Dick Harris

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

First, Mr. Speaker, I actually like puppies.

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if that was her final answer, she needs a lifeline perhaps from the lapdog who shares her desk.

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister when confronted about constant problems in her ministry always says that they are taking steps and never mind what happened and the mismanagement that went on.

We are not talking about an old internal audit; this was in 1999 and it says “currently a formal national information technology security awareness program has not been established within HRDC”. That is from the minister's own internal audit department.

I have a simple question. How can Canadians possibly believe the assurances—

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and arduous road to reach this stage of Bill C-18. This provision was part of a private member's bill that I submitted a couple of years ago. However, the bill was lost due to the 1997 election. The official opposition brought the bill back to the Parliament of Canada in the form of a votable supply day motion, which motion was carried unanimously in the House.

We then had a delay getting the original bill to committee. We finally dealt with it last year, just prior to the summer recess of 1999. Indeed, we were able to put through this House about 98% of the original supply day motion dealing with impaired driving. I believe at that time we made a giant leap forward in taking leadership in addressing the issue of impaired driving in Canada.

We were seeking unanimous consent so that we would not lose the previous bill to the summer recess and more delays. We were able to put it through, for the most part. However, members of the Bloc were not prepared to accept the provision in the original bill which provided judges with the discretionary power to deliver a sentence of life imprisonment for someone convicted of impaired driving causing death where aggravating factors were present.

This bill is designed to address simply that, impaired drivers who have multiple convictions, who have refused treatment, who have spent time in prison, who have perhaps driven while their drivers' licences were under suspension, who perhaps have been in an accident causing bodily injury, leading up to the point where they were once again impaired on the road. With all of these aggravating factors behind them, perhaps they then took the life of someone through their criminal act.

This is the tool that we have sought for three or four years to send a clear message to society that the federal government does not regard the incidence of impaired driving as simply another social ill. Rather, it is regarded as a very serious crime, and the crime of impaired driving causing death is the most serious crime of all. We read in our newspapers, we see on our televisions and through the electronic media every day it seems that some innocent life or lives have been taken because of the stupid and criminal act of driving while impaired.

To review, Bill C-18 would amend the criminal code with respect to impaired driving causing death and other matters. The bill would make impaired driving causing death subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

At the present time the latitude a judge has is a sentence of imprisonment of zero to 14 years. Unfortunately the precedents that have been set by judges in this country in dealing with impaired driving causing death have most often been at the very low end of that scale, anywhere from six months to two and a half or three years.

There is one case on record where an impaired driver got eight years. Unfortunately that precedent has not been followed as often as it should have been.

This would increase the latitude of judges from zero to a life imprisonment sentence. When there were some extreme aggravating factors, a judge could say to the person upon whom he was to deliver a sentence, “You are a menace to society. You have taken a life through your criminal act. You have taken a life through your stupidity. You have taken a life because you have refused treatment. You have taken a life because you have not learned through the consequences of your previous actions that it is not acceptable in our society to behave in the manner that you you have been. Therefore, I will give you a sentence of life imprisonment”.

I want to relate some numbers in case anyone may have forgotten the human cost of impaired driving in our country. In 1996 3,420 people were killed in automobile crashes. Where the drivers were tested, nearly 40% had alcohol in their blood for an estimation of about 1,360 fatalities. That means that Canadians are more than twice as likely to die in an accident involving alcohol than they are to be murdered.

The monetary cost for motor vehicle incidents is $390,000 per fatal crash and about $12,000 per injury. Considering the incredibly dire straits of our health care system, would it not be something if we could put forward yet another deterrent against impaired driving that would save lives and prevent the injuries caused by impaired driving. It would also save a lot of money that could be put into health care services.

Let me read another statistic. It is important that we have these numbers to recognize the frequency of impaired driving. In 1998 over 70,000 Canadians were charged with impaired driving. Statistics also show that it takes a repetition of about 20 incidents of impaired driving before there may be a chance of getting caught. These numbers really do not tell us how many people are actually driving while impaired. The numbers are only the people who got caught. It is pretty scary when driving down the street with our families to imagine there could be in any given block at least one and maybe two people who are driving having consumed alcohol.

The alliance party strongly supports this bill. We believe that if ever there was a solid case for deterrence in the criminal code, it is on the issue of impaired driving.

The penalties that we have been able to put forward in the criminal code and the amendments we have made coupled with this final part of this bill which was put forward and part of it passed, would be a wonderful first step. It would send the strongest possible message out to Canadians that if they intend to drive after they have been drinking and they are caught, we intend to deal with that crime in the strongest possible terms. This will give the judges yet another very heavy tool in the fight against impaired driving.

Bill C-82 was the original bill on which we made some serious progress. I want to go over some of the provisions. It is important that Canadians know there have been some changes made. The federal government through the insistence of the alliance party has worked very well to ensure that parts of Bill C-82 went through.

At the federal criminal code level, the mandatory minimum fine for a first offence was been doubled from $300 to $600. Driving prohibitions for a second offence have been increased from two to five years imprisonment and from six months to three years for a third offence. For impaired driving causing death, the sentence has been changed in Bill C-18 from one year to three years, to three years to life.

One part of the bill said that the judge may impose a sentence of from three years up to life driving prohibition for an offence where there was no injury or fatality involved. We should be prepared to look at this and say that is a serious penalty the judges have been given to use. In the event where there has been a death as a result of impaired driving by a person who has simply disregarded the laws of our society, the judge should have the discretion to impose a sentence of life imprisonment.

In Bill C-82 we also passed a provision for the use of an alcohol ignition interlock system. The Canadian public is becoming more aware of this device. It provides that someone may not operate a motor vehicle without giving a breath sample into the device. If alcohol is present in the person's breath sample, the vehicle will not start.

In Bill C-82 the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident that caused bodily harm was also increased. The maximum was increased to 10 years from the previous five years. We in the alliance party were happy about that. We also increased the time limit for law enforcement officers to demand a breath sample. That was increased from two hours to three hours. Many times because of the shortage of officers and the logistics, it has not been possible within the two hour limit to get a breath sample. There is now another hour to work with.

Something I am very happy about is the penalty for driving while disqualified was increased from two years to five years. For so many years all over the country people have lost their licences due to impaired driving. For whatever reason so many of these people have disregarded the fact that they have been prohibited from driving and have chosen to drive anyway. Instead of a two year sentence, which seems a long time to me but maybe to some people they do not think it is too long, it was increased to five years. That was an important change.

A number of changes that we wanted did not make it to Bill C-82. I will go through some of them before I wrap up by addressing the urgency of Bill C-18.

Bill C-82 was a good first step to take. It sent a stronger message to impaired drivers. While we would have wanted to go further in many cases, I think we are going to see some results of the amendments to the criminal code.

Before Bill C-82 got to committee it had been 13 years since the federal government had reviewed the criminal code as it applied to impaired driving. Given the human cost and the monetary cost that impaired driving causes year after year, it was very much overdue but finally it got there after 13 years.

We would have wanted to increase at the federal level the mandatory minimum fine for an impaired driving first offence to $1,000 up from $300. We did not quite make it. We made $600 but we would have liked to have seen it at $1,000.

Another thing we wanted to pursue was to change the criminal code so that only evidence that the breathalyzer was malfunctioning would be permitted as a defence against a charge for a reading of over .08. This would be to eliminate the so-called two beers defence. Too often in the courts judges accept this defence, notwithstanding that the crown has put forward certificate evidence of the breathalyzer results, notwithstanding the report of the arresting officer who clearly gave testimony that the person arrested seemed to be incapable of performing some simple required tests, notwithstanding evidence which the average person would think was enough to convict.

Defence lawyers have been putting forward witnesses for their clients who have said that they were with old George or Jane the whole evening and all he or she had was two beers. In the face of certificate evidence which showed a 0.15 breathalyzer test, judges have been saying “Two beers, are you sure?” “Yes your honour, two beers”. Believe it or not, in far more cases than we can possibly imagine, judges have been accepting the two beers defence. This is absolutely irresponsible on the part of many judges. They simply have not gotten the message.

We had hoped we would also get the BAC, the blood alcohol content limit lowered from .08 to .05. The reason is that while evidence shows clearly that at .08 the person was indeed impaired, there is a built-in margin of error used by defence that has been set by precedence over the years. Judges have accepted a margin of error to the effect that no one, unless he or she blows .1 or more, ever much ends up with a criminal conviction. Had we lowered the BAC to .05 and left a margin of error that would have taken it up to .08, that would have looked after the problem. Unfortunately far too many lawyers were present at the standing committee when we examined this. They rolled their eyes and said that this could be a legal nightmare so we did not proceed in that way.

Bill C-18 is a major step for the Parliament of Canada. It gives notice to Canadians, victims of impaired driving and their families who are left to mourn the loss of their children or other loved ones that this parliament has taken some leadership.

If there ever was a time to address a criminal problem, it is through the passing of Bill C-18, and we support it whole-heartedly.

In closing, I would like to move:

That the question be now put.

[Prince George Cougars, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, you just had to be there to experience the excitement, the electricity, the fever pitch, as night after night the Prince George Cougars took to the ice in Prince George during this last hockey season. You had to be there to see the roof come off the Multiplex as our young Cougars played their hearts out before 6,000 fans every single game this season, game after game.

I want to pay tribute and give thanks to owner Rick Brodsky, the management, the staff, the coach, Ed Dempsey and most of all the Cougars players for such a fantastic season and making the finals of the WHL western division playoffs.

On behalf of all the Cougar fans, myself and the Cougars' biggest fan in all the world, my son Mike, I want to thank the Cougars for all the excitement and the enjoyment they gave us this season.

[The Prime Minister, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. The folks in the Middle East gave a huge sigh of relief when the Prime Minister returned to Canada and now it appears the Prime Minister is having trouble booking a meeting hall in his own country.

Even loyal Liberals are cancelling meetings when they learn the Prime Minister is about to show up because protesters are following him everywhere.

It seems Canadians want to send him a strong message. His Middle East faux pas, coupled with his gross mismanagement of the country's affairs, have made him a pretty unwanted guest.

It looks like Canadians will have to wait until the next election to send the Prime Minister a love letter that will not only shut down his computer but indeed his entire government.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the very sharp contrast between the tax and spend Liberal federal government and the fiscally innovative and prudent way that the Government of Ontario, the Mike Harris Tories, runs its finances, I want to remind the federal Liberals of something that is occurring in the country right now. I want to read this for their benefit.

An article in the Globe and Mail yesterday stated “Ontario is on top of the world. Canada's economic heartland has put behind it almost 30 years of deficits, decline, bad government, unsound investments and painful restructuring and emerges as one of the most successful economies in North America, and in the world”. This is from the Globe and Mail , which is known to be somewhat friendly to the Liberal government of late.

The article went on to state “The latest calculations in finance minister Ernie Eves' fifth budget reveal that the province's economy last year grew by 5.7%”—and get this, Mr. Speaker—“better than anyone had expected, better than anywhere else in Canada, better than in the United States, better than any nation in the group of seven”. Imagine that.

Why are the citizens of Ontario blessed with such an incredible economy? Let me give an example. The article continued “Ontario celebrates the economic fruits of four years of measured, comprehensive income and property tax reform”. Translated, that means tax cuts.

“Thanks in part to those tax cuts, real disposable income over the past three years in Ontario increased by 11.6%, double that of the rest of the country. Corporate profits rose last year by 22.3% and real consumer spending rose 4%. An economy like that can generate 200,000 net new jobs in a single year”, which, surprise, surprise, Ontario did in 1999.

Contrast that with the Liberal government. Since 1993 there have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 to 60 individual tax increases. The average disposable family income has decreased since 1993 by over $4,000. The average disposable income of Canadian workers has decreased by about $2,200.

The Liberals simply do not get it. They believe that the way to increase the tax revenue in government coffers is not to cut taxes, like most people in the real world would assume, to stimulate the economy. If taxes were cut citizens would have more money in their pockets to spend. Consumer spending would increase. Investors would invest in the economy, set up manufacturing plants and create jobs.

No, the Liberal philosophy is “We will simply hold the magic tax lever. In order to balance our budget we do not really have to grow the economy. We will let Ontario do that for us, or in spite of us. We will just wring that money out of the people of Canada, the businesses of Canada and the investment community”. That is what they have done.

That is how they got the money to balance the budget; not through prudent fiscal planning, but riding on the backs of the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta.

When Mike Harris and Ralph Klein formed their governments they said “We are going to get the finances of this country in shape. We are going to use a tried and true formula which we know has worked in numerous jurisdictions and countries around the world”.

That formula is simply this. Lower taxes equal a more buoyant economy. Higher taxes equal a sluggish economy. The government picked the first one. It was so simple, but the government does not get it.

In the last budget the finance minister claimed that he was going to give Canadians $58.4 billion in tax relief over five years. That sounds pretty good on the surface. We could almost get excited about it. Here is the real truth. From a $58.4 billion gross tax relief claim, we have to take away $7.5 billion over five years for social spending, which is the child benefit. Then we have to add to that $29.5 billion in increased CPP premiums because the Liberal government, which for so many years, unfortunately, has been in office in this country, has mismanaged the Canada pension plan since 1965 when it was introduced.

This is a good one. The solicitor general is going to love this one. The government has said that it will provide $13.5 billion in tax relief. It plans to schedule $13.5 billion in tax relief over the next five years. It plans on doing this but it will not do it so that it means $13.5 billion in tax relief or a tax cut.

For the benefit of the former parliamentary secretary of finance, the Minister of Health and the solicitor general, here is a simple formula. Let us say that I was a taxpayer earning $1 a year and paying taxes on that. The government says that it will, let us say, give me 13.5% in tax relief. I say “Whoopee”. However, what it means is that the government will not increase my taxes by 13.5% and therefore I will have a tax break. I look at my pay stub and say “Gee whiz, I did not get a tax break. All I got was no increase”. In Liberal terms that somehow translates into a tax break.

Let me talk about a couple of other things that the Liberal government has told us about its budget and the way it runs the country fiscally. All through this it has tried in vain to portray itself as being the caring and generous party of Canada. In the meantime, since 1993 it has cut $25 billion out of the Canadian health and social transfer. Does that sound like a caring, generous government? I do not think so.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a wise person sitting in that chair and I know that you probably get it before some of the ministers here. This generous, caring government cut $25 billion out of the CHST.

The government says it will end bracket creep. That is not a reduction in tax. It only means that a regular scheduled tax is again not going to occur. All the time the government has blown its spending budget. Every year since 1993 it has spent more than what it said it would. It basically adds up to a Liberal sucker tax cut, if I can use that term, or, in better terms, a no break tax break.

Canadians are waiting for it and they have not received it. While they look at the performance of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, they say to themselves “Why does this Liberal not get it? Why can it not follow the example?” I hate to tell working Canadians but this government has never gotten it and never will get it. The only way Canadians will get substantive tax relief is by electing in the next federal election a Canadian Alliance government to sit on that side and bring in the tax cuts that they so dearly deserve.

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear. The reason the economies of the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta are doing so well is because they did not follow the lead of the federal government.

As a matter of fact, the provinces of Alberta and Ontario are responsible for the biggest part of the overall economic growth in Canada because they did not follow the federal government.

Why is the finance minister so afraid of lowering taxes for Canadians?

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the very mention of Mike Harris and his performance record puts fear into the hearts of these Liberals.

Here is the formula: lower taxes equal a buoyant economy. Mike Harris got it and Ralph Klein got it. The question is, why can this Liberal finance minister not get it?

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in sharp contrast to this Liberal tax and spend government, the Mike Harris government has just introduced a massive 67 point tax cut for Ontarians. At the same time it is ploughing $1.4 billion back into health care and $1 billion more into education in the province.