debate. By moving it to another level and talking about the appointment of judges is a different issue. It is important to keep the focus on what this motion is designed to deal with on behalf of the people who suffer the tragic results of drunk driving.
Pay Equity October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, equal pay for equal work sounds obvious. It is not, at least not to this government, which continues to deny and defy its own law.
Today in Halifax women from my riding have joined women from across the country to insist that government put its words about equality into action. Women in the public service have long been due under human rights and pay equity legislation back pay to ensure that the work they have done when of equal value to work done by men is of equal pay. The government should have done this before deciding to dole out $12.1 million in bonuses to senior civil servants.
Rosemary Brown wrote in 1973: “Until all of us have made it, none of us have made it”.
Until the government settles this debt, it continues to deny equality to all Canadian women. Now is the time, today, maintenant, aujourd'hui. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Supply October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague because he has raised a very important issue. I think it is true that we have not only arranged our lives around the automobile but we have arranged the automobile so that we try to have more and more powerful automobiles, ones that go faster and ones that are attractive to young people. There was a very serious accident in the Halifax-Dartmouth area that claimed the lives of a couple of young people. The young person driving had this big sports car that almost got out of control because it was so powerful. It was a situation that caused a lot of tragedy to the people involved.
I think we have to refocus our lives, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, in a way that we can minimize those situations and put more focus on the true value of trying to live together and work together harmoniously.
Supply October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my French is not good enough to reply to my colleague in that language. I will speak in English if I may.
I appreciate the question because it is a very serious question. We must remember that not only are the victims the ones who experience the loss but there are also victims on the other side, the families and friends of those who have caused the accident who suffer as well. They have great concerns about a friend or a loved one's having caused such carnage.
The best we can do in those situations is to try to band together and lend the support that we as human beings can give to each other, recognizing that it is too late after the incident happens to lament and say if we had only done this or that. We have to move forward from that situation and try to find strength from our fellow human beings and try to deal with the problem that exists. We should take every step we can to reduce this carnage by taking measures to deal with the issue that brought the tragic situation about.
Supply October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I know I speak on behalf of my constituents when I stand here today to address the issue of drunk driving.
I would like to begin by commending the work of one of my constituents, Geraldine Dedrick, who is president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the Halifax region. Geraldine Dedrick herself faced the unimaginable tragedy of losing a son due to an accident related to drunk driving. I am honoured to stand here to support her efforts and those of countless others who are working today so that people tomorrow are spared this tragedy.
This is an important issue in the province of Nova Scotia. The current president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is Susan MacAskill from Windsor in the Annapolis Valley of our province. I commend her on her work.
Every single day, people living in the riding of Halifax West face a very real and possibly fatal threat. Every day in my riding there are people concerned about someone they know drinking and driving. It is the same throughout the province of Nova Scotia and throughout the land.
Since the Criminal Code was amended to deal with persons who drink and drive, it has been estimated that 20,400 Canadians have died at the hands of those who choose to drink and drive. At the same time up to 1.5 million Canadians have been injured during the timespan over ten years since these laws were enacted. The death and casualty numbers read like those of war. The government has to tools at hand to reduce this carnage.
I and my colleagues of the New Democratic Party support the review and enactment of legislative measures to enhance deterrents and ensure that we use the tool of legislation to do what we can to put in place laws to reduce these accidents.
We are not talking about people who have sacrificed their lives for our country or for any higher ideal. We are talking about people who have had their lives or their good health ended because someone has chosen to drink too much, thus turning their vehicle into a terrible weapon out of control.
Even during this speech it is likely that a Canadian will loose his or her life due to drunk driving. An average of more than one Canadian every five minutes is injured due to drunk driving. An average of one Canadian is killed every six hours. This is simply obscene.
While clearly the loss of life and limb is paramount, let us not ignore the incredible toll this takes on our health care system and the ripple effect of other costs to the taxpayer. This is not only an issue of death and injury, it is an issue of responsibility in so many ways.
Clearly the responsibility lies at many levels. There is the level of the individual. I have chosen not to drink at all. I know several have made this choice. I know many other responsible social drinkers who would never climb into a vehicle with anywhere near the .08 alcohol level.
Then there are others who are social drinkers who occasionally make the wrong choice about drinking and driving. This wrong choice is estimated to be responsible for a death every single day in this country. Then there are the repeat offenders, many with serious drinking problems who cause much of the carnage.
Then there is the responsibility of the community. More and more communities are banding and working together to change the laws. It is largely due to their effort that the backward social philosophy of one for the road is increasingly becoming a thing of the past.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and many other organizations have become very sophisticated and involved and have done much of our homework. This enables us, as legislators, to help address the problems. There are also many small business owners who serve alcohol who are undertaking initiatives in their businesses to curb irresponsible drinking and to reduce the incidents of drinking and driving. I commend their efforts.
It is foolish to think that the entire problem can be legislated away. It is no more than criminal not to make every change we can as Parliamentarians to address the loss of life and health through drunk driving accidents.
The government should have no fear of addressing this issue if it is concerned about the polls. Nine out of every ten Canadians believe this is a problem for the government to address. Almost three of every four Canadians support lowering the blood alcohol concentration level from .08 to .05. We could perhaps go lower, as has been suggested by the hon. member opposite.
We would not be breaking any new ground. Many countries are ahead of us. Australia, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and France all have lowered their legal levels to .05. Some provincial governments have taken the lead on this issue. Newfoundland has implemented a 24 hour license suspension with a $100 license reinstatement charge if a person's level is over .05.
I know there is concern among my constituents of Halifax West that there should be the capacity, under provincial legislation in Nova Scotia, to confiscate cars involved in these offences.
Let us explore in committee the possibility of automatically requesting from drivers breath and/or blood samples in a crash resulting in serious injury or death. Let us review the current two hour presumption limit to obtain a breath or blood sample. Let us review every aspect within our federal jurisdiction to do our part to reduce impaired driving.
Let us not be afraid to examine the criminal code to expand the reasonable or probable grounds for which law enforcement officers can investigate crash scenes that involve death or serious injury.
I know one of the big concerns in my riding of Halifax West is the extent to which we are able to determine the role alcohol plays in accidents causing death. Let us look at ways to ensure that we know if alcohol has played part in someone's death or injury due to a traffic accident.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving's statement of beliefs include the phrase: “While an individuals decision to consume alcohol is a private matter, driving after consuming alcohol or other drugs is a public matter”.
I would now like to comment briefly on the impact that has been mentioned with respect to friends and families, the impact that one feels over the loss of a loved one.
We need not lose someone through drunk driving to realize the pain and suffering people go through when they lose a loved one. I lost a nephew, age 8, through a serious car accident. There was no alcohol involved but I still remember the pain of that accident. This young fellow knew I was doing karate and he asked me to break a board for him one day. He came up with all these big boards, 2x4s, and wanted me to break them. At that time I said I would do that for him a little later on. That later on never came because his life was cut short by a serious car accident. Add to that the pain and suffering one feels when the car accident is unnecessary because someone has chosen to drink and drive.
I would say in response to the comments by hon. member who introduced the bill that the NDP is not serious about this issue, we are serious about this issue. We do take these matters seriously. We do not find them funny. We know the importance of having this matter adequately dealt with. It is for this reason that we rise in support of his bill. Let us take action now to resolve this issue.