Rex Crawford

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosedale.

I am honoured to speak in this special parliamentary debate on the Zaire mission, and Canada's strong guidance and direction at the United Nations through the compassionate leadership of the Prime Minister. Along with other members of Parliament, I support our efforts 100 per cent and I am pleased that the foreign affairs minister and the Minister of National Defence with the cabinet are leading the way.

I quote from the a November 14 Chatham Daily News editorial: ``Canada's willingness to come to the aid of starving refugees in Zaire once again demonstrates the outstanding leadership our nation enjoys in international affairs''.

While the rest of the world responded slowly to the crisis, Canada took a moral leadership role in generating international military support for the refugees. By authorizing a mission to send as many as 1,600 Canadian troops into what even United Nations' officials have called a no man's land, Canada is spearheading this multinational effort.

As members will agree, this is no exercise in public relations. In addition to the formidable geographical problems, the interior of Africa is quite possibly the most politically unstable place on earth.

Canada has a long and distinguished history as the world's foremost peacekeeper. If our troops are effective in Zaire, it will restore some of that respect we remembered and honoured during last week's Remembrance Day ceremonies across the country. We must remember this mission is different from most of Canada's previous peacekeeping operations. Our soldiers' job will be ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid.

There still remain more than 600,000 Hutu refugees in Zaire and another 700,000 in Tanzania. I am pleased that the government is identifying this as a humanitarian crisis, as it puts its hopes into deeds. We cannot remain comfortable in the face of hunger and injustice. I am proud of Canada's leading role in peacekeeping and the fact that Chatham and Kent county in southwestern Ontario, the real bread basket of our nation, are leading the way in this humanitarian mission.

As Heather Bondy told me, maybe the only way we can come close to understanding the suffering is to actively hope, then put our hope into action and actually do something. Heather has been involved in nearly a dozen third world projects, for example, building bridges in the Dominican Republic and she started the first food bank in the city of Chatham.

More than 22 tonnes of food has been committed to the effort in Chatham. Eight area nurses and doctors are getting immunized in preparation for the work overseas. Those donations are in addition to 10 tonnes of wheat committed last week by W.G. Thompson & Sons of Blenheim, one of the largest grain facilities in Canada. It will be milled into flour by Dover Flour Mills of Chatham. The company will donate soybean meal that can be mixed with canola oil to make a protein rich nutritious meal. The canola oil has already been donated by western Canada.

Among other gifts committed to the group from Kent are enormous beer tent style canopies that can serve as a shelter for a medical mission; a tentative promise of enough grain to fill several rail cars; small farm implements and seeds for planting quick harvest grain; medical supplies from the Chatham hospitals and

medical community and suitcase sized water purifiers from the MIOX Corporation of New Mexico.

The Prime Minister's announcement yesterday about sending Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril to Kigali is welcomed news indeed. The $15 million in emergency aid to the refugees will also help. The humanitarian aid financed by the Canadian International Development Agency includes support for Canadian doctors, nurses, water sanitation engineers and logistic experts organized by the Canadian Red Cross, CARE Canada and Canadian Lutheran World Relief. Canadian aid channelled through these and other agencies as well as the United Nations will help immensely.

The Kent county group is hoping for a plane to carry its equipment and supplies to Zaire. The Chatham airport has been approved for landing by the city officials. Ten local citizens are waiting to hear from the military on the ground and are ready to move in as part of the national humanitarian effort.

I have contacted the Minister of National Defence and his parliamentary secretary to inquire about the availability of a plane for the huge number of items destined for Africa.

Those involved with the group in my riding include Dr. Eric Williams of Lethbridge, Alberta who has lived in Tanzania for many years and speaks several languages; nurse Candice Barlow, currently the AIDS spokesperson for Kent county and head of the public health department; nurse Kathy Van Basler a medical-surgical nurse who has lived in the Middle East for several years; nurse Joanne Gamble, wife of Dr. Brian Gamble, chief of staff at the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance; health care worker John Canna, a former U.S. marine; Marie-France Wilkinson, a French teacher for 25 years. Her talents are crucial in this francophone area.

Also involved is Steve Bradley, president and general manager of the Best Western Wheel's Inn, who has been a board member of the Chatham Food Bank and brings a farming background to help in the sowing of seeds; Andy Morrissey, writer/reporter for the Chatham Daily News . He has been asked to be the Canadian correspondent and is young and willing to do what is needed to help; Father Matthew George of Our Lady of Help Christian Church in Wallaceburg. The priest has been collecting donations of money and goods through the London Catholic Diocese. Since Zaire and Rwanda are 90 per cent Catholic, he will offer much hope to the people he will meet.

As well, Barry Fraser, the Kent county representative for the Ontario ministry of agriculture has researched what seeds will be appropriate in the troubled region.

Right now in Chatham a local businessman has donated the use of an empty store for people to drop off donated items. A church in Windsor has put the local group on the Internet so that they can quickly access what information and items will be further needed.

I hope that a plane can land in Chatham to transport these caring people and their supplies to help the multinational mission. We know that more than one million refugees, of whom 60 per cent are women and children, have been caught between warring parties.

Starting last week, large numbers have been crossing the boarder from Zaire into Rwanda and urgently need food, medicine and shelter. I support and applaud the efforts of my constituents and those of all Canadians in this effort. Heather Bondy and I agree that as Canadians we are a people that believe life is either a daring adventure of hope or it is nothing.

I strongly urge the Minister of National Defence and military officials to work with the Kent County group to transport supplies to the war torn region. They are ready. They are working hard. They care.

Donations from churches, business and area residents have been pouring in from the city of Chatham, as well as Sarnia, London, Watforth, Petrolia and other areas. People are responding to the terrible ordeal being experienced by the people in Zaire.

In conclusion, my constituents and I salute Heather Bondy and her team for bringing this humanitarian effort together in my riding. I also salute our troops and their leaders, who will help to stabilize the ground so that aid efforts can begin successfully. I also praise the work of our Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, indeed the cabinet and our caucus for leading the way in the world once again. Together we can make it happen.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for her questions and her statements concerning MMT and the studies that have been or have not been done over the years.

I have only been in the House of Commons approximately eight years. The matter of ethanol production was brought up long before I arrived. The feeling was that we should look into ethanol.

I believe hon. members have said that six provinces are not in favour of banning MMT. There are ethanol plants out west, down east, in Quebec. Those are the only plants I know of at the present time, that is, in three different provinces.

I would imagine that Vancouver, and British Columbia in general, would certainly be in support of ethanol over MMT. As far as the safety of ethanol is concerned, whether it has been tested, all I know is if someone can drink it, it cannot be that bad. One thing about ethanol, if your car breaks down, while you are waiting for help which takes a long time to arrive, you can sit there and drink ethanol. You might not be in shape to drive the car afterward, though.

Ethanol has been proven to be very safe. MMT, on the other hand, has been banned in several states. I believe there are 16 states in which there is an outright ban. For areas that have large car populations such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver it is to their benefit to be using ethanol instead of MMT.

There has been what we call evidence, although Ethyl said that it is not evidence, coming from the United States. The United States has studied this for the last 50 years. Ethanol is nothing new. Ethanol has been produced in the United States for over 50 years. In fact, when Henry Ford first came out with the Tin Lizzy, the model-T, long before the hon. member was born, it burned ethanol at that time. I have driven a model-T, but not new.

The evidence over the years in the United States has proven that there are problems with MMT. It is not banning it just for the sake of banning it. It is a very cheap additive. It is banning it because of health reasons.

As far as the $201 million lawsuit, living on the border, I am very familiar with Americans. They sue everyone for anything. It is a good bluff.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on a bill that I am confident will benefit every Canadian from coast to coast. I am especially honoured to speak on the bill as it directly affects my riding of Kent in Ontario. Next Friday will be the ground breaking day for a world class ethanol plant in Chatham, Ontario.

Alternative fuels are the wave of the future using corn as the base product. Ethanol is an environmentally friendly, cost efficient and job producing substance. It is my hope and belief that some day every vehicle in Canada will run on alternative fuels.

Speaking of the ethanol plant in Chatham, I would like to give a little history of how it came to be. Approximately four years ago I was approached by Doug MacKenzie of Commercial Alcohols to try and promote this to the federal government and get its backing.

Over the years we had a very busy time. We met with every minister and every potential minister at that time to try and sell this project for the county of Kent. Every Wednesday morning at caucus we would present different proposals to all the ministers. Every Wednesday morning it seemed as if I was approaching them with a summons. I showed up every Wednesday with an envelope for every minister which had information and articles on ethanol and how it would benefit the Canadian population.

There are 21 municipalities in Kent, not the riding of Kent but in the county of Kent, of which I had the fortune of being a past warden. All 21 municipalities sent in their support not only once but twice to every member of Parliament.

I remember one cold day in January, in fact I think it was the coldest day we had that year, the administrator of the city of Chatham and the administrator of the county arrived here to meet with the finance department. They were in their raincoats as they were used to the weather in southwestern Ontario which we refer to as the banana belt of Canada. We walked to the minister's office which is approximately five blocks from here and both gentlemen were completely frozen. They were not used to the weather in Ottawa. The administrators met twice in Ottawa with the finance department and the minister.

Over the year we had thousands of petitions from the riding of Kent supporting an ethanol plant in Chatham. Really they were not asking for money; what they were asking for was a tax deferment. Since alcohol is not taxed in Canada they wanted to make sure that it stayed off to give the company a kick off start.

This company is a $153 million project. On next Friday October 18 will be the kick off party to starting to build this project. The ridings of Kent, Essex-Kent and Lambton-Middlesex, the corn belt of Canada, will supply this company. It is another way of people in agriculture being able to utilize their produce. Any commodity that helps agriculture is to the benefit of all.

There will be approximately 90 to 100 jobs within the company and a spinoff of approximately 400 jobs. People who work in agriculture, truckers, labourers and shippers will all be involved with this plant in Chatham. It is not only a benefit to the environment, it is a benefit to the economy.

Over those years we tried every way possible to get the ministers and the members of this party and the other parties to agree to having this tax deferral. I must mention a chap who worked for me by the name of Emery Huszka. Emery drove down to his hometown of Bothwell filled a pickup with a load of corn and drove all the

way back to Ottawa. One weekend he and his wife wrapped ears of corn and our proposal with a ribbon. I must compliment Emery and his wife Julie for all the work they did in such a novel way to get attention. All the offices received an ear of corn with our proposal wrapped by ribbon.

I must thank the member for Halton-Peel and the member for Lambton-Middlesex who co-chaired the ethanol program for the environment here under the former minister, the hon. member for Hamilton East. They worked night and day to get this project off the ground.

I would like to thank all the members of Parliament who supported this. It was almost unanimous. I believe there was only one member who fought me on it, the member for Sarnia-Lambton. I do not blame the member for Sarnia-Lambton one iota. We are very close friends. But living in the chemical valley of Canada he has to stand up for the people who support him.

There were debates in Windsor. I debated along with Robert Wheeler from the city of Chatham who is the head of economic development against the member for Sarnia-Lambton and Ray Curran, the chair of the Lambton industrial society. Our debate was on the pros and cons of ethanol versus MMT. Later Doug MacKenzie and I debated in the city of London against the chemical companies themselves which were there to debate why they felt MMT should not be banned and why we should not go ahead with ethanol.

It was a very busy year and a half. My staff worked night and day. But had it not been for the ministers of our government and the members not only of the government but of the opposition who gave their support, we would never have attained our goals.

Let me now address another important issue. As more and more cars make their way onto our city streets and highways, we face a major environmental problem. Every year the 14 million cars on Canada's roads release about four tonnes of pollutants into the air. Not only do excessive emissions infect the air we breathe but they also pollute our water systems and environment. This is a massive problem that is only getting worse.

I have personal evidence that ethanol is very beneficial as I have used ethanol in my car for some 20 years or more. I drove one car for over 450,000 kilometres without any trouble with its catalytic converter or motor. Ethanol certainly benefits with a cleaner running motor. I still use ethanol today after 20 years. I always pick a gas station that sells ethanol.

I congratulate both the ministers of environment and agriculture for taking hold of this problem, for tightening emissions regulations, for improving fuel compositions and for encouraging Canadians to make careful and environmentally sound transportation choices.

As I mentioned earlier, I come from a rural area. It is the corn capital of Canada. We do not have public transportation. My community relies almost exclusively on automobiles for travel. We do not have bus service or trains in our area so all individuals must use their own transportation.

With the economy the way it is, husbands and wives work, children work. They all have cars and they are all polluting our environment. I am certain this is the case all over Canada. If we accept that people are not going to give up their cars, then we have to accept a cleaner, cheaper and better fuel product. MMT is the exact opposite.

MMT is the gasoline additive that increases octane. It is not essential to the operation of a car and many experts, including automobile manufacturers, say that it causes significant problems with pollution control components. That is why, relating to the car I have, the catalytic converter is the same as the day I bought the car new.

Cars today are very sophisticated with onboard diagnostic systems. These onboard systems are used to help drivers maintain their car's pollution control systems. I understand that if one had to be replaced it would cost approximately $1,000 with labour. Studies have shown that MMT corrupts these systems.

The decision to ban MMT was made after serious consideration. Along with many of my colleagues and the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Environment, I have spent over two years consulting automobile manufacturers, oil companies and environmental groups. We are certain that banning this nasty American fuel additive, and it is not a Canadian additive as it is made in the southern United States, will improve the health and safety standards for all Canadians.

Banning MMT also makes sense when we are already producing better alternative fuels such as ethanol. There are several ethanol plants in Canada. The one in Chatham is not the original as there are several out west and down east.

When ethanol is made I talk of corn but ethanol can be made out of anything: wood, straw, beans. It can be made out of any product that is grown and is renewable.

As I mentioned before, ethanol is a cheaper and cleaner alternative fuel. Banning MMT makes way for corn growers across the country to contribute to the new exciting industry of alternative fuels. I am confident that this bill will benefit all Canadians by improving their health and their environment.

There are questions why Bill C-29 is important. Bill C-29 represents a prudent approach to ensuring that Canadian consumers and the environment are protected in view of uncertainties regarding the long term effect of MMT on advanced emission control

technologies such as the onboard diagnostics that are now only emerging in the motor vehicle fleet on a widespread basis.

Why is it important to have OBD systems in Canadian vehicles? OBD systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution control systems, in particular the catalyst, and alert the driver to a malfunction. This could prevent cases of increasing tailpipe emissions, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which impact on local air quality, as well as carbon dioxide, the principal contributor to climate change.

Properly functioning OBD systems are in essence an inspection and maintenance tool in the vehicle. Inspection and maintenance programs require vehicles to be emissions tested on a periodic basis. I feel the environment committees and ministries will be doing more of this to improve our society. Successful implementation of properly functioning OBD systems will permit all Canadians to benefit from such an emissions reduction strategy.

For example, an assessment of the emissions benefit attributed to the air care inspection and maintenance program in the Vancouver area, conducted on an annual basis, shows that hydrocarbon emissions have been reduced by 20 per cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 24 per cent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 2.7 per cent and fuel consumption by 5 per cent from the tested fleet.

What are automakers going to do if MMT remains in Canadian fuels? The automakers have indicated that if MMT remains in Canadian gasoline they would take action ranging from disconnecting OBD sensors to removal of the OBD system and decreased warranty provisions for consumers. General Motors of Canada has already advised the government that it has disabled certain functions of the OBD system on 1996 model years.

As I mentioned, by using ethanol these motors can run almost indefinitely. In our positions as members of Parliament we travel many miles in a year. Unfortunately, I must keep a car for a long time because I am not in a position to trade it too often. I put an immense amount of mileage on a vehicle.

How is this action to eliminate MMT from Canadian fuel consistent with what is happening in U.S. fuel? The current Canadian situation is not consistent with the U.S. MMT is permitted up to twice the level in Canada today compared with the level now allowed in conventional U.S. gasoline. When we test gasoline for purities we use American gasoline to check mileage and emissions here in Canada. I think this is wrong. We should be using our own fuel to test.

However, there remains considerable uncertainty about the widespread acceptance and the use of MMT in the U.S. First, there already exists a patchwork of fuels, that is, some that use MMT and some that are MMT-free in the North American market.

MMT is still not allowed in reformulated gasoline in the U.S. which is required in areas that suffer from extreme air pollution. Air pollution is starting to build up in the city of Toronto. Second, the Environmental Protection Agency supported by the Environmental Defence Fund has expressed serious concerns about the lack of data related to the use of MMT in gasoline and consequently has advocated a cautious approach with respect to the use of this additive.

Third, many of the larger petroleum companies in the U.S. have indicated that they do not intend to use MMT. In Canada right now certain service stations use only an ethanol blend. In Chatham three different companies use an ethanol blend.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment task force report on cleaner vehicles and fuels recognized that fuels and emissions control technology should be treated as an integrated system to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The ministers have further agreed to require that cleaner fuels be mandated for use in all Canadian motor vehicles. The MMT initiative is fully consistent with that approach.

I would like to thank all members of Parliament both on the government and opposition sides who supported the ethanol plant for the city of Chatham in the county of Kent. Without your help and the help of the minister it would never have been realized for our area. Chatham is still in a recession and this company will certainly benefit the area. For all the people in the riding of Kent and the county of Kent I wish to thank everyone for the efforts that helped to implement this project. I also wish to thank the Government of Canada for supporting this ethanol plant.

[Ethanol, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today to announce the groundbreaking of the world class Chatham ethanol plant next Friday. Ethanol will provide new prosperity for corn growers and it will boost Ontario's economy.

The first phase of the ethanol plant will start next week, through the efforts of many, especially our minister of agriculture.

Ethanol is a win-win proposal for our environment, farmers and long term economic growth.

I am equally proud of this government's intestinal fortitude and determination to ban MMT, the nasty American fuel additive. Alternative fuels are the wave of the future. I urge all hon. members to fill their vehicles with MMT free ethanol.

[Canada Labour Code, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in conclusion I fully support Bill C-219. Older workers deserve protection from the Canada Labour Code which is why I am pleased to advocate this bill. It would replace section 235 with a simple clause outlining the reasons deemed to be termination of employment. I urge all members to support it.

At this time I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent that Bill C-219 be withdrawn, the order for second reading be discharged and that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

[Canada Labour Code, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in complete and full support of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, severance pay, put forward by the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.

I applaud the member for bringing this matter forward. As he has already mentioned, the bill is a direct result of his responding to his constituents, the purpose of private members' business. This is a non-partisan hour.

I have presented and debated many private members' bills in the House of Commons, some successful and others not. It is an important part of our work as representatives of the people. This bill is an important step forward in amending the Canada Labour Code which, at first glance at section 235, is full of age discrimination.

The Canada Labour Code, which should be leading the way in terms of work and labour force, is the only piece of legislation in the country that denies severance or termination pay based on an employee's eligibility for a pension. This is an inequity that must be addressed, and Bill C-219 does that.

Company pension plans, RRSPs and the Canada pension plan are all part of retirement. They are becoming increasingly important in the tough times ahead. According to Statistics Canada, 65 is the normal retirement age and 55 is when most people are eligible for early retirement.

As well, a reduced pension is the norm for early retirement. Even if an employee is not a member of a company sponsored registered retirement plan, severance could be denied at age 60 because they could receive Canada pension.

Some will say section 235 is there to disallow a double benefit, but comparing severance to pension is like comparing soya beans and apples. It is not a double benefit in my opinion. Supposedly the charter of rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom from discrimination based on age.

As we all know, demographically the population is getting older. Employers aged 55 and older could be targeted for layoffs to save companies money.

Bill C-219 comes at an important time. Termination of employment is now of considerable magnitude, especially when the economy is not as buoyant as it could be. Basically, an employer can terminate an employee whenever he or she feels like it. There is nothing in Canada that guarantees anyone the right to work.

What an employer is required to do is provide the employee with a reasonable notice of termination or payment equal to what the employee would have earned had they worked for the notice period, referred to as either pay in lieu of notice or termination pay, and any other money such as vacation pay which is owed to the employee at the time of termination.

The federal jurisdiction and Ontario are the only two in Canada that make statutory provisions for severance pay in addition to notice of termination requirements. Therefore in all other jurisdictions an employer may terminate an employee's service forthwith if the employer pays the employee an amount equal to the wages the employee would have earned in regular work hours for the period required by the notice provisions.

The purpose of Bill C-219 is to remove from part III of the Canada Labour Code section 235, which denies severance pay to employees. Passage of this bill would end an injustice and would end the age discrimination which is enshrined in the Canada Labour Code.

I have had similar situations with constituents in the past who offered the examples cited by workers in the riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.

As the hon. member has outlined very clearly, in 1993 Motorways Limited, an interprovincial trucking firm, closed its Canada-wide operation. Employees under the age of 55 on the closing date received two days severance pay for each year of service. However employees who were 55 years of age or over did not, regardless of their years of service. This to me was a flagrant injustice to people who had worked hard. Motorways was allowed to deny its former employees age 55 or older their severance because part III of the labour code, section 235(b) states:

An employer shall be deemed not to have terminated the employment of an employee, where, either immediately on ceasing to be employed by the employer, or before that time, the employee is entitled to a pension under a pension plan contributed to by the employer-

In practice this means very clearly that if a company is laying off workers it is not obligated to pay severance to those who are 55 years of age or older because those employees are entitled to early withdrawal of pension benefits even though they could be severely penalized for taking benefits before age 65.

The employees of Motorways filed appeals under the Canada Labour Code. In September 1995 the appointed appeals referee cited section 235 and ruled in favour of the company. He stated:

The purpose of this legislation appears to be to prevent an individual from receiving a double benefit; that is, severance pay and a pension. The text of the legislation is simply whether the appellants were entitled to receive a pension. They were. Accordingly, I confirm the decisions of the inspector and dismiss the appeals.

After losing the appeal, the hon. member's constituent took his pension at age 60, which meant a 5 per cent reduction. He gets $487 a month and he feels cheated out of the $6,872.32 he would have received had he been three years younger. We must make sure that this injustice does not happen again.

During the appeal process, the decision to deny stated that a pension and severance pay are double benefits. This is a misnomer. Severance and termination pay are a statutory benefit. The details are regulated by law for all employers within a specified jurisdiction. Hon. members will be aware that a pension is a negotiated benefit. The details are part of an overall benefits package and can vary widely from industry to industry, employer to employer and even job to job.

[World Figure Skating Championships, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the ice dancing team of Victor Kraatz and Shae-Lynn Bourne for winning the bronze medal Friday night at the World Figure Skating Championships in Edmonton.

My riding is very proud of Shae-Lynn, whose home is Chatham, Ontario. The skating pair won Canada's first medal in ice dance since 1988. Years of dedication and commitment to training hard in their sport resulted in a medal.

Shae-Lynn stated: "It is such an amazing feeling inside that grabs you at that moment when you know you are going to be standing on the podium watching your flag go up. We are both thrilled we did it in Canada".

The entire nation is justifiably proud of the Kraatz-Bourne team, and special praise to Shae-Lynn from all her friends and family in Chatham and Kent county.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in complete support of Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired).

I was honoured to co-sponsor this bill along with several of my Liberal colleagues. I have always been of the firm conviction that if it is a good idea I will support it.

The fact that this bill was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley of the Reform Party, supposedly my opponent, has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Bill C-201 is a good bill, worthy of approval by all Canadians and by all political parties.

As members have mentioned, the issue of drunk driving causing death is one of great concern to Canadians. By imposing a minimum sentence of seven years for impaired driving causing death and changing section 255(3) of the Criminal Code, this bill will address these concerns.

Currently there is a 14 year maximum sentence available but how often is that imposed? It is similar to our old gun laws, some of the toughest in the world, but never enforced by a lenient justice system.

I highlight the fact that this bill was supported not only by members of all parties, but even more important by organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Students Against Drunk Driving. I had the privilege of meeting Jane Meldrum, the president of MADD Canada, at the news conference announcing this bill. I can fully appreciate and sympathize with her commitment, duty and obligation to raising public awareness on the issue.

The current section in the Criminal Code allows a maximum sentence of 14 years for this horrible crime but that is rarely, if ever, imposed by the courts. Indeed, most sentences are for one or two years even with a previous conviction. That is a joke. Bill C-201 will change that and will better reflect the concern and apprehension of Canadians.

I know we are all pleased that since 1993 the rate of persons charged with the impaired operation of a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft per 100,000 persons 16 years and over has decreased 7 per cent. It is the 11th straight year of a decrease. But the age of the group with the highest rate of charges was that between 25 and 40 years. The single largest group charged was the 30 to 34 age group. Obviously we must do a better job in educating our young people while still in high school.

The number of drinking and driving fatalities have decreased over the years due to the improvement of general road safety, lower speed limits, increased enforcement and improved vehicle safety such as airbags. However, these facts do not help the families tragically torn apart by a drunk driver.

The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley outlined an example in his own riding where three family members were killed by a drunk driver with previous convictions and who was sentenced to only three and a half years. People are justifiably outraged at these kinds of sentences as they do not at all reflect the views and concerns of average Canadians.

It should be noted that sections of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired driving were amended in 1985. Basically all punishments were increased and several new offences were introduced. The new offences were impaired operation causing death and impaired operation causing bodily harm. While it is rare for me to do so, I congratulate the former Conservative government for these reforms.

All the punishments however, including the maximum 14 year sentence for drunk driving causing death, are only guidelines. Judges are free to set any sentence. For example, in Prince Edward

Island almost all persons convicted of drunk driving are sent to jail as opposed to Quebec where probation is the leading sentence.

The U.S. transportation research board has suggested a tough crackdown on repeat drunk drivers which would include impounding vehicles and police stake outs of people convicted of DUI. The board's committee said current policies in Canada have been effective in discouraging most people from drinking and driving, but there remains a group of persistent drinking drivers who do not appear to be deterred by the threat of social disapproval or legal punishment.

According to the report, repeat offenders are four times more likely than other drivers to take part in a fatal traffic accident. Twelve per cent of drivers involved in alcohol related crashes had at least one prior conviction.

There was an interesting and revealing study published by the New England Journal of Medicine in August 1994 entitled: ``The risk of dying in alcohol related automobile crashes among habitual drunk drivers''. It speculated that persons arrested for drunk driving may be at an increased risk for death in the future in an alcohol related car crash and that people who drive while intoxicated do so repeatedly. The deaths of drivers in those types of accidents were studied over a 10 year period in North Carolina.

The scientists linked about 3,000 drivers to their driver history files. Their conclusions are common sense but revealing nonetheless. Their study showed that aggressive intervention in the cases of people arrested for driving while impaired may decrease the likelihood of a future fatal alcohol related crash.

In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people one to 34 years of age. Almost 50 per cent of all traffic fatalities are related to alcohol. Furthermore, 40 per cent of the people in the U.S. will be involved in an alcohol related crash at some time during their lives.

The New England Journal of Medicine report suggests that drivers who die or cause death in alcohol related crashes are more likely than other drivers to have been arrested previously for drunk driving. As well, they tried to determine whether the association with death in a drunk crash increases with the number of arrests for drunk driving.

The U.S. study proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the strength of association between arrests for driving while impaired and alcohol related deaths increased dramatically as the number of arrests increased from one to two or more.

The study had a number of strengths including the completeness with which alcohol level information was collected and reported to the North Carolina medical examiner system. I want to quote from the study: "The likelihood that an alcohol impaired driver will be arrested is between 1 in 250 and 1 in 2,000. Therefore, strategies to combat drunk driving must reach beyond the drivers who have already been arrested. Our results suggest that effective intervention when drunk drivers are arrested could reduce the number of alcohol related deaths. Since the association between arrests for driving while impaired and deaths increases substantially with the number of arrests, it is important to intervene after the first arrest. Such an arrest may thus present an important opportunity to decrease the risk of death from a future alcohol related crash".

I can offer no better reason to support Bill C-201 and its stronger sentences than the August 1994 report of the highly respected and honoured New England Journal of Medicine with its stellar reputation for integrity and principles.

There are similar figures available for Canada. In 1994 in this country 87,838 people were charged with impaired operation of a car, boat or plane, and 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving, three times higher than murder. 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.

Bill C-201 is worthy of support by all members of the House. We are here to represent our constituents and I firmly conclude that a majority of Canadians would support this bill and the measures within. It is a votable bill and I will certainly be voting in favour of it because it is a good proposal and partisan politics have no place in private members' business.

[Privilege, March 12th, 1996]

Bull!

[Petitions, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Kent.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the following: that Canadians are paying approximately 52 per cent of the cost of a litre of gasoline at the pumps in the form of government taxes; that the tax increase was 1.5 cents per litre in the last federal budget; that a committee of Parliament has recommended another 2 cent per litre increase in federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget; and that over the past 10 years the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566 per cent. Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.