Dan McTeague

[Competition Act, October 14th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail).

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure, along with my colleagues, to reintroduce the bill formerly known as Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act to provide protection for individuals who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail.

Contrary to the belief of some, I would like to reiterate that rumours of the bill's death have been greatly exaggerated by the industry committee and others.

The bill, along with the amendments to be put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge, seeks to accomplish just one thing: to prohibit vertically integrated suppliers from charging their wholesale customers more for a product than what they or their affiliates are charging for the same product at the retail level.

In terms of unjustifiable and high sustained prices, the bill tries to prevent market domination in the grocery and gas industries as well as others.

I look forward to the continuing debate on this renewed bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Competition Act, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you are correct. It is a tough but very complex issue. I assure members that when we get down to it we will be telling more about what the bill really means.

It is clear those who opposed the bill—the Business Council on National Issues, the Chamber of Commerce, the CAA and others—were doing so because of the vested interest which exists in protecting the status quo.

We have come to that conclusion as 50 members on this side and many members on the other side went through the gas report on the shortcomings of the Competition Act. On page 156 of a very telling book by Peter C. Newman it was put very succinctly. The Competition Act, as it is currently written, was written by the very people it was meant to police. Canada is one of the few nations that has found itself in a position of self-interest with a document which is there to protect consumers and businesses alike from not doing that.

I can only say that against the weight of the telecommunications side of Industry Canada and against the weight of the Competition Bureau which surprisingly enough went out of its way to contact hundreds of businesses to study the implications of the bill.

It became very clear to me that short of an act of contempt of parliament, which I felt was not important enough to raise but was nevertheless the case, we are dealing with a David versus a Goliath. Against the chambers of commerce, against the large interests of the country that want to maintain the status quo, are the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and thousands of retailers that may be struggling to stay afloat simply because they are being pitted against the very suppliers that are trying to put them out of business.

I am not talking through my hat. I am sure the hon. member for Markham will be interested in knowing that there has been study after study by provincial governments. The latest one by the Ontario government, ironically through the provincial member for Markham-Stouffville, shows that something is awry with the state of competition when there are 462 complaints and only three convictions and when the competition bureau has virtually been allowed to be correctly characterized as the bureau for monopoly enhancement.

In an era of globalization and mergerization, rather than dealing with the questions of productivity, with the questions of standards of living and with the questions of brain drain, we are consistently allowing our country to be sold by offshore interests whose interests are to maximize profits at the expense of competition at home.

There have been many criticisms levelled at the bill and the fact that it does not cover all the issues attendant within the Competition Act. One criticism levelled at the bill was the fact that it somehow had a very strong criminal sanction.

A bill that only narrowly attacks a certain part of the act cannot possibly deal with the entire question of sanctions. However, on the questions of sanctions it is very interesting that the competition bureau and many other organizations like the chambers of commerce have an interest in trying to bring down the penalty. It is obvious that civil sanctions are not the case at all. In fact they carry no general application and they carry no injunctive application.

The problem is that it virtually requires for someone to be knocked out of business and to be proven bankrupt before the competition bureau will assess and recommend to the tribunal that the particular activity against the person so ordered should cease and desist. This is contrasted to the legislation in the United States which has an intent to protect consumers. Protection of consumers comes in a number of ways but mostly through civil remedies.

I understand the committee after trashing the bill, after basically erasing it from existence, wants now to study the Competition Act. I am pleased that is the case. I am however concerned about the fact that it could very well be a whitewash. I say that because once again with the competition bureau we have police investigating, a judge, a jury and an executioner. If the bill is any indication of the direction of the competition bureau and those who support the status quo, it seems to me the outcome will be flawed.

During committee meetings a book by a man well known for his knowledge of competition law was bandied about. I encourage members to read it. It is the 1999 annotated notes. It very clearly states that it is not accurate to characterize reviewable trade practices as practices which are prohibited with civil sanctions. He suggests that the Clayton Act should be more appropriate.

On the other side of the equation it seems to me that there are those who have been gravely concerned about the application of the bill. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and many others studied the question of gasoline and looked a bit at the issue of groceries, but somehow it should not apply beyond that. That argument, which was posited by the Minister of Industry in his objections of October 19, is simply wrong in its direction.

There is no section of the Competition Act which applies uniformly to one industry. That would be laughed out of every court in the country as discriminatory. Therefore, we need, as the Americans did 100 years ago in 1890, the equivalent of a Sherman Act which was applied to the Rockefeller dynasty that was controlling oil at the time. It applies to every commercial line in the country.

Other objections that have come about were sort of picked out of thin air. There were issues such as how this might discriminate against farmers or might somehow hurt a supplier or a wholesaler.

The bill deals with the vertically integrated supplier, somebody who is in the business of supplying his or her competitor and competing in the same area. Let us put away the nonsense and all the aberrations which have been heaped on the bill for what it is not. The bill is not about regulating price.

It is very interesting to note that anybody in the business would have to ask why a vertically integrated supplier would charge its best wholesale customer more for a product than it is willing to charge the general public. Every person involved in the business knows that it costs less to sell a product at wholesale than at retail. The only reason that a vertically integrated supplier competitor wants to discipline the retail competitors and in some cases eliminate them entirely from the marketplace is simply because they are not prepared to compete with them.

This issue is not something that is confined strictly to one area of our economy. I implore parliamentarians to look at the examples of how small businesses are being undercut by their suppliers.

Legislation exists in other countries. The Americans and British have effective legislation to combat this particular problem. It is not acceptable for our competition police, the Competition Bureau, to act as lapdogs in the face of these watchdogs.

More important I believe in Canada, a Canada which is without its abilities to fight for the small person. I believe my country includes businesses that will compete on a level playing field. I believe that my country is a nation which above all is prepared at every turn to ensure that we do not have more than 10 players dominate the entire spectrum of the economy.

That is exactly what this bill is for. I urge the House to put aside its differences and support it.

[Competition Act, May 26th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-235 be amended by restoring the title thereof as follows:

“An Act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail)”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-235, in Clause 1, be amended be restoring Clause 1 thereof as follows:

1. The Competition Act is amended by adding the following after section 50:

50.1 (1) In this section,

“affiliate” has the meaning given to it in subsection 77(5);

“market area” means an area in which a seller customarily sells a product at retail or offers it for sale at retail.

(2) Every vertically integrated supplier who manufactures and sells a product at retail, either directly or through an affiliate, and also sells the product or a similar product to a purchaser who is not an affiliate but who is in the business of selling the product at retail, and who charges the purchaser a price that exceeds a ) the supplier's own retail price in the same market area as that in which the purchaser customarily sells the product or offers it for sale, less

(i) the supplier's own cost of marketing at retail, and

(ii) the supplier's reasonable return on the retail sale in the case of a direct sale, or b ) the price charged to the affiliate, in the case of a sale through an affiliate, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars for every day on which the offence is committed, in the case of a first offence, and twenty-five thousand dollars for every day on which the offence is committed, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both fine and imprisonment.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a vertically integrated supplier is not required to sell a product to a retailer at a price that results in the supplier receiving a lower return on the retail sale of the product when sold by the supplier or its affiliate than the customer's return on the retail sale of the same product supplied by the supplier, in the same market area.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-235, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2 thereof as follows:

“2. Section 78 of the Act is amended by deleting the word “and” at the end of paragraph ( h ), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph ( i ) and by adding the following after paragraph ( i ): j ) by a vertically integrated supplier, coercing or attempting to coerce a customer who competes with the supplier at the retail level in the same market area, in relation to the establishment of the customer's retail price or pricing policy.”

Madam Speaker, I remind the House that the rumours of the death of this bill have been greatly exaggerated. Many people probably know the bill has been returned as a blank sheet of paper. We are obviously entering new territory as it relates to private members' bills.

However, I want the House to understand that the bill is the product of many years of work. It is a recognition that in an era of globalization and megamergers in the place of productivity we are actually witnessing the need to have effective legislation, effective guidelines to protect the people who represent the backbone of our communities, small business persons.

The process that got us here was a very interesting one. I am pleased the House has seen fit to passing the bill at second reading. I thank the member for Cambridge and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for their support notwithstanding some of the objections by many who do not want to see a change to this important piece of legislation.

The competition bureau has pretty well demonstrated, as has the committee, that in five short days it could not possibly understand the complexities of our market, let alone the ambiguities and the shortcomings of our Competition Act, sufficiently to protect, most important, consumers and small businesses alike.

It is with that in mind that I argue why these motions are necessary. There will be a motion by Mr. Peric to make an amendment that would give wholesalers an opportunity to compete effectively.

[Criminal Code, April 16th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-440, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight), be read a second time and referred to a committee.

I am very happy to be here today to speak to Bill C-440.

This bill would not have been here today had it not been for the co-operative efforts of my co-sponsor, the member for Leeds—Grenville, who will be speaking to this bill.

It is an honour for a member of parliament to be given the opportunity not only to speak on his or her bill, but to also know that a subcommittee of our peers has deemed it worthy by the fact that it is votable. It is for that reason that I am here today with those of us who have supported the bill. I am hopeful that it will be moving ahead in the near future.

I cannot emphasize enough how I believe an issue like this really transcends the usual partisan barriers that might sometimes inhibit bills.

I have many people to thank for getting the bill here in terms of being able to tell people what it is all about. I have been most impressed with the help of the Minister of Justice, who has been extremely sensitive to this issue, and for the support that the parliamentary secretary and members on this side have given to this initiative.

Having a couple of votable bills before the House of Commons, but particularly this one, says a lot about the necessity for filling a gap which I believe exists and that I think most reasonable people in Canada believe exists in the Criminal Code.

I would have preferred to have entitled this bill, Evading Police, for that is the issue: a wanton, reckless and at times tragic act by an individual using a motor vehicle to escape the police. Sadly, the act often leads to the death or injury of either the individual committing it, the police officers who are trying to fulfill their duty to protect the public, or some innocent bystander who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I introduced this bill sometime back in October on the heels of several incidents that took place in my community, the greater Toronto area, whereby the police, in simply doing their jobs, were often confronted with situations whereby the wanton acts of those who would flee placed the safety of the public at greater risk, often winding up with injury or death.

Since the bill has been introduced, there have been a number of tragedies that have hit closer to home for me. About four weeks ago, a very well-known leader in my community of Pickering, Father Ilce Miovski, was killed as he was attending to his vehicle. It happened as a result of someone taking the liberty of exceeding speeds that would not otherwise be normal. The driver went out of control and hit Father Miovski's car, killing a man who was not just a leader in terms of the community, but a leader in the Macedonian community.

I speak for all of parliament, as I have before on this very subject, in sending out our heartfelt sorrow to that community which lost its leader during the Lenten period of the Macedonian community.

I also want to speak to another personal situation that occurred in Brampton with the death of Sarah Bowman, again due to a reckless act of somebody trying to evade a peace officer. Sarah was only 21 years of age. I know her family is probably listening and looking on today.

I hope that what we have to say here today is not lost on the necessity to fill the void that, if nothing else, serves as a lesson or a message to those who, for a simple reason such as perhaps a suspended licence, would wilfully flee from a police officer and endanger the public.

The House could send that kind of message over time with the help and the expertise that is available to us both in committee, which I hope the bill will eventually reach, and the input from thousands of Canadians who have something to say about this, in an effort to ensure that many Canadians down the road are not victims of our neglect.

I introduced Bill C-440 as a private members' bill on October 7, 1998. Simply put, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code by creating a specific offence with severe penalties for anyone who, while using a motor vehicle, fails to stop for the police.

At first view the bill seems to be the product of common sense. To some it may even appear odd; that the Criminal Code should already had a provision that specifically prohibits this act. The truth is it does not. Currently, section 249 of the Criminal Code, the dangerous operation of motor vehicle provisions, are used to combat the act of evading police.

When Constable Richard Sonnenberg of the Calgary police lay down a spike belt to stop a speeding car that would not pull over, was that due to some person overreacting? Was it due to panic or from the driver being scared? Was it a case of dangerous driving or was there really more to it?

Most people would think that a person driving at speeds of 160 or 170 kilometres per hour goes beyond dangerous driving. It was clear the individual did not want to stop for the police and was prepared to do quite a bit to get away from them. Surely that very act of avoiding the police should be a specific criminal offence with a specific penalty.

Most engineers would view the act for what it was, a large projectile hurtling at excessive speeds and the excess weight of some 3,000 pounds moving down a highway. Most normal people would view this projectile as being driven by an individual who has no regard whatsoever for human life.

The debate, however, is of little consequence to Constable Sonnenberg. He was killed when that car struck him while trying to avoid the spike belt. The consequence of this was that the driver of the car was charged with criminal negligence causing death and received a sentence of six years in jail. Simply six years. Was justice served? Did that individual pay for his actions and for the taking of another person's life? I really do not think so.

In the current Criminal Code the penalties for dangerous driving are as follows: the act itself is punishable by either imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or summary conviction; if the act causes injury, the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years; and if the act causes death, the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Under Bill C-440, anyone who operates a motor vehicle to evade a police officer is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Anyone who commits this offence and in the process injures another person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Anyone causing the death of another person in committing this act will be liable to imprisonment for life.

I believe these penalties are sufficient and I believe it is time the Criminal Code had a specific provision dealing with using a motor vehicle to evade police. I am not alone in that belief.

As many in the House know, last week in my province, the province of Ontario, the solicitor general issued the much awaited guidelines dealing with regulations on police conduct in matters of criminal evasion; better known in the public as simple evasion of police or police chases. I think that is a bit of a stretch. Yes, it is a chase, but I do not think we can actually say the police are chasing people because they find it is particularly interesting or because it is something they do in their spare time. They are doing it because they are upholding the law.

While these regulations are important—and I give some credit to the solicitor general for them—without a response at the federal level with respect to the Criminal Code, we are in effect regulating the police while letting those who evade police off scot-free.

On November 16, 1998 I wrote to the minister, and the minister is extremely interested in the issue. I know that for those of us who have spent a lot of time on this issue there will be some point down the road when we will be dealing with it more specifically and more appropriately before the committee. I look forward to that.

I am very pleased to have received the support of several associations, obviously the Canadian Police Association, victims' rights groups and of course the CAA.

I am interested in what has occurred with respect to recent editorials in various papers across the country. We see that some are shifting or swinging to the left while others are a little bit to the right. However, it seems there is a consensus evolving in all corners of the media and all regions of the country that we cannot continue to inhibit our peace officers, our thin blue line, from being able to do their job.

Police officers know full well who the people are who should be apprehended, who are breaking the law, who are fleeing the public and who are engaging in reckless and wanton acts, but impunity is the current state of the laws.

When I appeared before the subcommittee on Private Members' Business, I read some letters that were very cogent to this issue. The letters were from Syd Bowman, Jenny Bowman and Karen Kalverda, the sister of Sarah Bowman.

We have an opportunity with this bill to right a wrong. If it means the saving of one single life, or the deterrent that might avoid someone receiving an injury that could maim them for life, then we have indeed done well and discharged our duty here in the House of Commons.

I am honoured to have had the opportunity to bring this bill forward, but this is not the Dan McTeague bill, it is the House of Commons bill. This is a bill that belongs to all members of the House. If anybody has any idea how I could move this bill forward more quickly, I am certainly game.

I believe the bill rightly corresponds to a need in the public today. It is a void that exists within our midst and within our judicial system. I do not believe there is a lack of will to respond to this. The responses we are seeing at the federal and provincial levels among concerned groups are putting us in a situation where I think we are going to see a very quick response to the issue. Hopefully we will have the necessary legislation to really send a message out: “For God's sake, if you are going to try to flee a police officer simply because you are worried, think about the consequences. If you are not going to think about the consequences to society in general, think then about the selfish consequences to yourself”.

I am not in a position right now to speak freely about those I know who have been injured. I know there is a time for compassion, but there is also a time to ensure that legislation we provide to the House, and which hopefully will wind up in the other place, will stand the test of time and will not be struck down. While the bill is a very strong starting point, my expectation is to encourage the House to try to develop a bill that will meet the standard and tests of not just deterrence, but also protecting a single life.

There is another aspect to the bill that I think members may not have considered. At first glance some people may say this is simply retribution. Throw them in jail and let us not worry about why they did it. However, there is another aspect that may be lost but which should be considered by all hon. members in the House as we deliberate on this important bill that affects us in each of our ridings.

Perhaps in the act of the chase, in the act of evasion, it is possible that the peace officer may ascertain the identity of those who would flee and therefore commit, under this act, an offence punishable by certain indictable terms in prison. One of the things that could come out of that is simply the identification of the person who is fleeing and, if necessary, not only have to worry about stopping the vehicle, but if it is not a very serious offence, wait until the person has run out of gas or until the person is somewhere else and then apprehend them. In effect, this would give the police a tool of not necessarily having to engage in a risky chase that might otherwise endanger other lives.

Goodness knows, there is not a single peace officer in the country who wishes to endanger another life in order to uphold the law. However, split second decisions have to be made by these fine people who are doing their jobs day in and day out and who basically ensure that we have peace, order and good governance and who safeguard our laws.

This is really my first foray in the House to explain the bill. In the very short time since it was introduced, the deliberation of the subcommittee and the interest shown by parliament is something for which I am deeply honoured.

A huge consensus is developing in the House. This is not a perfect bill but it is a good bill and I believe it will fit the task with perhaps some modification and some change.

I ask and urge the House to move as expeditiously and quickly as possible to ensure that we do not have another Father Ilce Miovski, another death in the community; that we do not have another fatality like the young lady, Sarah Bowman; and that we do not continue the carnage and place our police officers in the unenviable position of being damned if they do and damned if they do not.

I sincerely hope that with the elocution and speeches of my many colleagues here today and down the road, we consider Bill C-440 a new and necessary piece of legislation that will restore what is fundamentally absent in our Criminal Code.

Again I want to thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville without whom this bill could not have been possible. I hope we will hear from him a little later on.

I have said what I had to say. I wait patiently and attentively to hear what my hon. colleagues have to say about it as well.

[Bill C-440, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday Reverend Ilce Miovski was tragically killed by a stolen vehicle as the driver was trying to evade the car's owner and the police.

Reverend Miovski was a constituent of mine and his loss will be deeply felt by the congregation of St. Clement Church.

His death adds to the carnage across Canada resulting from someone using a motor vehicle to evade police.

Police officers also put their lives on the line and are placed in the unwinnable position of trying to apprehend the driver or withdraw. In some cases the police are subject to legal action for the pursuit even though they were only carrying out their direct duty to the public.

Current Criminal Code provisions dealing with dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing death are not appropriate sanctions for this crime. A specific provision is needed in the code, with severe penalties for the offender.

I call on the Minister of Justice to incorporate Bill C-440 into legislation to make those who evade police pay for this act and for the senseless death and injury it can cause.

We cannot wait for more innocent people to die and for their killers to evade justice in the same way they tried to evade police.

[Info Fair, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members on this side of the House in offering congratulations to the former member for Beaver River, now the member for Edmonton North. I am sure we will see her for another 10 years as the lioness of the House of Commons.

I want to recognize the work of HRDC in my riding that has put together the Info Fair. It put 15,000 youth in a situation where they could actually deal with the question of employment.

There are a number of people in the Oshawa area, in the Durham region, who should be commended for this. Over 2 days a number of partners including corporate sponsors IBM, Xerox and Power Broadcasting put together an opportunity to recruit many of the youth in our region.

I commend Sharyn Little, Merle Cole and Carl Gulliver of HRDC's Durham region office, as well as Julian Luke and Darlene Woodward of the Durham District School Board.

It is clear that when the Durham regional school boards work together, along with the local training boards and with linkages to HRDC and Canada's youth employment strategy, it is all successful.

[Competition Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that the tenor of the bill is certainly understood and I appreciate that. The time is right and therefore this bill seeks to do just that, protect Canadian consumers as well as competition.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Competition Act, February 10th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-472, an act to amend the Competition Act (abuse of dominant position).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill along with my colleague, the member for Cambridge, to amend the federal Competition Act with respect to the abuse of dominant position in the marketplace, particularly by large companies.

The report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing called for the Competition Act to be amended to ensure a level playing field in the retail sector of Canada's oil industry and greater protection for Canadian consumers.

The Liberal committee studying the proposed bank mergers also concluded that the Competition Act needs to be strengthened.

To many observers the current act is a toothless tiger that is unable to prevent anti-competitive acts in markets that are dominated by a few large players. In the food industry four of Canada's six major grocery retailers are currently proposing mergers. Large grocery companies charge food producers high listing fees in order for their products to gain access to supermarkets. As a result, Canadian consumers have less than half—

[Competition Act, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot from all sides of the House. I know there are members who feel very passionately about this. Those happen to be the very members who have actually taken the time to study this, who have not allowed CPPI or an oil company or the Competition Bureau to help them write their speech or to find out some kind of mythical idea about what this industry is all about.

The member for Tobique—Mactaquac and his colleague from Markham are good examples of people who simply do not want to engage in a real cerebral discussion of what this bill is all about. That is exactly why they do not want it to go to committee.

That member who comes from New Brunswick made a statement about the fact that everything is hunky-dory in this industry. He should look at the New Brunswick select committee all-party resolution of that province last year which indicated that we needed effective laws dealing with predatory pricing that currently do not exist.

I want to get into the Stentor question because Stentor has written a letter expressing surprise that it was possible for the Competition Bureau to go around looking for people to find opposition to the bill. It is kind of ironic that it is this bill which is in fact giving them the tools to resolve the problem that exists. Stentor may have a huge problem with respect to the power of the vertically integrated suppliers that relate to the Internet service provider.

The opposition is correct that the bill was about the oil industry, but it seems to me there are a lot of other industries and small businesses, which the people on the other side wish to advocate, that are being decimated day in and day out. That is not hypothetical; that is reality.

With respect to the retail industry, we are asking in Canada to do what the parent companies cannot do in the United States. The legislation is designed very specifically to bring the Competition Act up to speed with the rest of the world before we recognize that in Ontario, where gas prices have increased by eight cents a litre, it is not a function of competition.

I do not know what it takes for members of parliament to try to understand this issue. There were 20,000 retailers a few years ago. There are less than 10,000 now. There will probably be fewer in days to come.

Consumers across the country know that when gas prices move up uniformly or fall uniformly it is a function of the wholesalers that have absolute control over the retail price. They are not separate. They are not segregated. The bill simply tries to address a safeguard which, in summation, was the recommendation of the Competition Bureau in 1986.

I ask the House to put aside the biases, the willingness to play politics, to stand up for small business and to stand up for the truth. At the end of the day that would ensure what we do not have today in the oil industry in Canada, a truly competitive Canadian market.

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-440, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight).

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code by adding a provision and penalties for anyone using a motor vehicle to evade police and in the process causing injury or death.

Fleeing from police by means that result in a high speed chase causes inordinate risks to the safety of their officers and to the public and merits special criminal sanction.

Current dangerous driving provisions of the Criminal Code are inadequate in dealing appropriately and specifically with such acts.

Under the bill any individual who operates a motor vehicle to evade a peace officer is guilty of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

In addition, anyone who commits such an offence and in the process injures another person will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Anyone causing death will be liable to imprisonment for life.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)