Garry Breitkreuz

[Child Care, October 7th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not spend any more public money on non-parental day care initiatives at this time, and any existing expenditures for child care should subsidize financial need, not the method of child care chosen, and further that the program subsidize children and parents, not institutions and professionals.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a motion which the Liberals were so afraid to debate that they refused to make it votable. As a consequence, this debate is limited to just one hour. What will be confusing for so many Canadians is that the Liberals are restricting debate on an important promise they made during the 1993 election campaign.

The Liberal promise for a national day care program was so important that it takes up almost two and half pages in the Liberal red book-pages 38 to 40 for those government members who are now running for their red books.

The Liberal broken promise on child care states:

In each year, following a year of 3 per cent economic growth, a Liberal government will create 50,000 new child care spaces to a total of 150,000.

Guess what? Economic growth using real GDP measured 4.6 per cent in 1994. According to the red book promise the Liberals should have created 50,000 new child care spaces in 1995. How many did they create? None that I know of. On page 39 of the Liberal red book, they promised to spend $120 million in 1995-95 to create 50,000 additional child care spaces. How much did they spend? Nothing that I am aware of.

The red ink book promised a total of $720 million in federal funding for a total of 150,000 new day care spaces. Another Liberal broken promise.

On January 24, 1994 the Deputy Prime Minister repeated the Liberal promise in the House of Commons. She said: "As soon as the economy has grown by 3 per cent we plan to open 150,000 new day care spaces within three years. That was clearly indicated in our red book and there is no doubt that the Prime Minister will fulfil the promises made in that book". Oh, really? We will see how prominent the Liberal red book is during the next election campaign.

In December 1995 the government's first minister of human resources promised $630 million to expand and improve day care spaces, but he made the offer conditional on the participation of the provinces. On March 8, 1996 the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, in response to a question in the House of Commons regarding the government's support for a national child care program, said: "Everything she quoted in the red book is true. It was true then and it is true today".

In June 1996 the new minister of HRD promised the provinces just $250 million over three years. Again the provinces were reluctant partners.

Now the broken election promise will be defended with the excuse that the provinces are to blame, not the Liberals in Ottawa. However, the reason I point out so clearly another broken red book promise is not that I am attempting to pressure the government to spend more tax dollars. I bring it up to illustrate how out of touch Liberals are with reality, to demonstrate how out of touch Liberals are with the real priorities of parents, how out of touch Liberals are with the real priorities of Canadian taxpayers. You cannot believe their promises.

The other reason I bring up the Liberal broken promise is to illustrate a serious flaw in the democratic and parliamentary process. How can the government go about offering $720 million, $630 million or even $250 million to the provinces for a national day care program when the matter has not even been debated in the House of Commons?

Let us get to the real reason for the debate today. If we are going to have a national day care program then the matter has to be debated in public and in the House of Commons. Frankly, I disagree with the federal government spending any money on a national day care program, and that is what the debate is about today.

The Liberal government should be embarrassed that it has to be a Reform MP who has to bring this issue on to the floor of the House of Commons as a private member's motion rather than as a government legislative initiative for a measure it promised in the 1993 election campaign and repeated in the Speech from the Throne.

The Liberal government should be embarrassed that it limited debate on this important issue to just one hour by deciding not to make this motion votable when it passed all 12 criteria for determining if an item will be votable in the House. It passed all 12 of the government's own guidelines.

I believe my motion is self-explanatory but when we deal with this government, nothing can be left to the imagination.

My motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not spend any more public money on non-parental day care initiatives at this time, and any existing expenditures for child care should subsidize financial need, not the method of child care chosen, and further that the program subsidize children and parents, not institutions and professionals.

My motion is based on longstanding Reform blue book policy. Reform's blue book is distinctly different from the Liberal red book. Reform's policies are made by our members in a democratic process that is open to all members of our party and voted on by delegates at our assemblies which, according to our party's constitution, are the highest authority and supreme governing body of the party.

Here is where Reformers stand on a national day care program. Reformers support child care programs that subsidize financial need, not the method of child care chosen, and that subsidize children and parents, not institutions and professionals. That is our policy.

Reformers oppose state run day care. Reformers support government regulation of day care standards by respecting provincial jurisdiction in this matter. Reformers support a system of flat rate taxation with continued recognition of the costs associated with the care of children. Until such a time as a system of flat rate taxation can be implemented, Reformers support the concept of income splitting between legally married couples to support and nurture families. Those are our policies.

Reformers believe, fundamentally, that the care of children is the domain of families and that parents must have full responsibility in Canadian society to nurture and provide for children.

Current federal programs are intrusive and restrict choices that parents may make in deciding on the best type of care for their children. We believe that the appropriate role for government is to provide a fair tax and benefit system that provides parents with the opportunity to properly care for their children in a manner of their own choosing, not the government's choosing. Government must uphold the exclusive authority and responsibility of parents in the area of raising children. The only acceptable role for government is as an intervener to protect children in cases of abuse or neglect.

Day care is a service that private organizations, families and individuals can provide efficiently and effectively. Because of this it is unnecessary for government to provide state run day care.

The provinces currently set their own regulations for day care and there certainly is not any reason for the federal government to set up another bureaucracy in Ottawa to duplicate work already being done by the provinces, nor does the federal government have the constitutional authority to intrude into yet another area of provincial jurisdiction.

Currently federal program spending in child care creates a system of incentives that favours institutionalized day care to the detriment of home care. This occurs through government subsidies for day care, financed by higher taxes on stay at home parents and, through the child care expense deduction, allowed only to parents with children in receiptable day care institutions, thereby creating further inequity and a clear bias in favour of institutional day care.

Another key point I would like to make in my speech today is to inform members of the House about the negative effects that institutionalized day care or, as my motion says, non-parental day care, has on the lives and future development of children. What effect does separating a baby from its mother for long periods of time have on the future development of the child? The answer to this question is truly alarming and proves beyond any doubt that institutionalized day care is a recipe for disaster.

Here is the proof. In February of 1995 I had the honour of hosting a news conference on Parliament Hill with Dr. Mark Genius, executive director of the National Foundation of Family Research and Education. At the news conference Dr. Genius released the findings of two extensive studies regarding the influence of regular separation from parents on young children.

Dr. Genuis said:

Research collected over the last 40 years on non-parental care demonstrates clearly that prior to five years of age, regular separation from parents results in an unmistakably negative effect on emotion and behavioural development in children, as well as a hindering effect on the security of the children's bonds to their parents. Further studies have linked children's insecure bonding with parents to clinical, emotional and behavioural difficulties, including youth crime.

Dr. Genuis continued:

The research demonstrates definite risks to the emotional health and behavioural adjustment of children when they are separated from their parents on a regular basis, most noticeably for periods of 20 or more hours per week. Further, improved cognitive skills have been argued by some as a reason for increased use of regular non-parental care. This is not supported by the research. In fact, the results indicate a minor negative effect for those children raised in regular non-parental care of more than 20 hours per week. There is also no scientific support for the claim that high quality day care is an acceptable substitute for parental care.

Dr. Genuis had this recommendation to the government:

Any program facilitating regular separation of children younger than five years of age from their parents, such as the government's present plan, will contribute to a destructive cycle within Canada. Canada's citizens will feel the effect through higher taxes, emotional distress, increased crime, lower work productivity and higher business costs due to mental illness and personal and family stress. The information now available to us in the area of regular non-parental care compels the government to reconsider its present plan. Further, based on the information that is now available, we recommend that the federal government give serious consideration to plans that would better enable families to take care of their own children.

I would like to clarify for the benefit of all members that Dr. Genuis' research involved a comprehensive analysis which combined and standardized the findings from all the studies conducted on day care since 1957 from throughout the world. All the problems identified by Dr. Genuis' research were not because day care institutions are bad places but a direct result of insecure bonding between the children and their parents caused by long periods of separation.

This is an impressive research effort and the findings are difficult, if not impossible, to refute. This is not to say that Dr. Genuis and his research have not come under attack; they have, but I might add that neither has been successfully challenged. No doubt my Liberal colleagues will have read articles and columns in the country's left-wing newspapers which regularly try to extol the virtues of institutionalized day care.

A study released this spring by the U.S. National Institutes of Health concluded that children's attachment to their mothers need not be harmed by as much as 30 hours a week of non-maternal care, the exact opposite of Dr. Genuis' exhaustive research. How can this be? I have to thank Financial Post columnist David Frum for pointing out the serious flaws in the study conducted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and reported on so favourably by the country's so-called national newspapers. I will quote directly from Mr. Frum's column published May 4, 1996:

When asked by a New York Times reporter why the National Institutes of Health team had found that children were less harmed by day care than previous researchers had found, the study co-ordinator replied that one explanation might be that previous studies focused on child care centres, which were found to provide the lowest quality of care. For a child to be spared the ill effects of separation from the mother, the National Institutes of Health team agreed it needs high quality care, which the NIH team found means care by fathers, or relatives or in the home by a caregiver. In other words, it does not hurt babies to be separated from mom, provided they are cared for by dad, grandma or an in-home nanny.

Mr. Frum also pointed out an obvious flaw in the National Institutes of Health study. It tracked the effects of day care only up to the age of 15 months. Mr. Frum also reported: "Even the authors of the National Institutes of Health study conceded that their results are as yet so provisional and tentative that it would be irresponsible to put too much weight on them".

On the other hand, Dr. Genuis' research on the negative effects of institutionalized day care are conclusive. What is amazing is that the Liberal government would propose spending almost three-quarters of a billion dollars without knowing exactly what the effects of institutionalized day care are on the future of our children, our families and our country.

By their actions the Liberals have proven they are prepared to take the latest left-wing fad and run with it, spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers hard earned dollars in the process without having any regard for the consequences. In light of the evidence, I would call the Liberal policy on day care as reckless disregard. Liberals obviously live by the credo of old style politicians: If the promise sounds good and will help us get elected, let us run with it.

The referendum on the Charlottetown accord proved that Canadian voters are smarter than the elitist politicians run by backroom bureaucrats and slick pollsters. Canada's political system is undergoing a major overhaul. It started in the kitchens, living rooms and coffee shops across the nation. People are paying very close attention to what politicians say, what they promise and more important, what they do when they get to Ottawa. Those politicians who become arrogant and out of touch, politicians who disregard the opinions of the silent majority do so at their own peril.

This is what the silent majority is telling the government about institutionalized day care. Liberal MPs should pay close attention. The people are trying to tell them something about their policies.

In the 1991 Decima poll, 70 per cent of women surveyed said they would prefer to stay home to care for their children, if they had a choice. The Angus Reid group confirmed these opinions in the April 1994 survey which found that 68 per cent of Canadians agreed and 58 per cent strongly agreed that the traditional two parent family with one parent at home is the best type of family to raise children. Amazingly, even 68 per cent of single parents also agreed with the statement.

Reformers are listening very closely to the people. That is why I introduced Motion No. 101. That is why I encourage everyone present in the House, including the hecklers across the way, to listen to the scientific evidence I have introduced. I introduced Motion No. 101 and I encourage everyone present to support a full and open debate on the day care issue before we compound our past mistakes by committing more money to build more day care bureaucracies across the country.

Institutionalized day care is clearly a big mistake, a very big mistake. Taxation has put extra stress on children because both parents in some households must work to keep afloat financially. Children in day care are more at risk and institutions cannot solve the problem, no matter what the quality of care is.

The fact is that institutionalized day care creates more problems, increased costs to justice, increased costs to education. In the process, it undermines the very fabric of society. The transmission of values from one generation to the other is seriously put at risk.

In conclusion, I ask the Liberals to honour their promise to make private members' business subject to free votes. Consequently, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make Motion No. 101 declared a votable item at this time.

[Gun Registration, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Liberal member for Souris-Moose Mountain made grossly inaccurate statements. He alleged that I was telling people in his riding to not respect the law. That is totally false. In fact it was the opposite.

The audience of over 200 was clearly told they should work to defeat the Liberal government so that Reform could repeal Bill C-68 and farmers and shooters would not have to register their guns.

The member did not come or even send representatives to this most important meeting in Moosomin. For over 200 farmers to show up at this meeting at harvest time shows how important an issue this is. They are frustrated with a government that does not listen and runs roughshod over the fundamental rights of people. Useless laws cause people to lose respect for the law.

Is this member telling his constituents to immediately run out and register their guns? Has he done an about face and decided that gun registration is a cost effective way of controlling crime?

I request that he immediately withdraw his statement. It is totally unacceptable for the member to blatantly misrepresent my words and Reform policy.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Wild Rose.

Before I give my comments on the legislative initiatives proposed in this bill, I want to make clear to my constituents that the Prisons and Reformatories Act only applies to persons sentenced for a federal offence and are being held in a provincial correctional facility. This would mean any convict sentenced to less than two years.

On the surface, the measures proposed in Bill C-53 seem to make sense. Apparently the new provisions have been requested by the provinces and territories. I have not had a chance to check with any of the provincial ministers about the measures the federal government has proposed, however I trust that the Standing Committee on Justice will do this during the clause by clause review of the bill. I hope the Liberals will allow the committee to do its job. Its previous record is not very good.

As I worked my way through the bill, I noted some obvious omissions. I do not know whether these were by design or by bureaucratic oversight. Before I could give my wholehearted support for Bill C-53, a number of amendments would have to be made.

Let me explain. Clause 2 of the bill, which amends section 7 of the act, states that the purpose of the temporary absence programs would be to contribute to the maintenance of a just and peaceful and safe society by facilitating the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.

If I had been given the job of writing this bill, the stated purpose of temporary absence programs would go something like this. To reward convicts who have served the majority of their sentences in an exemplary fashion, to demonstrate to other prisoners the value of good behaviour and the fairness of the merit release process, to permit offenders to participate in work programs or get a job in order to make restitution to their victims, to compensate the state for the costs of their incarceration and, ultimately, to deter them from committing crimes in the future.

It is refreshing, I will admit, to see a government bill that started out by including a statement of principles. This is the first thing I look for because if the government does not get the principles right, then the resulting legislative measures will never be right.

The first thing I noticed was the absence, and hopefully it is just a temporary absence, of the most important principle, namely that the protection of society is to be of paramount consideration in the determination of any case. Why was that paramount principle omitted? The government included such a principle in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Why is it missing from the Prison and Reformatories Act?

Even the legislative summary prepared by the law and government division of the research branch of the Library of Parliament states: "This bill seems to give less importance to the protection of society than does the Corrections and Conditional Release Act". That is a serious deficiency.

I have dealt with the most important missing principle. I would like to note some other deficiencies in the other principles in Bill C-53. As it is currently worded, the second principle states that: "All available information relevant to the case be taken into account". Here is the key question. What does the government mean by all available information? Does it include victim impact statements? Does it give victims the right to be heard at any review to consider release of an inmate under the temporary absence program? If it does not, it should.

I also recommend that the bill include a definition of the term all available information and a list of the types of information that should be taken into account by the designated authority during any review process.

The third principle states that prisoners be provided with relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the review of decisions. Does this mean that only prisoners are to be provided with relevant information? If the Liberal government is as concerned about the victims' rights as it says it is, then why are they not included in this principle?

I know that the fourth principle says that the designated authority may provide for the timely exchange of relevant information with other participants in the criminal justice system and make general information about temporary absence programs and policies available to prisoners, victims and the public.

However, I am sure even Liberals will agree that the victims' rights are at least as important as the right of prisoners. If so, then the third principle must be amended to read, and I quote what should be in there: "That prisoners and their victims be provided with relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the review of decisions". Unless that is included I cannot support the bill.

I also have some concerns about the new power being given in this bill to the provinces, that is, the power to appoint any person or any organization as a designated authority. If Bill C-53 is passed into law, then any person or any organization so designated by the province would be responsible for authorizing temporary absences for prisoners in that province.

In the current legislation the province has the power to appoint an officer to make decisions regarding temporary absences. At least an officer paid by the government can be held accountable. How can the government hold any person or any organization accountable? That is a key question.

Citizens are already concerned about the lack of accountability in the corrections system. Citizens are attacked, injured, robbed, maimed, murdered by convicts out on temporary release and no one is to blame. The new victim is not even allowed to sue the government for its mistake. This a concern for me as well, not just my constituents.

I recommend that the wording of the current act be retained. At least if the designated authority is an officer, then some form of direct accountability can be guaranteed. If the designated authority is a sentencing circle or some do gooder or some prisoners rights society, then how will accountability be guaranteed by the government? Canadians are asking for more accountability, not less. This bill is moving in the wrong direction. This is a serious flaw.

The next section deals with the reasons for the so-called designated authority to authorize a temporary absence. The reasons do not list the most important reason for a temporary absence. That should be, and I hope that this quotation will go into the bill, to participate in work programs, to make restitution to their victims and to compensate the state for the cost of their incarceration and ultimately to deter them from committing other crimes in the future. That is common sense. That ought to be in there. It is a serious flaw that it is not included.

Finally, there should be a section in this bill which deals specifically with the accountability and liability of the government

and the designated authority if a convict they let out on temporary absence commits another crime.

I do not need to remind members on this side of the House, but maybe the Liberal members on the other side need a little reminder. Daniel Gingras was on a temporary escorted absence to the West Edmonton Mall when he escaped, subsequently killing and raping several citizens.

I understand that dangerous criminals like Gingras should not be held in provincial institutions. In this job I have come to realize that a lot of things happen that just do not make sense. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential that victim rights come before prisoner rights and that the protection of society come before the rights of a prisoner to temporary release.

There is only one way I know to put these principles first, give Canadians the right to sue the government for its mistakes. If given this right to sue the government for injuries and damages caused by its mistakes I guarantee there would be a lot fewer mistakes.

In conclusion, this bill looks good on the surface but we need to go beyond impression and make sure we get it all right. It must promote responsibility and accountability. It must give victims more rights than criminals.

The Liberals always say they listen and they want constructive suggestions. I hope they are listening and will take these constructive suggestions into account. I hope the proper amendments will be made so that I can support this bill.

[Points Of Order, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, would this be appropriate as a point of privilege in that it hampers my ability as a member of Parliament to do my job properly if someone makes a misstatement about me?

[Points Of Order, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a statement that was made by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain during question period. I did not say what the member alleged.

In point of fact, it was the opposite. I did not tell anyone to break the law. I clearly said that Bill C-68 should be repealed so that people do not have to pay for or comply with useless legislation. When asked directly, I did not dodge the question but said that I will obey the law. We must work hard to repeal Bill C-68-

[Firearms Registration, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada I would like to thank the governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Yukon for their constitutional challenge of the Liberal government's flawed national firearms registration system.

Last week the provincial justice ministers argued publicly that the registration of rifles and shotguns will not be effective in reducing crime; that gun registration does nothing to reduce crimes involving firearms or smuggling; that gun registration is an inappropriate use of scarce resources right across the country. They said that the federal government has repeatedly failed to produce evidence of a correlation between a firearms registry and reduction in crime. They said it is time to target criminals who use weapons to commit crimes, not penalize law-abiding citizens under the guise of gun registration.

If this court challenge is successful, then the hundreds of millions saved will be able to be redirected to fighting real crime and real criminals by putting more police officers in our communities rather than keeping them back in the office processing useless bits of paper.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the support I have received from my colleagues with regard to this motion. It is fundamental to freedom in our society and I think the point has been made adequately.

In summary, it must be pointed out to the government that property rights are not adequately protected in Canada. Things are happening today that are not acceptable in a free and democratic society and the examples given clearly demonstrated that. We have to ask the question: Why would a government not want to protect them more adequately so that all citizens could go about their business with the freedom to which they are entitled?

In summary, there are three reasons property rights are good: they make a society richer; they protect the freedom of individuals; and they protect the environment. Those are the arguments we as Reformers have been trying to make.

Property rights make society richer in that they spur the creative effort of individuals to improve their own circumstances. Property rights are a guarantee that we get to keep what we own, we can dispose of what we own, enjoy the fruits of our labour and our property cannot be arbitrarily taken from us even by government. These rights are important to an economy such as ours. For societies to flourish and for things to be as they should, countries need to guarantee those property rights.

People should be free to make their own decisions about how to best use their possessions, including the fruits of their labour. For those not already enjoying material wealth, their labour is the most valuable thing they own. It is particularly important that everyone be guaranteed the right to improve their situation and benefit from the improvements they make. In the long run the right to make decisions about one's own life and work is the foundation of human dignity.

My last point is that property rights protect the environment. The problem of pollution is not that people pollute their own surroundings, but that they pollute the surroundings of others around them, including air and water. Without property rights, a distant government rather than the afflicted individual makes a judgment about how much pollution should be allowed. Governments weigh the political benefits of such pollution against the political costs and most often favour the polluter.

In conclusion, this debate highlights the fundamental difference between a Reformer and a Liberal. In order to maintain a free and democratic society, individual rights must be protected. This is something that must be fundamentally supported by every member in this House.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

Shame.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on February 29 this year I seconded Bill C-201, introduced by my hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, and I would like to thank him at this time for the opportunity to speak to and support the bill.

This is the second reading of the bill. It has been deemed votable by a committee of the House. The bill essentially would amend section 255(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada to impose a minimum seven year sentence for a person convicted of the crime of impaired driving causing death.

This is a piece of legislation known as a private member's bill and it really deserves the support of every person in the House. I really and sincerely hope the Prime Minister will allow a free vote on this and that every member of the House will look at this piece of legislation and throw their political affiliation aside and listen to the debate and hopefully support it.

Before I go into many of the reasons here, I would like members to imagine for a moment what we must do in order to seriously consider drunk driving as a very serious type of behaviour, something we should not tolerate in our society.

We have done a lot of educating of members of the public to make them aware that they should not drive while impaired and much of that education has been taken to heart, but education in and of itself does not do it all. Other signals must be sent to society to illustrate how serious this is, something that no one should ever do, something akin to manslaughter. To take the life of someone while impaired is unacceptable.

This bill has the potential to save lives, much more potential than some of the other legislation that the justice department has brought down. I would like to make the point that good laws and punishment do not necessarily make people good but they do restrain evil, unacceptable behaviour and that is why this bill should be supported.

A drunk driver going down the highway is very much like a hand grenade lying on a playground with a timing device that has an arbitrary time on it. This hand grenade has had the pin pulled but the timing device as to when it will explode is completely unknown. We do not know if there is going to be someone in that playground when it goes off or maybe it will explode in the middle of the night when there is no one there. Maybe it will go off when there are a lot of people around.

That is what it is like when a drunk driver is going down a highway unable to completely control his vehicle and react appropriately to something that may happen very quickly. We would not tolerate someone placing a hand grenade in a playground not knowing when it would go off anymore than we should tolerate a drunk driver going down the highway. That is why this bill is really important.

Here are some of the reasons why I second this important piece of legislation in addition to what I have just said. Three times the number of people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered. That is a lot of people in comparison to the number of murders. Even though the Criminal Code provides a maximum penalty of 14 years for drunk driving for killing someone with his car, the actual sentences are only one to four years. I ask members of this House is that all a person's life is worth?

We have to send a signal through our courts to people in society that this is very serious and they should obey the law. Such low sentences do not provide a meaningful deterrent to those who continue to drive while drunk, while out of their minds. Such low sentences do not reflect the public's concern for this type of crime. Impaired drivers are responsible for 90 per cent of the fatal car crashes in which they are involved. That is an unacceptably high level.

One of the main reasons the carnage on our highways does not stop is the present leniency of our courts. Imposing a minimum sentence of seven years for killing a person while driving drunk will send the strongest of messages that the lethal consequences of driving while impaired will not be tolerated by society.

Here are some other facts which I think need to be repeated. Forty to seventy per cent of impaired drivers have had prior alcohol related offences. They know they have a problem. It takes between 200 to 2,000 incidents of driving while impaired to produce one arrest, not a conviction, just an arrest. And 57 per cent of those charged had at least one similar offence in the previous five years. Impaired driving charges are dismissed or reduced in 40 per cent of cases. Our courts need to deal more seriously with these things.

Bill C-201 has had the support of many organizations. Here are some of them: Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Canadian Youth

Against Against Impaired Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, Nepean Committee Against Impaired Driving, Friends and Family Against Drunk Driving.

I understand there has been material circulating in the government benches disputing the support of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, MADD Canada. Let me quote from two letters sent to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. On March 20, 1996, Mr. Jim Wideman, executive director of MADD Canada wrote:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of MADD Canada, I would like to reaffirm our support of Private Member's Bill C-201. I am aware that other correspondence has been made to Mr. Rock's office. Let me reiterate that the National Board of MADD Canada, our Chapters and Members wholeheartedly support Bill C-201.

On May 16, 1996 Jane Meldrum, president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Canada, wrote:

It is my understanding that during the last hour of debate that [the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River] rose in the House of Commons and referred to the letter from MADD Canada indicating that MADD did not support this bill. This letter was written by a member of the Board of MADD Canada and was the opinion of this person as an individual and not of that of the Board. This letter was not approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors and was not approved to be sent on MADD Canada letterhead. This individual has been advised of this and has been requested to retract his statement.

I would like to now respond to a couple of other criticisms of this bill in the short time I have remaining.

We have heard that some Liberal backbench MPs oppose this amendment because the minimum sentence would be inconsistent with the sentencing provisions of other sections of the Criminal Code, in particular section 220, criminal negligence causing death.

While we thank our hon. colleagues for pointing this out, the solution is not to oppose this bill but to propose an amendment or introduce another bill that would make sentencing provisions consistent.

We heard another concern that the mandatory minimum sentence might discourage accused drunk driver killers from pleading guilty and thereby typing up more time in the courts and causing more pain for the families of the victims. One of the most important principles of our criminal justice system is that the punishment must fit the crime. It is clear that drunk drivers who kill are quite literally getting away with murder.

If the average sentence for those convicted of impaired driving causing death was half the maximum sentence of 14 years, permitted under section 255(3), I would say let us leave well enough alone, but this is not the case. The average sentence for impaired driving causing death ranges between one to four years. I think the majority of Canadians would agree with me that this punishment does not fit the crime.

As for the rights and interests of the victim's family, the most important issue for them is to ensure there is a sense of closure to the case and, above all else, that the sentence equates with real

justice. The victim's family also needs to know that the death of their loved one served some purpose, that the punishment of the crime will in some way prevent someone else's death. This is what a mandatory minimum sentence will do. This is why thousands of Canadians have told us to support this bill.

Finally, our critics tell us that the minimum sentence of seven years for killing someone will be challenged under the charter of rights and freedoms because it is cruel and unusual punishment. If anyone really thinks that this sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, I would ask them to conduct a poll of all the families that have had a loved one killed by a drunk driver and ask them what they think.

While there are lawyers out there who would love to make some money bringing forward a charter challenge, and while the Liberal government is even willing to pay the lawyer to bring the case forward under the reinstituted court challenges program, and while there are judges who might agree with their claim regarding seven years in jail for impaired driving causing death, the government will lose the case in the most important court, the public opinion of this land.

Frankly, I believe we need to support this bill. I think I have put forth some good arguments and hopefully all members will be open to it.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I served on the human resources development committee for two years after being elected to Parliament. I would like to recount a bit of my experience on that committee and ask the hon. member for Wild Rose to comment.

One of the first things the government mandated that committee to do was consult Canadians. We were instructed to make a cross-Canada tour to find out how social programs should be changed, reformed and modernized.

As a young rookie parliamentarian I felt that was very important thing we needed to do. One of the reasons I was elected was to change and modernize Canada's social programs. Canadians wanted to preserve some of their most valuable social programs and so I participated in that complete tour. We went across Canada and consulted for over six weeks. We amassed volumes and volumes of material on what Canadians wanted to do. I was excited about the possibilities of what could be done.

The tour cost millions of dollars. We went from Yukon to Newfoundland to consult Canadians about what the wanted to do with unemployment insurance, pensions, welfare, health and all

the areas under this entire umbrella. It was virtually half of government spending.

Canadians told us very clearly what they wanted to do with unemployment insurance. That was one of the special interests I had on this. Canadians wanted unemployment insurance to again be a true insurance program. They wanted a lot of the things the government had put into that program taken out and made a true insurance program with employers and employees having a much greater say in how the funds would be managed.

I was most disappointed when at the end of this tour the minister completely disregarded what the committee had done. The minister completed disregarded the input Canadians had through that committee.

I was shocked at the amount of money that was wasted. All of this material was simply shoved away. I do not know what room it was put in but it would have taken a fairly large room to house all of the submissions that people, in good faith, thought were going to be heard by this government. It was completely disregarded. This was a farce, as my colleague said.

The government claims it will listen to the committees, that the committees will be effective and have an influence on the agenda. There is concrete proof that absolutely nothing was done. This committee process was an absolute joke. The government completely disregarded the report and the recommendations that were made.

A government that claims that the committees will be effective and which made that promise in its red book has completely reneged on that. I am very concerned that it continues to give the impression that through the committees effective changes will be made to legislation. That is not happening. I have been an eye witness to the waste of money and time these committees are because Canadians do not have a say even when the government tries to give the impression that it is consulting.

Would the hon. member have any comments with regard to that? I think it is a serious matter which I have not heard addressed. However, it continues to go on behind the scenes all the time.