Daphne Jennings

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. If you do not have the list in front of you, I can get you one if you need one.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be allowed the time I need to finish my speech.

At present, section 255 of the Criminal Code provides a 14-year maximum penalty for this offence causing death. However, the type of sentencing we have seen in Canada has been six months, one year, two years and, in many cases, no incarceration at all.

Bill C-201 is placed before the House by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. The amendment proposed by the bill would impose a seven-year minimum sentence in section 255, up to a maximum of 14 years.

Is this amendment needed? Do we have a serious problem in Canada with impaired drivers causing death?

Perhaps at this time I should provide the House with some shocking facts. A portion of these facts were already given to the House by my friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, but they are so serious we should hear them again. Apparently members of the House do not believe them, do not think they are worth listening to or do not think they are important enough for us to do anything about them. That, to me, is really shocking.

In 1994 over 87,000 people were charged with the impaired operation of a car, a boat or a plane. Notice that trains are not included. We know that impaired train operators have caused death in North America.

In 1994 over 1,000 people were killed as a result of impaired driving. That is three times higher than the number of people who were murdered.

Ninety per cent of impaired drivers are primarily responsible for the fatal crashes in which they are involved.

Out of 1,315 auto fatalities in 1993 in Ontario, 565 were alcohol related.

In answer to those in the legal profession who try to create sympathy for the impaired driver by saying that he or she is a law-abiding citizen, that in itself is a contradiction of terms. Or they say that it is a once in a lifetime error in judgement or that they do not usually drink.

To judges, who must pass sentences, here are the myths. Myth: The impaired driver is a law-abiding citizen. Fact: Forty per cent to 70 per cent have had prior alcohol related offences.

Myth: The impaired offence represented an isolated error in judgment. Fact: It takes 200 to 2,000 repetitions of impaired driving to produce one arrest.

Myth: Impaired drivers are non-problematic social drinkers. Fact: As high as 85 per cent of first offenders have had problems with alcohol.

Myth: Remedial education could alter an individual's decision making related to impaired driving. Fact: Remedial education by itself is not an effective intervention. It depends on if the impaired driver has a drinking problem and what form that remedial education took. If an alcohol problem is present, then an alcohol remedy is necessary. I would hope that any program in remedial education would involve the AA philosophy, a well recognized authority in successfully dealing with this illness.

Judges and members of the legal profession need education on alcoholism.

We had a victims' rally in B.C. hosted by my fellow Reform MP from Fraser Valley West. Over 2,000 concerned Canadians were there.

The victim speaking from my riding was Betty Cyr. Betty and her husband Gary lost their daughter Sherry to a drunk driver. Others in my riding could have spoken as well in memory of their loved ones who are now dead because of drunk drivers.

I want to share a letter with the House from one such parent, Kate Verhulst, who lost her daughter to a drunk driver. It reads:

On August 10, 1995, my daughter Cindy Verhulst was travelling home with two friends from seeing the fireworks in Vancouver. At the corner of Seventh Avenue and Hurd Street, an impaired driver plowed into the car Cindy was a passenger in. We know that the impaired driver, Geoffrey deJong, had seven roadside suspensions prior to this crash. He was speeding, ran the light and was in the wrong lane. My daughter didn't have a chance. On August 14, 1995, Cindy died surrounded by her heartbroken family, especially her twin sister Sharleen who held her to the very end.

Geoffrey deJong is still drinking and driving. He has been charged with impaired driving causing death one count, impaired driving causing injury two counts, dangerous driving causing death one count, dangerous driving causing injury two counts, and driving over .08-He did not lose his driver's licence. The preliminary hearing will be June 27, 1996, the trial will be set for late 1997 or early 1998. In the meantime he has the opportunity to kill again. We know that even if he is found guilty on all charges, if the Prosecutor does not plea bargain-

-and plea bargaining is one of the major problems-

-he will serve in actual jail time approximately six months. At present he is still an alleged drunk driver, yet my daughter is not allegedly dead. If he had shot her or stabbed her, this case would be treated as a serious crime, would she be more dead? One of the surgeons at Vancouver Hospital told me that Cindy would have had a better chance against a gun.

I would like to know why the court process is so slow, and why the man who killed my daughter has all the rights and freedoms he robbed her of. I would like to know why this is the only crime that is referred to as an accident. How can a person accidentally commit a crime? I would like to know why the courts treat these cases so lightly. I would like to know how many people deJong will kill before he is stopped. I would like to know why he was given seven road-side suspensions. Isn't it obvious that he was and still is a habitual impaired driver? I think he is a dangerous offender, in that he continues to commit the very crime that killed my daughter.

We need tougher laws against drunk/dangerous drivers, and tougher enforcement of these laws. There should be a minimum sentence required that judges have to adhere to. Impaired/dangerous drivers will injure and kill more people than all the guns, knives and other weapons put together. We have swifter justice for parking violations. What will it take to implement the changes needed?

Kate Verhulst.

I agree with Cindy's mother. There should be a minimum sentence to which judges must adhere. My hon. colleague's Bill C-201 would do just that. I believe it is impossible for any of us here today to know how all-consuming is the distress, hopelessness, frustration that a victim must live through for the rest of their lives when a loved one is taken from them, in this case at the hands of a drunk driver.

Why should the drunk driver or the impaired driver not be held responsible for his or her actions? Because we must all be held accountable for what we do.

Unfortunately past governments were responsible for telling Canadians they deserved everything and did not have to pull their weight or help others or be responsible. The charter of rights and freedoms is responsible for many court actions. Minority groups, anyone who feels hard done by, can go to court claiming hardship in one way or another against them. That charter is for people who continually think me, me, me.

One can initiate court action if the opposite sex whistles at you, if a prisoner slips and falls while playing racquetball in prison, if a restaurant serves coffee that is too hot and a customer spills it, if a citizen drinks too much and then dives into unknown waters. It is always the fault of someone else. No one has to be responsible for his or her actions any more in our country.

We used to be. There was a time in Canada when parents taught their children to stand on their own two feet, respect others and contribute to your country. I believe the charter must be amended to read the charter of rights, freedoms and responsibilities.

Anyone who drinks and drives has a choice. It is a choice they make to drink. It is a choice they make to drive. What choice did the victim have? None. Absolutely none.

If the statistics are to be believed many who drive under the influence of alcohol may have a drinking problem. I state here in this House alcoholism is a disease, not an excuse. Because we are sick does not mean we are no longer responsible for our actions. It is time lawyers and judges, those representing the law and the rights of Canadians, realize everyone must be held accountable for his or her actions.

Only if we as a society insist on this response will we begin to reverse those terrible statistics that I read earlier. First, the impaired driver must receive a sentence that is in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. When we kill others we do not make excuses. We have to be held accountable. A minimum sentence of seven years for impaired driving causing death removes the drunk driver from our roads and if he or she has a drinking problem it gives them ample time to make a serious decision regarding the terrible consequences of their actions.

There are AA programs in prisons-volunteers will come in on a regular basis-run by recovered alcoholics who volunteer their time. These men and women are the experts. It does not cost the taxpayer anything extra. AA has a proven track record for alcoholics who admit they have a problem and are willing to deal with it.

I ask the members of the House, please consider Bill C-201. Let us know longer make excuses, blame others for our actions or kill with no penalty.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, just before I start I would like to mention that the Liberal member spoke about all these laws on the books and how they were being given out as sentences and penalties. The whole reason we are here today is because these things are not happening. There are thousands of cases where they are not receiving penalties and not even being incarcerated. It is a very serious matter and I really hate hearing someone misquote the facts when so many people have been hurt.

Regarding the Bloc member who just spoke, her disparaging comments about the Reform were not too pleasant to listen to, but apart from that was her charge on the cost of incarceration. What about the cost to all of the people who are hurt by impaired drivers? Let us get realistic here. I am really tired of the misconceptions uttered by members in this House who should really be committed to honesty at all times.

Bill C-201 deals with amending the Criminal Code to impose a seven year minimum sentence for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

[Child Support, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the proposed change in the taxation of child support payments, I disagree with the approach taken by the government. I believe the taxation of these moneys should be worked out between the divorcing parents at the time of divorce, hopefully with the help of a mediator.

My main concern is that these new rules can be made retroactive. This new legislation will open the floodgates for renegotiation of agreements. This will lead to enough litigation among family law lawyers across the country to ensure that very few of them will be sitting idle.

The obvious increase in litigation resulting from this change announced in the budget is particularly upsetting for me. The justice minister and his Liberal colleagues on the justice committee voted down my private member's bill on grandparents rights because Liberal committee members argued it would increase litigation, in spite of the fact that three eminent family lawyers argued to the contrary.

Is it the government's intention to help divorcing parents or to help their Liberal lawyer friends?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the budget offered no tax relief. It was not a balanced budget, which we had hoped for, at least for 1997-98, which we certainly could have achieved.

The debt is climbing at a tremendous rate. The debt was not mentioned. We keep talking about the deficit. The deficit may be decreasing but the deficit could also disappear if it were handled correctly. What about the debt? The debt is growing. What are we doing about the debt? That is the serious issue.

In particular, the hon. member mentioned there were no tax increases. The new child support package, which will come into effect on April 30, 1997, raises some concerns which relate to what I call tax increases.

One of the concerns is no deduction, no inclusion. That is the new role of the day. The parent paying support will no longer have an incentive and so they might default. It might be easier for them to default now. It probably will happen. Wonderful people that they may be, these are difficult times.

If this is the case, we may see that it will be more difficult for them to find the money. If the incentive is not there for deductions, we may see this occurring. We may have a new social problem erupting before our eyes, or rather an increased one because some of that occurs right now. It may be an enlarged social problem which will come about. That will make it very hard on the parent trying to support a child and counting on that support.

If the person paying support no longer receives a deduction, that is a tax increase. Therefore I disagree that there are no tax increases.

Will this cause a present problem to become larger, requiring more taxpayer dollars to be spent as a watchdog or as a guideline to keep these people paying? That will be costly to the taxpayer. Who pays when the courts get involved? The taxpayer. That is a tax increase.

The second concern with respect to the new rules announced is that the Minister of Finance can make it retroactive. I fear this will open the flood gates for more litigation. Either the payer or the recipient could sign and file for change. That will lead to enough litigation among family law lawyers across the country to ensure that very few of them will be sitting idle. Who will pay the cost of the court cases or even of the new actions which may succeed with mediation only? That is another tax increase.

Nothing in today's world is as costly and expensive as court cases. Courts are expensive and divorced parents have enough hardships to overcome. Do the children want to be reinvolved in more hassles this litigation will open up? They do not need to put in more time, more energy, wasted energy, that this new legislation will make possible.

I realize we have a problem right now with the legal profession. The Globe and Mail the other day stated some lawyers are not able to pay their fees to the law society. I can see this being a major problem.

However I am concerned that this almost seems like an attempt by the government to open up a flood gate, and so now we have all these new cases and for what purpose? I wonder if the member could comment on this. How does she feel this legislation will help people?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that jobs are necessary. I agree with the parliamentary secretary who spoke previously. He sounded like a Reformer. It is not the government's job to create jobs but rather to create an economy that is healthy.

I am concerned, though, that the budget offers no tax relief. The hon. member for York North spoke very inspiringly about students, the desire for jobs, the desire of the government to create jobs, the desire of the government to make sure jobs are there, technology and everything like this.

There is no tax relief and yet the government is trying to create a climate that will encourage businesses. I heard the Prime Minister say to businesses: "Now it is your job. You go ahead and create the jobs, we have done what we can do". I am a bit confused because it is very difficult for the market, for a health economy to exist if there is no tax relief.

How will businesses have the finances, the will, the profits? How will they create these jobs? Where will the consumer confidence come from? I would like a realistic answer from the hon. member for York North.

The budget did not create that confidence. It did not build the economy. It did not give us any indication that now there will be a lot of jobs for students. I feel it is the economy that has to have some kind of encouragement. I did not see that in the budget.

I wonder if the member could please explain to me how, with no tax relief, businesses will suddenly get all this inspiration and turn things around in the economy and offer the jobs the government feels they should.

[Petitions, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from petitioners asking for changes to the Young Offenders Act, looking at things such as deterrence of the offender, accountability of the offender and rights of the victim.

[Petitions, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, deals with Bill C-32, the grandparents issue.

The petitioners request Parliament to please look seriously at the Divorce Act to consider changing it in order to allow grandparents standing in the court to ask for access.

[Petitions, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions on behalf of all British Columbians.

The first petition I present this morning, and I am honoured to do so, is due to the many changes to food and food products as a result of the current rise in genetic engineering.

Canadians request Parliament to ensure that all transgenic foods and food products be clearly labelled that they are transgenic foods.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present once again petitions on behalf of Canadians from Ontario and Quebec. They ask the government to recognize the need for an amendment to the Divorce Act to grant grandchildren access to the grandparents.

I am encouraged that I was given a commitment on behalf of the Minister of Justice yesterday in the House that the government will be dealing with my proposals for change. Grandparents and all seniors will continue their vigilance until we indeed have the promised change for our grandchildren.