Gordon Earle

[National Defence, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while the government has indicated that it will make it easier for those veterans labelled as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to apply for pensions, the big question of depleted uranium remains unaddressed.

Depleted uranium was found in the body of Nova Scotia veteran Terry Riordon. There are others seeking testing and treatment for depleted uranium.

Will the government ensure speedy, thorough and efficient testing in the treatment of CF members and veterans, and take a leadership role in calling for an international treaty banning the use of depleted uranium in weapons?

[Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present eight petitions which contain hundreds of names and concern Canadian children living in poverty.

We know that on November 24, 1989, the House of Commons unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Since then we realize that the number of poor children has increased over 60%.

The petitioners call upon parliament to use federal budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year program or plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children and to end poverty by the year 2000.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled at the President of the Treasury Board's response to my question concerning racism in society at large, and in the federal government in particular. She had a choice. On behalf of the government, she could have addressed issues of racial discrimination. Instead she chose to play partisan political games, but it gets worse. She then proceeded to say that the government is addressing the problem by setting up an advisory board.

Black Canadians and other visible minorities have been studied to death. What we need are solutions. The Canadian Human Rights Commission's analysis of the government's performance in 1998 shows an abysmal record. Out of 12,420 term staff positions filled last year, only 418 were visible minorities. That is only 3%. Out of 2,800 permanent jobs filled, only 184 were visible minorities, but with 685 visible minority positions lost, the Liberals had a net loss of 501 employees, or a decrease of 18%.

I am sure the government is well aware that it has been over two years since the commission released the study carried out by Dr. John Samuel entitled “Visible Minorities and the Public Service”. In February 1998 a forum on racial discrimination in the federal public service and federal agencies in Canada looked at the issues of systemic racism.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission states in its 1998 annual report:

The public service's record regarding the employment of visible minorities is worse than its record for the other designated groups. For 1997-98, the representation of visible minorities was 5.1 per cent, about half of what could be expected based on the number of people qualified and available for work. There were ample opportunities to remedy this situation, since more than 15,000 people were hired, but the number of visible minority candidates recruited was less than half of those qualified and available. Given the continuing difficulties that federal government departments seem to be experiencing in hiring and promoting visible minorities, it is hard to conclude that they have taken to heart the recommendations made by Dr. Samuel.

I also raised in my question to the President of the Treasury Board the government's inexcusable act of failing to appoint Judge Corrine Sparks who was passed over and ignored in a conscious decision by the government to appoint judges who have sat on the bench in Nova Scotia for less time. Judge Sparks was appointed in 1987. The government overlooked her in favour of judges appointed in 1995, 1993 and 1991, among others. As Lincoln Alexander, chairperson of the Canada Race Relations Foundation stated, this is a “major slap in the face to the black community” and he suggested the government's actions “smack of racism”.

I first raised the issue in the House of Commons on April 14. The government buried its head in the sand and hoped the problem would go away, as governments in the country have so often hoped when it comes to issues of fairness for blacks and other Canadians of colour.

The figures speak for themselves. Representation of Canada's visible minority population in the government's public service is abysmal and offensive.

I sincerely hope the government representative will not respond with platitudes, with comments of look how well they have done, and with vague references to future reports of advisory boards or task forces.

I hope the Liberal government will now respond with an action plan including targets, funding and dates.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my deep appreciation to all members who took part in the debate. This is a very important topic, and members' opinions are very useful.

I want to take a moment to try to summarize a few points that were raised with respect to the bill. My hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois had some reservations about the bill because he felt it created stricter rules for members than it did for ministers.

In all due respect to the hon. member I would say the bill does just the opposite. The bill would apply to all members including ministers and the Prime Minister. There would be baseline rules for everybody. If the Prime Minister wants to create stricter rules under the bill for his cabinet members for whatever reason he could do so, but the bill would apply to all members of parliament including members of the Senate. It would accomplish the purpose about which my hon. colleague has some concerns.

With respect to the comments made by the hon. government member regarding all measures that are currently in place, I guess the very fact that this issue keeps coming forth, as he indicated over and over again, indicates that perhaps all measures in place are not working the way they should, or else the issue would not constantly keep coming up. As he indicated I certainly did research the previous studies and the previous efforts that were made. The bill builds upon them and tries to codify and bring together all the loose pieces under a workable piece of legislation.

With respect to the hon. member's comments he mentioned that the Right Hon. Prime Minister said that ethics should not be a partisan issue. This is exactly why the bill has come forward. It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that would apply to all members regardless of political stripe, regardless of whether or not they hold office. The system in place is open to suspect in terms of the ethics counsellor who currently reports to the Prime Minister and does not have in the real sense any objectivity in terms of reporting to parliament as a whole. Therefore there is even within the current structure a system that allows for a perceived conflict of interest.

I am sure all hon. members would believe and understand that even if something is being done correctly there is no harm in having it looked at because that removes any air of suspicion the public may have with respect to actions by elected members. The bill would certainly enhance the role of parliamentarians and would provide for transparency.

I have already expressed my disappointment that the bill was not made votable. I recall someone saying that I should not expect it to be made votable because nobody would really want to vote against it; it would be like voting against motherhood. I understand that, but it is time we voted for motherhood and stood up for something that would perhaps help us improve the way this institution operates on behalf of Canadians.

I did not get a degree of confidence from the people to whom I spoke as I was campaigning and still speak to. They do not have any great degree of confidence in the House and in the personal ethics of everyone in the House and the way we operate. As a matter of fact I think we are rated close to the bottom of the pile on the list of professions. We are down with used car salesmen, I believe.

Anything we can do to improve the image of parliamentarians would be helpful. I understand why the hon. member on the government side would not want to see the bill come into play because it certainly places an additional onus upon us.

I agree with one opinion expressed by the hon. member on the government side. We cannot legislate behaviour and ethics. Ultimately the law that has to apply to all of us is the law of love that comes from within and comes from the heart. I honestly urge all of us, regardless of what legislation is on the books, to examine our actions from within and continue to strive on behalf of those whom we represent from a point of view of love, integrity and respect for other people.

I was speaking with a grade five class in Basinview school in my riding the other day. It struck me that these young people were very much interested in the parliamentary system. I stressed to them the most important thing of all, that no matter what occupation they pursue they should do it with honesty, integrity and a sense of transparency and respect for other people.

As we draw close to the Christmas season I wish all my colleagues a very, very merry Christmas, happy new year, happy holiday season, and all the best in the upcoming millennium.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, December 16th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-226, parliamentarians' code of conduct, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address my Bill C-226 which sets out to establish a code of official conduct for parliamentarians.

This bill is realistic. It is reflected in provincial legislatures and other nations' national assemblies. This code of conduct would raise the level of integrity of our parliament. This bill is rooted in very practical and legitimate concerns Canadians hold about their parliament.

I believe the decision not to have this bill votable was a betrayal of the Canadian public. The clauses I have set out in this code of conduct would have been practical and would have raised the whole tenor of this House and of the Senate.

My first comments to this House of Commons in response to the government's first throne speech were made over two years ago. I quote from that speech:

So many of our citizens have become so discouraged with our politicians and our political system that they have chosen not to exercise the basic rights for which our forefathers fought and died. But the sad reality is, and it came across loudly and clearly to me during the election campaign, that many citizens have lost faith in their politicians. Politicians were described to me as not really caring, being in it only for themselves or for the money, being dishonest or full of empty promises.... As I stand here today I pledge that I will do my best to put a new face on politics.

Those were my words in 1997.

This code of conduct sets out to address this very real problem. This bill is being brought forward out of my personal desire to see parliamentarians carry out their responsibilities with honesty, integrity, transparency and in a manner that dignifies the trust placed in them by the electorate.

Unfortunately over the years there has been too much opportunity for people to become cynical, skeptical and pessimistic concerning elected officials. I firmly believe that those entrusted with public office must not only conduct themselves in a manner befitting of that trust, but must also be seen to be carrying out their responsibilities beyond reproach and free from conflict of interest.

This parliament should have and needs a clear and objective complaint and resolution mechanism available to the public. This private member's bill addresses these issues. My bill is based upon the following principles.

Parliamentarians should have the highest ethical standards so as to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of parliamentarians and parliament.

Parliamentarians should perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.

Parliamentarians should avoid placing themselves under any financial or other obligation that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Parliamentarians upon entering office should arrange their private affairs to prevent real or apparent conflict of interest. If such does arise, it should be resolved in a way that protects the public interest.

Parliamentarians should not accept any gifts or personal benefit in connection with their office that may reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity. Parliamentarians would not accept any gift other than those received as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol.

As well, all parliamentarians under this bill would have to disclose all official travel when the cost exceeds $250 in cases where the trip is not completely paid for by parliament or one of the few officially recognized sponsors.

No parliamentarian would be permitted to be a party to a contract with the Government of Canada under which the parliamentarian receives a benefit.

Parliamentarians would be required to make a disclosure of all assets once every calendar year and would be required to make public disclosure of the nature, although not the value, of all assets each year.

Finally, to ensure that public interest and the highest standards are upheld, there would be an ethics counsellor to advise parliamentarians on any question relating to conduct. The ethics counsellor would enforce the application of the code of conduct. There would also be the creation of a new standing joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on official conduct to review the code and to monitor the ethics counsellor.

I should point out that there are codes of conduct in various forms in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Australia as well as in some provinces in Canada. For example, in B.C. there is the conflict of interest commissioner. In Alberta there is the ethics commissioner. In Saskatchewan there is the conflict of interest commissioner. In Ontario there is the integrity commissioner.

There are many obvious reasons why having a code of official conduct would benefit all parliamentarians and all Canadians. In terms of the public, I am sure that everyone here would agree that the majority of Canadians has lost confidence in politicians and many hold a negative opinion of the political system. This code would address public cynicism. It would satisfy the expectations of the public and encourage a sense of security in the system.

The values that this bill promotes are central to rebuilding respect in this institution by Canadians. That is why this code would include a statement of principles that parliamentarians are expected to uphold. The values inherent in this code of conduct are that service in parliament is a public trust. Public interest must be placed ahead of private interest and conflicts of interest must be avoided or resolved.

This code is not only a disciplinary measure but it also provides an important educational function. The public would like to see such a function instilled in this House and the code sets forth a framework for that kind of education. This code would make it clear what parliamentarians are expected to do in certain situations and would provide an educational function for the guidance of parliamentarians.

I said at the outset that I was disappointed this bill was not deemed votable. There are several criteria to determine whether a bill is votable.

Bills and motions if they are to be votable should be drafted in a clear, complete and effective way. This 18 page bill has gone through many drafts and redrafts with the assistance of legislative staff. The bill not only stands the scrutiny of being potentially effective and an operable piece of legislation, but it is one that clearly outlines its goals.

Also, bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. The bill fully meets that criteria.

Bills and motions must deal with matters of significant public interest. The conduct of parliamentarians is obviously of considerable public interest.

Bills and motions must also deal with matters that are not part of the government's legislative agenda and on which the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to vote during the session under way. As far as I know, Bill C-226 meets these criteria.

In terms of bills being votable, all other things being equal, higher priorities should be given to items which transcend purely local interests, are not couched in partisan terms or cannot be address by the House in other ways.

Clearly Bill C-226 has no given local interest and is fully in the national interest. It would also apply to all parliamentarians, including myself. There is nothing partisan about this particular effort. Members from all parties signed my petition accompanying the bill. I believe strongly that anything we can do to raise the dignity of parliament and parliamentarians in the eyes of the public benefits all of us, both collectively and individually.

Similar legislation exists in provincial legislatures and other national legislatures. It is neither fanciful nor onerous in its construction and in its potential application. I sincerely believe that the bill meets all the tests of being something that is worthy of being voted on by this honourable body.

I would therefore ask for the unanimous consent of members in the House to deem this bill votable.

[Veterans Affairs, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has two important files on his desk and I ask him if he will have cabinet deal with them today?

The first is to give approval to the compensation settlement agreed upon by the merchant mariners. Second, the German government appears to have made a decision to provide compensation for some prisoners of war.

Is the minister aware of this and will he ensure that those brave Canadian soldiers wrongfully sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp will finally receive a just settlement beyond the insulting pittance given a year ago? Will the minister and his cabinet bring joy at Christmastime to the merchant mariners and our Buchenwald survivors?

[Halifax Port Authority, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Halifax port is in danger of losing its competitive edge in the international shipping industry. Hundreds of jobs are on the line, as well as millions of dollars in revenue, and an international reputation is at stake.

The Halifax Port Authority recently demanded several changes to its 30 year tenant, Halterm, including a 900% increase in rent. I am concerned that the port authority may be taking an adversarial approach. The federal government appointed the board of the authority and I ask that the government ensure that the authority acts in the best interests of the port, our community and our region. The federal government has a duty to take a leadership role in this matter and ensure that the long term interests of the port of Halifax are upheld.

I urge the government to ensure that it does everything possible to facilitate renewed negotiations in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation, not conflict. The people of the Halifax region deserve no less.

[Minimum Sentences, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on October 21 of this year in the House the Minister of National Defence stated:

Scientific studies to this point have not indicated that depleted uranium and illnesses including cancer are in fact related.

Is the minister aware of what the famous epidemiologist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, has to say about depleted uranium? She says:

DU is highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very dangerous when taken internally.

Upon impact, the DU bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point of release, or settle as dust suspended in the air waiting to be stirred up by human or animal movement.

It is very small and can be breathed by anyone from babies and pregnant women to the elderly and the sick. This radioactive and toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect the lungs, gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, bones, other tissues and renal systems.

The A-10 Warthog is capable of firing 4,200 rounds of this abomination every minute. The U.S. government has suggested that almost one million rounds of this radioactive toxic casing were fired in Iraq during the Gulf War. Iraq has witnessed explosive rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers, in particular near the Basara region where these shells were fired.

Dr. Bertell states the following about DU:

It is most likely a major contributor to the Gulf War Syndrome experienced by the veterans and the people of Iraq.

NATO launched a potentially devastating environmental offensive in Kosovo. It bombed the largest medical factory in Yugoslavia when it bombed the Galenika pharmaceutical complex, releasing highly toxic fumes. NATO bombed the petrochemical complex in Pancevo, releasing huge amounts of chlorine, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer. The same day it hit an ammonia supply company.

In his response to my question on this issue at an earlier date, the government representative even admitted “Some of our NATO allies are using this type of ammunition”.

That says it all. We are a part of NATO and thus we are responsible for NATO's actions. It is up to the government to do the right thing and say no to the use of this deadly toxin in any and all of NATO's actions.

Furthermore, the Minister of National Defence should commit to Canadians that he will do everything in his power to ensure that NATO fully complies with the UN Balkan environmental task force investigation into depleted uranium use in Kosovo.

This was the essence of my question to the minister. What were we doing to ensure that NATO complies with that investigation? Anything less than the minister doing this is simply deplorable.

But this crisis is not relegated only to foreign soil. It is despicable that our government some years back had been silently disposing of toxic and lethal nuclear waste by firing it into our coastal waters off Halifax and therefore into our food system.

I ask that this government produce a complete and public accounting of all DU stocks, including every instance that DU shells have been fired in Canadian territory or by Canadians abroad. I further call upon the government to follow up on any public health risks or concerns with respect to those Canadians who may have been exposed to depleted uranium while serving our country.

I would hope that the parliamentary secretary, in response, would give an update as to the UN Balkan environmental task force investigation and what the minister has done to ensure that NATO complies so that the health and safety of human beings in Kosovo is respected.

[Merchant Mariners, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, merchant mariners have been denied justice from the government for far too long.

It seems to many that the government is in a terrible and tragic waiting game, knowing that with the advanced age of so many Canadian merchant mariners, the longer it waits to provide compensation the more merchant mariners will die.

Will the minister announce a just settlement negotiated with merchant mariners before the end of this century?

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this subject. I know I speak on behalf of my constituents when I stand 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 a very active member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the Halifax region. Geraldine faced the terrible tragedy of losing a son 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 may be spared this tragedy.

The whole issue of impaired driving causing death is a very important issue in the province of Nova Scotia. The current president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is Mr. Pat Dutton, who heads the Halifax, Annapolis Valley and Digby chapters. I commend him for his very important work in this area.

Every day people living in the riding of Halifax West face a very real and possibly fatal threat. Every day in my riding people are concerned about someone they know who may be drinking and driving. I am sure it is the same throughout the province of Nova Scotia and across Canada.

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 time span since these laws were enacted. The death and casualty numbers read like those of war. The government has the 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 to ensure that we use the tools of legislation to do what we can to put in place laws to reduce these accidents.

When we talk about this issue, 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 chose to drink too much and subsequently turned their vehicle into a terrible weapon out of control.

Even while I am speaking, it is likely that a Canadian will lose 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 that this takes on our health care system and the ripple effect on other costs to taxpayers. 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. We all have individual responsibility in this matter. I have chosen not to drink at all. I know several others who have made this choice. I know there are many other responsible social drinkers who would never climb into a vehicle with anywhere near the legal blood alcohol limit. 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 efforts that the backwards social philosophy of “one for the road” is increasingly becoming a thing of the past, and we are very thankful for that.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and many other organizations have become very sophisticated and involved and have done much of our homework in this particular area. It is good to have such community-responsible citizens who are taking up their responsibility to make sure this tragedy does not persist. This enables us as legislators to help address the problems.

There are many small business owners who serve alcohol who are undertaking initiatives in their businesses to curb irresponsible drinking and to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. I commend them for their efforts.

It is foolish to think 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 because 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 0.08 to 0.05. We would not be breaking any new ground here. Many countries are ahead of us. Australia, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and France have all lowered their legal levels to 0.05.

Some provincial governments have taken the lead on this issue. Newfoundland has implemented a 24 hour licence suspension with a $100 licence reinstatement charge if a person's level is over 0.05.

I am pleased to inform the House as to what Nova Scotia has done in this area. As of the beginning of this month, new legislation is in place that has been approved by all the parties in the legislature in Nova Scotia. These new drinking and driving laws taking effect include the immediate 24 hour suspension of a driver's licence for someone pulled over with a blood alcohol level of between 0.05 and the legal limit of 0.08. For the first conviction there is a one year revocation of driving privileges. A second conviction warrants a three year suspension, up from the current two years. Three time offenders will lose their licence for at least 10 years. A fourth time offender will never drive again. These are very important changes under the motor vehicle act of Nova Scotia. They underscore the significance of the whole issue that we are talking about.

Mr. Pat Dutton, president of the Halifax, Annapolis Valley and Digby chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, compared these new laws to a Christmas list being fulfilled. He said: “Today all the things that are being put in place are things that are on our list”.

It is very important to see this kind of involvement by communities, to see the changes that are taking place in various provinces and to see that all this is working together to try to ensure that lives are protected and that people do not suffer needlessly as a result of impaired driving.

The last time I spoke on this matter I indicated the concern among my constituents of Halifax West that there should be the capacity under provincial legislation to confiscate cars involved in these offences. That is a very important issue.

Let us explore in committee the possibility of automatically requesting from drivers breath and/or blood samples in crashes 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 all these things with a view to trying to improve this situation. Let us not be afraid to examine the code, to expand the reasonable or probable grounds on which law enforcement officers can investigate crash scenes that involve death or serious injury.

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 a part in someone's death or injury due to a traffic accident.

The policy statement Mothers Against Drunk Driving includes this very important phrase: “While an individual's decision to consume alcohol is a private matter, driving after consuming alcohol or other drugs is a public matter”.

I would like to just comment briefly at this point on the impact the whole matter of drunk driving can have upon the lives of families and on the lives of people who are affected.

We need not lose someone through drunk driving to know how serious it is and how much pain one can feel when a loved one is lost. I lost a nephew a number of years ago. He was aged eight. It was as a result of a serious vehicle accident. The young fellow was driving his bicycle on his way home and was crossing a busy highway when a truck hit and killed him. We do not know in that case whether there was alcohol involved, but whether there was alcohol involved or not, the pain is still the same when we lose a young life like that.

I remember this young fellow when I was actively involved in karate. He wanted me to break some boards for him. Sometimes in karate we have a technique where we break one inch boards. He said, “Can you break a board for me, Uncle Gordon?” and I said, “I suppose I could”. He ran down to his basement and came back with a big 2x4. I looked at it and said, “I think maybe I will have to do this on another occasion”. Sadly, the other occasion did not arrive. I did not have the opportunity to break a board for him because his young life was cut short at the age of eight due to the accident.

When we add to that the loss of a loved one through drinking and driving, we can imagine how much more pain and suffering we go through knowing this life did not have to be lost.

Turning to Bill C-18 which deals very specifically with the whole issue, it is an act to amend the criminal code and to deal with the issue of the penalty. This legislation amends the criminal code in order to strengthen impaired driving provisions to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect on potential offenders and that the sanctions to be imposed for offences involving impaired driving reflect the gravity of the offence as well as the degree of responsibility of the offender. Bill C-18 would raise the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment.

The amendments implement recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its report, “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”. The committee's recommendations on the provisions of this bill are in response to public pressure spurred by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, police associations, victims groups and members of parliament from all parties.

The NDP fully supports the legislation. The criminal code amendments strengthen the penalties and increase the deterrent values of the impaired driving provisions in the code. The legislation addresses the seriousness of impaired driving in our society by both strengthening the penalties for offenders and increasing the options and powers available to the police and the courts to more effectively combat drunk drivers.

We believe that passing legislation to ensure swift implementation of the new provisions will save lives. It sends a very important message that impaired driving is an avoidable criminal act which carries unacceptable risks of injury and death. In 1985 parliament added the offences of impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death to the criminal code with maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment where the result is death and 10 years imprisonment where bodily harm is caused.

To the extent that penalties can discourage those who might leave an accident to evade getting caught for impaired driving, the changes to the offence of leaving the scene will send the message that running away from a collision where someone is injured or killed is a very serious behaviour and it carries a serious penalty.

Estimates found there were roughly 1,300 deaths due to impaired driving in 1997. Information from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation study in Ontario suggested impaired drivers comprised 55% of the driving fatalities. The 1999 report by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia indicated that in each of the years 1995, 1996, 1997 more than 80% of the impaired driving deaths in British Columbia were comprised of impaired drivers and their passengers.

The NDP would like to see zero tolerance on drinking and driving on our streets and that these horrible statistics be greatly reduced or eliminated so future generations of Canadians need not suffer the horrible losses of this terrible crime.

It is incumbent upon all of us as individuals to do what we can to try—especially as we approach this holiday season when we know a lot of people engage in frivolity, in celebrations and quite often in drinking too much—to exercise due care and responsibility to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost on the highways.