Bill Siksay

[Points of Order, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order raised on Friday, October 6 by the parliamentary secretary, regarding Bill C-14. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the House on Friday October 6 regarding the admissibility of an amendment to Bill C-14 that was passed when the bill was under consideration in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

As the mover of that amendment at the standing committee, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the point of order. As we know, the amendment in question adds a new subsection to clause 2 of Bill C-14, which reads:

Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I would first point out that this amendment was found by the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to be in order, and it was discussed and debated by the committee and approved by a majority of members of the committee in that context.

I would like to emphasize that the parliamentary secretary made his arguments before the committee at that time.

As well, there was a vote at the committee, after hearing the arguments made by the parliamentary secretary and after hearing from other members, upholding the chair's ruling that the amendment was in order. The committee voted to sustain the chair's ruling.

I appreciate that the committee's actions do not preclude an approach to the Speaker and the House on this issue, but I want it to be clear for the Speaker that these issues were considered by the committee. I know that the Speaker has repeatedly found that in most cases committees know best when dealing with the matters before them, so I thought the fact that this amendment was debated and found in order by the committee is important.

I submit that the amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill as passed by the House at second reading. Bill C-14 and the amendment in question are amendments to section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Section 5 deals with the question of grants of citizenship and sets out the minister's obligation with regard to the granting of citizenship. It also grants discretionary powers to the minister to waive requirements of the act in certain cases.

Bill C-14 amends this section of the act by adding a new section 5.1 that addresses the citizenship of children adopted by Canadians overseas, granting them citizenship upon application at the time of the finalization of adoption. This removes the discriminatory effects of the current law, which requires adopted children to apply for permanent resident status and then meet the residency requirements before subsequently applying for Canadian citizenship, but grants children born to Canadians overseas immediate Canadian citizenship without such an application.

Section 5 currently establishes criteria for obtaining Canadian citizenship, as well as noting situations where the minister may exercise discretion. Bill C-14 proposes a new section 5.1, which adds new criteria when dealing with children adopted overseas by Canadians. The amendment proposed by the standing committee to Bill C-14, rather than stepping outside the scope of the bill passed at second reading, merely adds a further consideration to the decision making powers of the minister as outlined in sections 5 and 5.1 by allowing an appeal of the minister's decision. I submit that this is in keeping with the principle of the bill as passed at second reading.

With regard to the parliamentary secretary's contention that this amendment provides new powers and a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond what is provided in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I would submit that denial of citizenship to an adopted child is a de facto denial of an immigration visa and permanent resident status to that child and, as such, the Immigration and Refugee Board is exactly the body that exercises judgment and rules on such cases.

The board is the body that understands the issues related to the validity of adoptions of children by Canadians overseas by currently ruling on appeals of the denial of permanent resident status to children adopted overseas. I would maintain that the issues investigated and criteria applied currently to rule on an appeal of permanent resident status to a child adopted by a Canadian overseas will be the same issues and criteria used to rule on an appeal of the denial of citizenship to such a child should Bill C-14 and the amendment be passed into law by Parliament.

This does not, therefore, add new powers or a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond those already mandated and exercised. The final result of decisions appealed will change as a result of a decision, given that under Bill C-14, should this amendment carry, an adopted child will become a Canadian citizen instead of a permanent resident, but the decision making process of the appeal is essentially the same.

In this respect, no new powers or mandate are conferred by the amendment, and no royal recommendation would be necessary since no new activities are being contemplated or undertaken. No new public funds should be required in these circumstances and therefore I would argue that it does not impinge on the financial initiative of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment was presented and its procedural admissibility was approved by the committee. In your ruling on the form and content of report stage amendments, made on March 21, 2001, you implored members to use every possible opportunity at committee to make amendments and therefore save report stage for the purpose it was intended.

Mr. Speaker, you stated:

--I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done, and to do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed consideration of the bill.

This is exactly what I have been trying to do. The amendment supports both the scope and spirit of the bill, and I contend it achieves the overriding goal the government has stated that the bill is supposed to achieve.

With regard to the contention that this amendment is incomplete, I submit that requirements as to its operation can be delineated in regulations developed to implement the act, and therefore the amendment meets all the tests of completeness. Surely the government is not asking that this House consider that legislation is incomplete unless all regulations are published before report stage. That would fly against all past practices of this place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hearing my response to the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would urge you to allow this important amendment to stand and be considered by the House.

[Trent-Severn Waterway, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this debate tonight on Motion No. 161 presented by the member for Simcoe North.

I want to read the motion so folks know what we are talking about. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of evaluating the future of the historic Trent-Severn Waterway, one of Parks Canada's National Historic Sites, and its potential to become: (a) a premier recreational asset; (b) a world-class destination for recreational boaters; (c) a greater source of clean, renewable electrical power; (d) a facilitator of economic opportunity and renewal in the communities along its 386 km length; and (e) a model of environmental sustainability.

I am pleased to support this motion. It may seem a little strange that someone from Burnaby—Douglas is taking a particular interest in the Trent-Severn Waterway, but I did grow up in Ontario, in Oshawa, and often, family outings were to go somewhere along the Trent canal, as we called it. So, it is not totally unusual.

I wanted to reference the debate that we had in the first hour where a concern was raised about a potential conflict of interest with the member who introduced this motion. I want to put on the record that I understand the Ethics Commissioner did rule that there was no conflict of interest for this member to place this motion. I am glad that issue has been resolved by the Ethics Commissioner.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is a significant waterway in southern Ontario with 386 kilometres from Trenton on Lake Ontario to Port Severn on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. There are 43 locks, two marine railways, and 33 miles of canal channels associated with the waterway.

One of the great features of the Trent-Severn Waterway is the 65-foot hydraulic lift lock in Peterborough, which was often the destination of our family outings. I can remember as a young child being fascinated at the operation of this hydraulic lift lock, which is one of the engineering marvels of the world and probably one of the highest hydraulic lift locks in the world. Many an hour was spent by my family watching the boats move up the canal at the lift lock in Peterborough. I also understand that there is another hydraulic lift lock, a little smaller, at Kirkfield, on the canal as well. It is a 45-foot one.

It is a pretty impressive engineering feat and an interesting location for a family outing, and certainly something that this motion calls on us to explore further about how we can exploit those possibilities. My family experience would certainly lead me to believe that is possible.

The Trent-Severn Waterway rises over 100 metres over its full distance, from where it begins in Lake Ontario to where it enters Lake Huron.

This waterway contains parts of old first nations trade routes, ancient trade routes, in southern Ontario that were used by the Huron and the Iroquois in days gone by.

It is also interesting to note, and something that I remember from my university Canadian history days, that this region was also the site of one of the earliest canals with lift locks at the Jesuit settlement at Sainte-Marie, near Midland. There was a lift lock built in that community to bring canoes from the river outside of the settlement to inside the walls of the community. That lift lock was contemporary with locks being built in Europe.

There was new technology, canal-building technology, lock technology, used in the early settlement of New France and in this region. I think it is fitting that the Trent-Severn Waterway, with its many locks, is a tribute to that history. That technology was contemporary in the region with what was happening in Europe at the time.

The modern Trent-Severn Waterway was first constructed in 1833, with a lock at Bobcaygeon. Over many years various parts of the waterway were built. There were often debates in the legislature of Ontario, and probably nationally as well, about the building of the Trent-Severn Waterway. It was not finally completed until 1920. The first vessel to complete the full navigation of the waterway was the Irene, a motor launch, which made that trip in 1920.

It is interesting to note that the first vessel to go all the way through the Trent-Severn Waterway was a recreational vessel. I think that heralds the modern use of the waterway and the fact that the motion calls on us to explore and promote further recreational uses.

The Trent-Severn Waterway has also been important in the hydroelectric power generation story for the province of Ontario. The Big Chute generating station is a significant part of generating hydro in Ontario and of the hydrogeneration history of Ontario. It was one of the first pieces of Ontario Hydro assembled by the Government of Ontario back in the early 20th century, and it continues to play a role in the generation of power for Ontario. That is also a significant feature of this motion.

There are possibilities for exploring the expansion of hydroelectric generation capacity on the Trent-Severn Waterway, without enlarging the footprint of the dams and the generation facilities already there. There is a possibility of adding to the capacity of electricity generation already there. That would be a good thing. Even Trent University has its own hydrogeneration station on the Otonabee River on the Trent-Severn Waterway, and I understand it generates about half of the power used by the university.

When the canal and the waterway was originally built, it was used for freight and passenger services, often for the export of sawn lumber. As freight capacity dwindled over the years, it was used primarily for recreational use. There is real potential in that today.

Canals like the Trent-Severn Waterway are great tourist destinations. We have seen this with the Erie Canal in New York State as well as with other canals in England, Scotland and other European countries. The tourist dollars they generate have been significant to the economies of the communities along those routes. A study was done on the future of the Trent-Severn Waterway. We can also look to those examples to see other possibilities for the Trent-Severn.

We have heard from a lot of folks who are concerned about this. Cottagers in the region and cottagers who have recreational properties along the Trent-Severn Waterway are concerned about water levels. Many have written to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has responsibility for Parks Canada on behalf of the NDP. They have also written to the member for Hamilton Mountain as well as other members of our caucus about this issue. Water levels need to be considered in any study that will be done. How does the Trent-Severn Waterway contribute to water level issues? How can it help maintain water levels in the area? This is clearly of importance to the people who vacation along the waterway and who have cottages on the rivers and lakes that connect into it. I would hope this could be part of the parameters of the study.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is an important historical feature of Ontario. It has been designated by Parks Canada as a national historic site. It would be a shame not to take advantage of its full recreational, economic, hydroelectric and environmental possibilities of the waterway. We can do this in a way that would be respectful of the environment, that would be sustainable and would respect the concerns of residents along the waterway.

I lend my support to the motion, and I thank the member for Simcoe North for putting in on the agenda of the House.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I do not think that the present government is living in dreams; I would not say that. I might not agree with the position the Conservatives take, but they have their reasons. They have been defending those reasons tonight and I appreciate the fact that they have done that.

We can do more as a country. Canadians want us to do more; it has certainly been my experience. When I marched with the Canadian Students for Darfur across the Burrard Bridge to Sunset Beach Park in Vancouver, we were not a very large group, but what impressed all of us was the response of the people driving by in their cars that day across the Burrard Bridge. We heard a number of tooting horns and expressions of support yelled out the car windows for what we were advocating that day. We were advocating a strong Canadian response to the situation in Darfur. It was very heartening and told us all that there was broad public support out there. That has been building. We have seen events in cities all across the country regularly. Certainly in Vancouver, Canadian Students for Darfur and other organizations have events regularly. They have rallies, protests, marches and fundraisers regularly, month by month, week by week, to support a stronger Canadian effort in Darfur.

Canadians want us to do that. The government should be encouraged to listen to what Canadians are saying about Darfur and what they are saying about what Canada's role should be there. They want us to take a larger role in all of this, a larger diplomatic role and a larger role in encouraging other countries to be involved in the situation in Darfur and in Sudan.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, my concern is Canada's role tonight. That is what I think we are discussing here this evening.

I believe that Canada has both the fiscal capacity and the military capacity to participate in this mission. We have seen from the access to information requests that Canada does have, and the minister's own advice was that we do have, the military capacity to send 1,500 troops to a role in Sudan. I believe we must make that commitment very, very clear.

Also, a $13 billion surplus was announced by the government last week, which means that even though we have made a significant financial contribution to the effort in Darfur already, we have the fiscal capacity to do more than that. We know that it is absolutely necessary. We have seen the hardship facing African Union troops in Darfur now. We know that they need our assistance. They have not been paid. That has to affect their ability to do the tough work they are called to do. We hear that they are not getting the food they need. That also directly affects their ability to do that important work.

We need to increase both as Canada's response to this, let alone other countries, but Canada's response. Maybe by making those kinds of commitments we can convince other countries to come along on that important effort and also get behind the African Union and the United Nations on this.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

There are 450,000 people who have been killed, 3.4 million people who have been affected by the conflict, 2 million are internally displaced, and 250,000 have fled to Chad. In the past two months alone, 50,000 have been displaced and more than 200 women and girls raped. These are stark statistics that describe the terrible human suffering in Darfur.

The situation in Sudan and Darfur weighs heavily on many people in Canada. This matter was first drawn to my attention as a newly elected MP in 2004 by the Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region. Its work with members of the Darfurian community in the greater Vancouver area has been very important and stems from its commitment that genocide must never again be part of humanity's common history.

Shortly afterward, I became acquainted with the work of Canadian Students for Darfur organized by students at Simon Fraser University in my riding, and at other secondary schools, colleges and universities. Clement Apaak, the past president of Simon Fraser Student Society, has been a key figure in Canadian Students for Darfur.

It has been an honour to participate in a number of activities of this group, including a march this summer in Vancouver. I want to pay tribute to Apaak and his colleagues for their dedication to the cause of the people of Darfur, and their tireless and regular efforts to bring the situation there to the attention of Canadians.

Canadian Students for Darfur and Students Taking Action Now: Darfur, STAND, have urged their supporters to write to MPs. I would like to quote from their letter. It states:

As our government assumed power, the Prime Minister said: “Canada can no longer lead from the bleachers”. As Darfur's death toll mounts, women are raped and the Sudanese government bombs its own civilians, it is time to rise from the bleachers.As a respected middle power and architect of Responsibility to Protect, Canada must lead the international community to stop the carnage in Darfur.Last Thursday in Bucharest our Prime Minister spoke directly to the situation in Darfur: “We must act to save a desperate population, it's the responsibility to protect”. This coming debate will measure our will to live up to that sentence. We urge you to support Canadian leadership for the UN mission outlined in Resolution 1706. Canadian participation in this mission cannot be undervalued. We cannot fail the 21st century's first test of our moral fibre. Act now.

I agree that we must act.

Recently, like many MPs, I also received a letter from John Siebert, Executive Director of Project Ploughshares. We know that Project Ploughshares is an ecumenical peace centre of the Canadian Council of Churches based at the University of Waterloo. Mr. Siebert also quotes from the Prime Minister's speech in Bucharest. The Prime Minister stated that “--the world body has to take over the responsibility to bring peace to the area, over the objections of the Sudanese government”.

However, Mr. Siebert also questions how Canada's role will be strengthened. He points out that the Prime Minister suggested Canada's role would include reform of the justice system, rebuilding a security system, reducing the traffic in arms, and reinforcing the institutions of government and community life.

Mr. Siebert points out that these are all, in his words, “praiseworthy” goals, but also notes that they are all “post conflict responses” and none support an effective UN intervention to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Mr. Siebert concludes that Canada must commit to Security Council resolution 1706 and support the Darfur peace agreement to prevent attacks and threats against civilians.

Canada has the military capacity to participate in stopping the attacks and threats against civilians. An access to information request has proven that and even the government acknowledges it. We have a $13 billion surplus, so we most certainly have the fiscal capacity to contribute even more than we already have.

Our support to African Union troops, who have not been paid and who may even be suffering from hunger themselves, must be increased in order to see the increased deployment of 1,300 additional African Union troops in the Darfur region. We must commit more humanitarian aid, especially when we hear that 355,000 people in North Darfur have gone without food aid for two months.

The government of Sudan must know that Canada is willing to participate in a UN force in Darfur and we must also continue to take advantage of every diplomatic opportunity to resolve this crisis.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a great advocate of censorship, but I do think there are many ways in which the public can bring pressure on advertisers, for instance, and on the people who produce movies and television and those kinds of things.

I do not believe we should institute laws that say they cannot show a speeding car, for instance, but I think there have been instances where public campaigns have been held to draw advertisers' attention to the fact that the way they are portraying a certain product or a certain activity is not the way a society believes they should be, and I believe they can have a real effect. I think that kind of pressure is most important.

I think we should be putting pressure on vehicle manufacturers to stop stressing speed when it comes to the advertising of vehicles. There are other reasons why we want to buy cars. Maybe we need to ask those questions when we go out to purchase a vehicle, questions about how it performs in terms of safety and so on. We should make those questions more of a priority.

In terms of requiring manufacturers to make sure vehicles are not capable of those speeds, I actually would be interested in considering that. I think it is one that we might want to look into. Certainly the amount of research and development work that goes into speed on the part of the automotive industry is significant. We see it all over the place in high performance racing.

Probably not enough goes into the other end of things, which are the kinds of vehicles most of use every single day. I would think that there might be some interesting possibilities for research about perfecting vehicles that do not need those speeds, research about how they can be manufactured and sold to the public in a way that makes them popular and also perhaps helpful to our environment. I do think these are possibilities that are worth considering.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We are discussing very important legislation. It is an issue that is of importance in many communities across the country. It is important to many people in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas who have had direct experience with street racing, and in some cases have had family members and relatives die in incidents involving street racing.

There have been deaths in my riding on Barnett Highway and Hastings Street. They were directly linked to street racing. As I travel around my constituency I have all too often seen the roadside memorials that spring up after that kind of event. They remain on those two thoroughfares in my riding. These are reminders of the tragedies, losses and deaths of people who were loved in the community. The deaths have affected families, friends and co-workers.

There have also been many serious injuries that have resulted from these incidents. Sometimes the folks involved have been innocent bystanders, drivers and passengers in other vehicles. It is a terrible circle of tragedy that stems from this irresponsible activity of street racing.

There is no place for street racing in our communities. It endangers the participants in the activity and the public. We need to address it in all its forms. It is an important issue to address in order to make our communities safer and to help broaden the understanding of public responsibility, and the commitments and relationships that we have with each other that make our communities successful and safe places to live. Street racing is one of the violations of our agreements with each other about how we live in our communities.

We need to address the question of street racing in all its forms. That is one area where this bill has received some criticism in the last day or two in the House during debate. There is some question about whether it deals with the breadth of activities that are known in street racing. I will read the definition that appears in Bill C-19. The definition of “street racing” as it appears in the bill states:

“street racing” means operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place;

There have been questions raised about what that actually includes. Does it have to be a side by side race of two or more vehicles? What about the other kinds of street racing that take place in our communities? I wish I had the appropriate popular expressions to describe them because I am sure there are more common ways of describing these other activities.

There are situations where people have timed races to see how long it takes to get to a certain location. There are other situations where people text message or email that they all converge to a certain place and the first to arrive is declared the winner. There are other variations as well. It is not just what we would all assume to be the side by side race of two or more vehicles.

Does the definition that is included in this legislation cover all the other circumstances, which are equally as dangerous and cause just as many problems in our communities as the more traditional race? How broad is this bill? Would it complicate things, for instance, for people who organize car rallies? Does it penalize people who might engage in a jackrabbit start at a stop sign with someone who drives up alongside?

Just what is the extent of the definition and how will it effect our understanding of this criminal activity? There are some problems with the definition that need to be addressed, worked on, and clarified before this is legislation that I could fully support.

It is not just youth who engage in street racing. In the last day and a half while we have been discussing this we have been quick to perhaps accuse youth of being the main problem.

As the previous speaker mentioned, the demographics include a broad range of people who engage in various forms of street racing and who may participate in this dangerous activity. It is people who may alter their cars to increase the power beyond what was originally contemplated for the weight of the vehicle that they have. There are people who soup-up vehicles, who develop muscle cars and hot rods, and those kinds of things.

There are people who drive very high powered vehicles for social status. We know that is often the case where some very expensive and high powered vehicles are seen as an indication that one is doing well in the community. Speed is sometimes associated with that status as well.

I think it is not just young people. Clearly, young people are not out buying the most expensive and fastest vehicles on the market. Often they are the ones who cannot afford to do that, so it is not just a youth problem. It is a problem of all sectors in society.

Sadly, it is not just a male problem either as some of the most recent incidents have shown. We need to be careful that we do not dismiss it as just the raging hormones of young men as we have often heard in this debate. It is a problem that crosses groups and demographics in our society.

I also want to address the idea that perhaps street racing is not already covered in our Criminal Code. I think it is very clearly covered there. In fact, the minister in his speech yesterday, when he spoke at the beginning of the debate on the legislation, made that very clear, that the Criminal Code does have options for dealing with street racing behaviour, and that they are available now and they include very stiff penalties.

I will list the charges the minister mentioned in his speech. The charges that are available in the Criminal Code now include criminal negligence causing death, which as the minister pointed out carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. That is no small charge. It is a very serious charge. It is a serious crime with a very serious possible penalty.

There is also the charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, which currently carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. It is no small charge and no small penalty for someone convicted of that crime. There is also criminal negligence causing bodily harm. It has a very serious penalty of a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. There is also dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm with, again, a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Finally, there is dangerous operation of a motor vehicle which has a 5 year maximum imprisonment on indictment and which can be applied to cases where no one was injured or killed.

These are all very serious options which contemplate a very serious crime. They are there already to be used in our Criminal Code. If there is a problem with enforcement, then we need to get the reasons as to why these options are not being fully utilized in our communities. Why do the police not use these charges?

If they are using these charges and convictions are not happening, why is that the case? However, I do not think that there is any evidence that that is going on. Certainly, there is no evidence that I am aware of that these charges have not led to convictions in the very serious cases.

There is also all of the sets of driving prohibitions in the current Criminal Code which are a part of the options that are available to the courts. Under the current Criminal Code, if one is convicted of any of the five offences I mentioned above, the court can order a period of driving prohibition of up to 3 years in the case of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, up to 10 years in the case of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In the case of criminal negligence causing death, the court may order up to a lifetime driving prohibition. That is what the Minister of Justice said in his speech yesterday on the current provisions of the Criminal Code.

Even in the case of driving prohibitions, the court has very serious options available to it when it comes to driving prohibitions. A 3 year prohibition, 10 year prohibition, and lifetime prohibition are no small penalties for people who have been found guilty on any of the five charges.

I do not think that there is a problem currently with the Criminal Code. Clearly, the Criminal Code contemplates the dangerous operation of a vehicle and the dangerous operation of a vehicle that leads to death or injury as a very serious matter and worthy of a very serious punishment. I think that right now we have in the law good possibilities on that.

This brings me to wonder why we are considering these changes to the act. I think it is part of the Conservative Party's interest in mandatory minimum sentences and trying to tie the hands of the courts in very specific ways around very specific crimes. I know that mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They do not deter people from committing crime. They do not prevent crime in that sense. People often do not consider the consequences of criminal activity before they do it. It is just not in the works when that sort of thing is happening.

All that it might do is add greater numbers of people who are being held in prisons in Canada. I am concerned about the government's plans in that area. We have already seen that the government plans to expand the number of places available in prisons in Canada. I do not know that this would serve our society well in the long run.

We know that often putting people in prison does not in the long run solve the problems of crime faced by our society. It does not help them become rehabilitated and learn to take their place in a positive way in our communities. I am not sure that is a solution and that this bill is the solution in proposing tougher sentences around this crime.

I should mention that tonight at St. Paul's University members of the religious community in Ottawa and others are gathering to talk about conditional and mandatory sentencing. That is at seven o'clock tonight at St. Paul's. I wish I could be there. I am going to be here for the debate on Darfur. I think they raise very important issues that need to be part of the debate we are having here on this legislation as well.

I also have to say that I do not believe that judges do not take the crimes of dangerous driving and street racing seriously. I believe they take them very seriously. I do not think that there is a judge in this country who acts leniently when it comes to this kind of crime, especially in the case where it has led to injury or death. I just do not think that is the case.

Sure judges make mistakes and sure the system is not perfect. I think to characterize the system as broken and to say that people are being dealt with leniently is completely wrong. I think the judges in Canada do an excellent job considering what they are up against and what they have to work with.

I think we have to consider all the facts of the case. We have to consider circumstances and the penalties imposed have to be appropriate and proportional. Judges must have the ability to make those kinds of decisions and act in their best judgment in light of all the circumstances that have come to light during a trial. I do believe that judges do that.

I do not want to do anything that would undermine the authority of judges in our system. They have a tough job and I believe they do it well. I think that right now judges do have the resources to do the job that we ask of them.

There are other issues around how we actually prevent the crime of street racing. There are preventive measures that we should be taking. I think we heard yesterday and today about some of those measures.

We have heard that police forces need more resources and more officers. They need more equipment to be able to put the effort that they want to put into dealing with this particular crime. We have certainly heard how the RCMP in the city of Richmond found a way of diverting resources into dealing with the issue of street crime which had been a particular issue in that community. The police had found a way to deal with crime. It was not without cost. It meant that the police had to make difficult decisions about where to divert other resources from, but they did find a way.

We have to make that kind of decision making easier for our police forces and ensure they have the resources. Unfortunately, Bill C-19 does not address that issue.

There are other examples from other jurisdictions as well. The state of Victoria in Australia has instituted a number of measures which address the whole question of the high death rate on its highways. It has reduced it by almost a third in the last 15 to 20 years, which is a significant reduction in the death rate on Australian highways in the state of Victoria.

One of its measures is a three kilometres an hour guideline when it comes to the issuing of speeding tickets. Here in Canada we all assume that somehow the guideline we can get away with is about 10 kilometres over the speed limit before we are in danger of getting a ticket. In the state of Victoria in Australia the well-known edict is that it is three kilometres an hour. My experience there is that it has had an effect on the speed that people drive on the highways in the state of Victoria in Australia. That is another kind of measure that might be the kind of thing that we should be looking at and our provinces should be looking at.

On the whole question of photo radar, my experience in British Columbia was that when we were using photo radar in British Columbia people did slow down on highways. I often have the occasion to drive the Sea to Sky Highway in B.C., which is known as one of Canada's most dangerous highways. When photo radar was in operation, people did not drive as fast on that highway, plain and simple. When it was gone, they started speeding again. I think photo radar makes a significant contribution and I think it is one of the measures that we should be considering.

Education of our drivers is another measure. Compulsory driver education may be something that we should be looking at in all of our jurisdictions so that drivers are apprised of issues like street racing as part of their basic education.

I also think that we need to place some limits on vehicles that are altered for racing. We need to make sure they are not driven on roads and highways in our communities when they have been altered as vehicles for any kind of racing activity.

Generally I think we need to address that whole issue of the culture of speed in our society. I think some of these ideas are ways of getting serious about speeding on our highways, in which we all can play a part.

However, I think there are other issues that also need to be addressed in addressing the whole culture of speed. We have heard a number of times about advertisers and car manufacturers who sell cars by appealing to the fact that they go fast.

We all know of one particular commercial in which a young boy says “zoom, zoom, zoom” as a car speeds by on a highway. That is an example of how we are characterizing the impression that vehicles are made to be driven fast and should be driven fast and also of how we are appealing to young people in that context. I think that is a very dangerous thing. Advertisers should have pressure put on them about that kind of advertising appeal.

We have also seen advertisers' own concerns about legal liability when cars are driven very quickly in TV commercials. Flashed on the screen is the message that it is a closed circuit and there is liability. I think they have identified liability issues in that case. They are trying to say that this is something one can only do in a closed circuit, when we know that the general impression is something else.

Too, I think we have to put pressure on our vehicle and auto manufacturers. Why are cars capable of travelling at speeds of 180 to 200 kilometres an hour or more? Do any of us ever have occasion to drive that fast? Perhaps there is a need for emergency vehicles to travel at those kinds of speeds, but generally those of us who use vehicles to go shopping, take kids to school or go to an appointment have absolutely no need of a vehicle that is capable of doing that kind of speed. If we altered the kinds of vehicles we drive, and I think manufacturers should be perfectly capable of that, maybe could make a contribution on this whole issue.

There is also the question of popular culture. Car chases are a constant feature of movies. As well, video games show some very disturbing kinds of car chasing and street racing, where the whole object is to roll somebody off the road and put them in the ditch, for instance, or worse. I also think there is a whole culture of extreme sports now, which glorifies taking serious risks.

We need to address a lot of things that are part of that culture.

There is some thought that this might be a bill that helps educate the public, but I also think it does some other things that are less positive. I also think it is not my job to pretend that legislation will address this situation when I believe at some level that it will not. Since I think this is a very limited piece of legislation, I have a hard time seeing how it is really going to affect and prevent street racing in Canada.

I think that should be our goal: to prevent street racing before it happens. I believe that we already have in place serious penalties for people who are convicted of the kinds of dangerous driving of which street racing is a part. The Criminal Code provisions are there. I am very skeptical of the educative possibilities of this legislation. As well, I think we are missing the boat completely when it comes to prevention.

I am interested in this debate. I am glad to be able to participate in it. I have listened carefully to the submissions of others and look forward to continuing my participation as we continue our consideration of this legislation.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for another thoughtful contribution to debate in this place. Could he comment on the influence our popular culture of speed has on the whole issue of street racing? Folks in debate over the last couple of days have raised issues of the movie culture, the car chases in movies, video games, extreme sports, which encourage risk-taking.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take issue with what the member said. He talked about the new legislation that we are debating today and saying we are putting teeth into the Criminal Code. I think the teeth are already there.

The Minister of Justice, at the beginning of the debate, talked about the five charges that are already in the Criminal Code that can be applied to street racing. There are five very serious charges that carry very serious penalties, from 10 to 14 years maximum penalties, even a life maximum penalty.

There is also the possibility of driving prohibitions from three to five years to a lifetime driving prohibition. Those provisions are already there. Maybe the member could comment on why the enforcement has not happened? What is it that has prevented law enforcement officials from actually charging people and getting them through the court system on the kinds of serious charges that are already in the Criminal Code? I would appreciate hearing his comment on that.

I also want to ask him a question about why manufacturers continue to build cars that can travel at speeds of 180 to 200 kilometres an hour, probably double the highest speed limit on any Canadian highway? Does he think there should be measures taken to ensure that vehicles are not capable of reaching those speeds and still meeting the needs of Canadians who need to travel by car? I wonder if he could comment on both of those important issues.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, would the member comment on the role of popular culture in all of this and of the culture of speed that we have developed around the automobile? We see it in a number of places. We certainly see it in advertising. One current campaign features a young boy saying “zoom, zoom, zoom” as his car speeds by. This is one aspect of that kind of advertising.

I think the advertisers have also seen the concern about the kind of culture they are displaying in their ads. They now put a disclaimer on the screen that these activities are happening on a closed circuit. Clearly, the idea of liability is occurring to them in terms of the kind of speed they are promoting. However, we also see it in movies, in car chases, in the kinds of video games we have and in the whole culture of extreme sports, where risk taking seems to have an extra heavy round of glorification these days.

How does he see street racing fitting into that and how do we address those kinds of cultural aspects of street racing, which are not really addressed in this legislation?