Lynne Yelich

[Gasoline Prices, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, sophisticated or not, inflated gasoline prices are hurting drivers in Saskatchewan and across the country.

Fuel taxes account for more than a third of what we pay at the pumps. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that raising the fuel tax and the GST is not a part of the policy of the Government of Canada.

Can the minister tell Canadians, does his policy include lowering the tax we pay on fuel?

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member what he thought when it appeared the Auditor General was taking some heat for her report and was probably overdramatizing. Has the member any comments about that?

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard correctly, but did the parliamentary secretary say that the government was putting legislation forward that crown corporations will be included in the access to information legislation?

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member for Provencher.

The member raised the point that it has cost taxpayers a lot of money to have the committee sit. What kind of dollars does he think even that costs? When we think of interpreters and witnesses, they all get paid. None of those testimonies will be worth anything by the sounds of it. Are there any particular witnesses that he thinks should have come forward and that probably will not because the inquiry shut down? Can he compare it to the Somalia inquiry where it was just shut down and there was not ever any conclusion?

[Public Service, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we also spoke to the president of the Public Service Commission who could not fix this discrimination by postal code because the President of the Treasury Board refuses to release the funds to implement the plan.

The president of the Public Service Commission has a strategy and a plan; however, the Liberals seem determined to keep Canadians from working in their own capital.

Will the President of the Treasury Board now support the Public Service Commission's request and release funds to fix this inequality or will the Liberals continue to perpetuate this?

[Public Service, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, two Saskatchewan law students responded to our Monday question about government jobs for students being restricted to residents with certain postal codes around Ottawa.

These students both applied to work in Ottawa under the federal student work experience program which claims fair and equal access. They were told in writing that “we try to place students from the capital region first”.

Why are students in Saskatchewan denied the same job opportunities as those in the national capital region?

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-452, an act to amend the Criminal Code (proceedings under section 258).

The bill presents an important opportunity to strengthen the laws surrounding the investigation and prosecution of impaired driving and related offences. Too often individuals who choose to drive while drunk or otherwise impaired face no consequences. Even when they are caught, they can take advantage of technical loopholes to avoid justice.

My colleague's bill would eliminate some of these loopholes by giving the courts the ability to use blood or breath sample results as proof of the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of the alleged offences. The span of time during which a sample could be taken would also be increased to three hours from the current two.

These are positive changes that would correct earlier parliamentary oversights and make drunk drivers less likely to get away with their crimes. This is particularly important, because without intervention, impaired driving tends to be an oft-repeated crime with tremendous potential for tragic results. For example, impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Approximately 1,350 people die each year in alcohol related motor vehicle crashes. That is a death rate two to three times higher than the national murder rate. Another 200 people are injured each day in impaired driving related incidents.

Over the last 20 years, alcohol has been a contributing factor in 30% to 50% of fatal crashes. The social and human costs are staggering. From an economic perspective, Transport Canada estimates the annual cost associated with health care, damaged property and lost wages resulting from crashes involving alcohol in Canada exceeds $5 billion.

The need to implement legislative changes that could reduce the number of impaired drivers on our roads is particularly important to the people in my home province of Saskatchewan, which has a higher rate of drunken driving than any other province in Canada.

Given the figures hon. members have just heard, it is clear that we have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure that authorities have the resources and legislative backing needed to successfully identify, charge and prosecute impaired drivers.

The member for Lakeland's bill addresses some important steps in achieving the goal. As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-452 would extend the time allowed for the taking of breath or blood samples from an accused in the investigation of an alleged offence from two to three hours. This would allow authorities more time to collect samples and could reduce the number of cases thrown out because the Crown chooses not to expend the resources necessary to have a toxicological expert verify results of samples not taken within the two hour timeframe.

The bill would also allow a court to use the results of the analysis of the sample, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused's blood at the time of the alleged offence was not less than the concentration shown in the results. In cases where the accused challenged those results, he or she would face the eventual burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, factors that affect their reliability.

Finally, the bill would require a court to consider other evidence in deciding whether the accused had discharged the burden of proof. The courts have interpreted the Criminal Code in such a manner that breath or blood tests are often thrown out based solely on the accused's own testimony. Without the test results, the charges are usually dropped or the accused is acquitted.

Two of the main defences used by the accused are the Carter defence and the last drink defence. Hon. members may have heard these described in the House before, but they bear repeating.

The Carter defence is that the accused testifies that he or she had only a small amount to drink prior to the offence. The defence would call a toxicologist to confirm that the accused's blood alcohol content would definitely have been below the legal limit if such a small amount were consumed. If the court accepted the accused's evidence, the test results would be completely disregarded, even if they were administered properly, were consistent with the reading on the roadside screening device and were supported by the officer's evidence that the accused showed signs of intoxication.

The second is the last drink defence. The accused testifies that he or she consumed a large amount of alcohol immediately after driving. The contention is that this alcohol would not yet have been absorbed into the bloodstream when stopped by the police.

The accused argues that his or her blood alcohol content was below the legal limit when driving, and only rose above the limit in the interval between being stopped and being tested. Again, the breath results are rejected and the accused is acquitted.

What is the result? Despite an estimated 12.5 million impaired driving trips every year in Canada, the majority of offenders are not stopped by police and, even when they are stopped, officers do not press charges. Police officers do not believe their work will result in convictions because the laws are not strong enough.

A recent letter from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice suggested that this group, who sadly know too well the potential consequences of impaired driving, supports the changes put forward by the member for Lakeland.

MADD National Executive Director Andrew Murie wrote: “It is now almost 20 years that the Carter defence has made a mockery of the Criminal Code's elaborate provisions designed to curtail the grave social problem posed by drinking drivers. Parliament's failure to respond meaningfully condones the undermining of the statutory provisions. Surely it stands as an indictment of the present government that amendments shown by experience to be necessary have been shirked to the extent that a private member must take it upon himself to fill the gap”.

This is an important bill that could save lives. By improving the odds that an impaired driver will face consequences for his or her actions, I believe we can reduce the number of drivers willing to take that chance. With impaired driving affecting so many Canadians each day, I encourage all members in the House to support this bill.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I really have to wonder if the two members who spoke before are really from Saskatchewan. What I heard was incredible. They are talking about trying to debate health care. Health care is what we should be debating. All I heard was a rant. I do not believe they are really concerned about health care one iota. If they were, they would go home and try to access our health care. It is not always accessible to those with real health problems.

I can tell about a person who went in for a knee operation. He was quite healthy and was told to have both knees operated on at the same time. He had both done at the same time and never came out of the hospital. I can tell about a person who had to go back into the hospital to have a limb re-broken. What about the workmen's compensation patients who go to Calgary for MRIs because our province does not have an MRI machine available for Saskatchewan workmen's compensation clients?

That is why nobody wants to participate in this debate. It is sickening.

[Bill C-250, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate may have seen fit to pass Bill C-250 yesterday, but that brings little reassurance to the hundreds of Canadians who have contacted me with their concerns about the legislation. They are worried that Bill C-250 will be used to attack legitimate forms of opinion and expression, rather than as a means of protecting minorities in Canada. The Owens case, in which a Saskatchewan man was declared guilty of a hate crime for advertising passages from the Bible, proves there is validity to their concern.

With so much of this soon to be law left open to interpretation, there is a definite opportunity to misuse and abuse. On behalf of my constituents in Blackstrap, I can only express my hope that the spirit of this law will prevail over its potential as a gag on our freedom of speech.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid concern, one of the difficulties I brought up earlier today.

For example, in January our returning officers started getting trained and were starting to book and to lease. Also, we have been going to different businesses, getting ready for the election. This puts all of these businesses in some sort of abeyance. They do not know what to do. It is either yes or no. Are we going to need them or should they just put everything on hold?

The last couple of weeks have been difficult, in that we are trying to decide from day to day. It reminds me of back when I would ask my two year old daughter if she wanted breakfast and she would say maybe yes and maybe no.

This is how this possible election campaign call has been for us, so let us imagine what it is like for the businesses we are dealing with and also for our returning officers in regard to their training. Will their training be up to date by the time the election is called if the Prime Minister decides to wait one more year?

This could all be set. It would be very accountable. It would be transparent. It would be affordable and acceptable and intelligent.