Dick Harris

[Impaired Driving, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, impaired drivers kill over 1,400 Canadians every year and injure over 60,000. The cost to our health care system each year runs in the billions of dollars. Millions of Canadians are crying out for us to put a stop to this senseless and 100% preventable crime.

Members of the House unanimously called on the government to put an end to impaired driving by instructing the justice committee to review and amend the Criminal Code to enhance deterrence and ensure the penalties reflect the seriousness of this 100% preventable crime.

For the first time in over a decade we have the opportunity to toughen up impaired driving laws and help stop the carnage on our highways. I urge my colleagues on the justice committee to demonstrate leadership and represent the wishes of millions of Canadians through amendments to the Criminal Code that will truly reflect Canada's zero tolerance attitude to this senseless and 100% preventable crime.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the testimony and evidence we heard before the justice committee by people from Guardian Interlock gave us a good insight into what such a valuable tool this device would be, particularly in the case of people who were repeat offenders or who were stopped with a high level of alcohol.

Let it be clear that the Guardian Interlock system should not be used in place of any serious penalties that should be given to people who drive while impaired. It should be used in addition. It is not to take the place of a penalty. It is an additional part of it.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not attempt to speak for the members of the Liberal government. Lord knows some of the steps they take or do not take are quite puzzling.

Yes, in British Columbia in particular the incidence of home invasions is at a very serious epidemic stage right now. It is incumbent on this Liberal government and members who represent British Columbians to respond to the call from residents of British Columbia to bring in some very tough and specific guidelines on how we treat offenders who do this very serious crime of home invasion.

Let us remember that the victims in almost every case are frail and elderly people who cannot defend themselves from home invasions by these thugs who would take advantage of them. Nothing less than serious jail time is appropriate in that case.

I live in a city that a few years ago won the distinction of being the highest B and E city in western Canada, Prince George, B.C. It was something we were not very proud of.

These were done mainly by young offenders and so many of them were repeat offenders because they were receiving nothing but a slap on the wrist when they appeared before the judge the first time and a slap on the wrist the second time.

I like what a judge from New York said about two weeks ago: “When a young offender comes before my bench on his first offence, I want it to be the worst experience of his life. Why? Because I don't want to see him back here again”. I congratulate that judge.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. Regrettably, we have to rise to demand that this government make changes to the justice system which reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians.

Regrettably, it is we in the opposition who have to remind the government constantly of its responsibility to react to what Canadians are saying, rather than reacting to its own philosophies when it comes to criminal justice.

I am going to talk about the criminal justice system as it relates to impaired driving today. Before I do, I want to take this opportunity to relate something which was very disturbing to me.

On Thursday, March 4, I read in the paper that a 57 year old woman, a grandmother, had just been released from prison after spending six months in incarceration. On Saturday, March 6, I read in the paper that another person had been sentenced to six months in prison.

The second person, on March 6, was sentenced for the act of child abuse, sexually molesting a child. This person, according to the report, was unrepentant. He saw nothing wrong with what he did. He received a sentence of six months, of which he will serve probably two and a half months under the Liberal justice system.

Let us return to Thursday, March 4, when this 57 year old lady was let out of prison. She served six months in prison because she dared to cross into a bubble zone around an abortion clinic to kneel and pray.

If anybody in the House, anybody in the Liberal government, could show me some sense of justice in the relationship between those sentences and crimes I would be very surprised. Imagine, an unrelenting, unrepentant child molester sentenced to six months and someone who dares to cross a bubble zone at an abortion clinic to kneel to pray receives the same sentence. It is unbelievable how our justice system serves up so much injustice. It is so out of whack.

I mention that because it shocked me. Even though there is no reaction I am sure it is shocking members of the Liberal government to hear that. If they do not believe what I am saying I suggest they dig up those two issues and read them for themselves.

Impaired driving is a very serious crime. It kills in the neighbourhood of 1,400 people every single year. It injures over 60,000 every year. As a matter of fact, impaired driving is the number one cause of criminal death in this country, more than three times higher than homicide. In the last five years it has cost our health care system. The property and causality claims are billions of dollars. In over 10 years nothing substantial has been done to arrest this very serious problem.

Over the last month and a half we have seen witnesses come before the justice committee to present their opinions on how we should address this very serious crime of impaired driving and how we can cut the senseless deaths. Now the justice committee is charged with reviewing all the testimony, taking into consideration all the recommendations and to bring back before the House by May 15 a bill that will take some very serious and positive steps to cutting the incidence of impaired driving, cutting deaths, injuries and cutting the cost to our health care.

I have to tell members at this time that I have some very serious doubts as to whether these Liberals, who talk the talk about wanting to cut the carnage on our highways, cut the incidence of death and injuries and the billions of dollars of cost, are serious. I have seen no indication that these Liberal members who sit on the justice committee and others who well over a year ago unanimously sent to the justice committee a supply day motion by the Reform Party that called for action are serious in any way about addressing the very serious crime of impaired driving.

Millions of Canadians have cried out for the federal government to take some leadership on this crime and do something that would reflect a zero tolerance attitude toward impaired driving. The victims of impaired driving deserve no less.

I am sad to say I am not confident at this time, having been involved in the justice committee hearings and the subsequent meetings going on right now, the government is serious despite what it has said.

There are a number of steps we can take. I guess the most appropriate one would be to look at the level of blood alcohol content in the driver of a vehicle once the reading on the breathalyzer is determined. There is much testimony to support the lowering of this level to .05 from .08, which I support. We also have a very serious problem with the court system that has not been addressed by this or previous governments.

In cases where people are charged with impaired driving we have heard testimony from prosecutors and policing officials that the judiciary automatically tends to accept the evidence of the person who is charged rather than the evidence of the crown prosecutor and the police force that has laid the charge. Something is wrong with that picture.

Something is wrong when a prosecutor can walk into a court, present certificate evidence from very high tech instruments to detect the level of BAC, where the margin of error is so small that it is almost insignificant, and the judge will tend to believe evidence contrary to those proven certificates of evidence.

I really hope, for the sake of the victims of impaired drivers, for the families left behind and for the sake of our health care system, that this government for once since 1993, since I have been in parliament, will do something positive to take some steps in the justice system that will be of benefit to Canadians. Here is an opportunity for it to do that. I hope it does not let Canadians down once again.

[The Economy, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister and the government are knocking Canadian manufacturers and providers of Canadian services by continually telling them through the low dollar that their products and services are not worth 100 cents on the dollar. That is what they are telling them.

Our high taxes and costly overregulation are keeping us uncompetitive.

Instead of giving foreign buyers a bargain when buying Canadian goods, why does the finance minister not give manufacturers and Canadians a break here at home by lowering taxes and easing regulation?

[The Economy, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals actually believe that the only way to sell Canadian goods and services, the only way to keep us competitive in world markets, is to slash our dollar to 65 cents or 66 cents. In other words, sell Canada at bargain basement prices.

Does the finance minister really feel good about selling Canadian goods and services at 40% below their real value? Does he feel good about that?

[Petitions, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the several hundred signators to a petition from Prince George—Bulkley Valley pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. I agree with this petition.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was very remiss in my presentation. The information given to me regarding the census forms and the fines that could be imposed if one wrote Canadian was given to me by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

The proud heritage of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, their logo, their traditions which have been with this country for decades, which we are all proud of as Canadians, this Liberal government, these great protectors of Canadian culture and heritage, thought it would be a good idea to exploit that Canadian tradition, that Canadian heritage, for a few American dollars.

How hypocritical can they get? They stand today to call themselves the great protectors of Canadian culture. They are so quiet over there now. I think they are embarrassed. They have been caught like a rat in their own trap.

This is about profound intrusion into the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is this government's version of how to run this country: get its fingers into everything that goes on in this country through regulations, restrictions, sanctions, impositions or whatever it can do to control every single person to do its will or to do things its way. That is the mandate of this government. It has been since Liberal hero Pierre Trudeau came on the scene. Unfortunately he is still obviously having an influence on this government.

Members of the Liberal government are these great protectors of Canadian democracy. They should be called the great intruders.

With this bill Liberals are like people walking blindfolded into a den of snakes. The heritage minister has set herself up as the czar of Canadian publishing, the czar of the industry. She thinks that she can unilaterally put this restriction on and the Americans will just roll over and play dead. Does the minister not realize for one minute the implications of what she is trying to do? Mr. Speaker, you do not play baseball with a little tennis racket when you are playing against an American team. You have to go in with a position of strength.

The minister has just put Canada in a very tenuous position. Do we think the Americans are going to roll over and play dead because of the minister's little whim? There is not a hope. We are going to see retaliation.

Perhaps the Americans should start with the plastics industry which comes right out of the riding of the Minister for International Trade. That would be a good place for the Americans to start, and they have suggested it. Perhaps they should start with the steel industry which comes right out of the riding of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That would be a good place to start. It is going to happen. Liberals are walking blindly into this predicament in which they are going to find themselves on the short end of the stick if they keep going down this path.

It is a sad day in Canada. It is going to be a sad day for Canadian manufacturers who are going to find, no doubt, sanctions against their products entering the U.S. Most of all, I think it is really a sad day for the freedoms of this country, the freedoms for which we fought two world wars to protect to ensure that this country would be a country where if we worked hard, if we were diligent, if we were prudent in our decisions, we could succeed. But we have a government come along and say “That was just a myth. As a matter of fact, the way we do things here under a Liberal government is the way we say it should be done”.

When I heard about this bill the first thing that crossed my mind was how many in this Liberal government bought shares in the big Canadian publishing firms. Is that the real reason? Does the minister of heritage have a bunch of shares in Maclean Hunter or Rogers Communications or Time Warner? Is that the reason? Maybe it is a personal monetary thing. Maybe there is going to be a big payoff. One usually finds that when people do very irrational and dictatorial things somewhere down the paper trail one finds a dollar amount attached to it.

One has to assume that there are two reasons for this: either there are a bunch of shares owned by this government, by these caucus members, in Canadian publishers, or the Canadian publishers are and are going to become very big contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. It is a joke.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

This is the same Liberal government, the same protectors of Canadian culture and heritage, that thought it would be a good idea to sell the rights to the RCMP logo to Disneyland.