Mark Warawa

[Relay for Life, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Langley just had its first ever Relay for Life and it was a huge success. Seventy Langley teams raised more than $200,000 for cancer research and services.

People signed up with their co-workers, neighbours, family and friends. The young and the old participated. An incredible feeling of community pride developed on that beautiful sunny Langley day.

The top fundraising team was Team Trimac Trucking, which raised $12,000. The top individual fundraiser was Barb Shannon, who personally raised $3,000.

Most of us have been touched by cancer. I am so proud of my community and the way we stepped up to meet the challenge. This was an amazing event that brought Langley citizens closer together, united in raising funds to fight cancer.

Congratulations to all the participants and to all the incredibly hard-working organizers of that event.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 does not have a plan, which is why the Conservative Party is objecting to it. It was a plan that was created over a weekend. This is it. It is one page, oops, on a napkin. Where did that come from? Canadians demand better than one page on a napkin.

All we are saying is that $4.5 billion, without a plan, makes it very clear that Canadians are being overtaxed. Canadians do not trust the government because of its 12 years of mismanagement, and it has to change.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not oppose any of the things he listed. I support housing for the poor. I support a strong educational program for students. I have five grown children and I know the costs of tuition. It is expensive for them to go to school. I also support international aid. Our party supports all these things but the government has had 12 years to do these things.

The member talked about empty political rhetoric. Twelve years of government is empty political rhetoric when we still have Canadians waiting for over four years for a hip replacement. They are suffering, and it is unconscionable.

The Liberals started a program called compassionate care and gave Canadians hope. However they are still not permitting Canadians to spend the last six weeks with their dying loved ones. It is a program they trumpet but it is empty rhetoric.

I have numerous examples of the Liberals speaking but not acting. If a Conservative government is given a chance, we will meet those needs and we will do it with a plan and a timeline that will represent Canadians in a way that Canadians want to be represented.

Empty rhetoric has to stop and the only way that it will be stopped is if the present government is replaced.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak right after the prayer for our country. I regularly get phone calls, letters and cards saying that Canadians are praying for this Parliament to have the wisdom to do the right thing.

I am one of the members of the rookie class, elected almost a year ago, but I came here not being a rookie to serving our community. I served as a city councillor for 14 years, almost 15 years now. Over those 14 years in municipal government, we would wring our hands and work hard on the budget, and I will speak on the plans in Bill C-48.

Months were spent in deliberations, trying to be accountable for every dollar in local government but it became increasingly difficult. Over the last 12 years, the dollars became more and more scarce. The finance minister of those days, our now Prime Minister, squeezed and pulled more and more money out of provincial and local governments with the plan to save more money for the federal government.

At the time I was first elected, 50% of the money to fund health care came from the federal government. Now it is only 20%. That is just one small example. It continues to be difficult.

Now that finance minister is the Prime Minister, the difficulties in local government for our citizens, our taxpayers, continues. I supported Bill C-43. That was our budget and consultation had gone into it. It was not a budget with which everybody was particularly happy but we could live with it. We did not want to call an election over it so we supported the bill.

However, along came Bill C-48. Why are we having the debate on Bill C-48? We had a crisis in Parliament because of the corruption and sponsorship scandals. A cloud was hanging over the government. A flurry of offers and deals were being made in an effort to bolster the government. Without the help of the NDP, the government would have fallen. Over the weekend, on a napkin deal, we had Bill C-48.

Bill C-48 does not involve planning. It does not involve consultation. It involves a backroom deal, a napkin deal, that does not represent the wishes of Canadians. Our responsibility is to serve Canadians and to be extremely accountable for every Canadian tax dollar that is sent to Ottawa. Bill C-48 does not represent that. It is a plan that was concocted with no thought or consultation. It is a plan where $4.5 billion will be given to the finance minister to spend at his discretion. How can anybody support that? Canadians do not support that. They want accountability and we do not see that in the government. We do not see that in Bill C-48. When I say government, it is basically a coalition government of the Liberals and NDP.

When I thought about the two parties, I wondered what we would call the Liberal and NDP if we were to mix the two. We would probably end up with the nibble party, a party that nibbles away at Canadians. It is not a party that we and Canadians would be proud of.

Without accountability, Canadians do not know what is going to be done with that money. Do Canadians trust the track record of the last 12 years of the government? They do not.

Part of the $4.5 billion funding in the bill is to go toward the environment. Are we supposed to trust the government to spend it on the environment? Again, it is a promise that over the next many years there will be funding for the environment. For 12 years the government was supposed to do the right thing for the environment but over the last 12 years pollution levels have continued to increase, not decrease.

What about the Kyoto plan? This party said that Kyoto had some merits but that it was not good enough. Canadians are demanding better. Yes, we need to deal with carbon dioxide and the effect on global warming. We acknowledge that but we need better. Kyoto only deals with the carbon dioxide effects. We need to deal with the particulates, the pollution. Every year, hundreds of Canadians are dying prematurely because of the high pollution levels.

Over 12 years, has anything happened there? No. Just a few months ago, even after the 12th hour and pressure from this party to come up with a plan, we finally received a plan. However the plan shows that it will be very difficult to achieve the targets and it is Canadians who will have to help solve that problem. A plan that says the targets will be very difficult to achieve is not a plan. The plan will involve going back to Canadians for more money. With Bill C-48, $4.5 billion of overtaxation will be taken from the Canadian taxpayers.

How do we meet those Kyoto targets dealing with the pollution? We will have to increase energy costs. Canadians are furious over having to pay approximately $1 a litre for gasoline and gas prices that fluctuate daily. However as the government starts implementing the Kyoto plan, the money to buy those carbon credits, the billions of dollars, will be coming from the Canadian taxpayer for energy costs. We are looking at $2 to $3 for a litre of gas with this no-plan.

We still are not dealing with the pollution. Even after 12 years, the government is still allowing raw sewage to be dumped into our oceans. It is unacceptable and Canadians want that stopped. The Liberals have had chances to stop it and they have not. The fact is that the NDP had a chance to clean up the raw sewage being dumped into Victoria Harbour but it did absolutely nothing. Maybe this unholy alliance really is not that uncommon because their values are very similar. They both accept dumping raw sewage into our oceans as an acceptable environmental standard. Canadians demand better.

Canadians demand better for health care. A number of seniors in my riding of Langley have come up to me demanding respect and demanding health care. A number of these people have been waiting for a hip replacement for over four years. That is not acceptable.

What this party is demanding is accountability and Bill C-48 does not provide accountability. Canadians do not support this plan and they do not support the rush to have Bill C-48 go through.

We need to have more consultation. At the committee stage of the bill the Conservative Party offered a number of amendments that would have improved the bill but they were not accepted? Why were they not accepted? Because the Liberals wanted to rush Bill C-48 through with no accountability, just trust. They are asking Canadians to trust them. Canadians do not trust the Liberals and they are telling us not to support Bill C-48.

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-275, and acknowledge the wonderful hard work that we have seen from the members for Abbotsford and for Cariboo—Prince George.

Every driver's worst fear is to accidentally hit a child who runs between parked cars and chases a ball out into the road or on a dark rainy night hitting someone who darts across the road instead of crossing at a crosswalk. These scenarios could happen to anyone. No one would like to go to jail after experiencing such a horrific event. These drivers are not the ones that Carley's law is targeting.

Carley's law targets the driver who hits someone and then makes a conscious decision to leave, possibly leaving the victim to die. Carley's law would protect Canadians from the driver who makes a choice to flee in the hopes that no one saw the licence plate. Carley's law would protect Canadians from the driver who has an accident and also had a few drinks that day and is more afraid of the penalties of the drunk driving conviction than they are for a hit and run and they choose to flee the scene. Carley's law would protect us from the dangerous drivers who already have a number of convictions and they are afraid of one more and they choose to run. That is who Carley's law will target.

On January 6, 2003, Carley Regan, a 13 year old Langley girl, lost her life when she was struck from behind by a hit and run driver. Carley was rollerblading. Her sister and her friend were bicycling right beside her when all three were hit. The two younger girls were knocked into the ditch, but thankfully were not injured. Carley died on the road.

At the time of the fatal hit and run, driver Paul Wettlaufer was under a driving suspension. On the night of the accident, Wettlaufer maintains he was not drinking or speeding and did not see anyone on the rural road. He said he did not realize what he had struck. When he did realize what had happened, he panicked and fled, leaving the dying girl on the road. Despite him leaving the scene and removing the licence plates from his vehicle, Wettlaufer said he was not trying to cover up the incident. Wettlaufer had 11 previous driving prohibitions and citations in six years.

Carley's law is close to my heart. Carley Regan lived and died in my riding of Langley, B.C. January 6, 2003, is a day that I, too will never forget. Before I was elected as a member of Parliament for Langley, I was the road safety loss prevention coordinator for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I wrote the report on all Langley traffic fatalities. All fatalities are tragic, but I remember this one vividly because it involved such a young life, such a beautiful girl and a cowardly act.

As anyone who became involved in this case, I became emotionally involved and grieved the loss of that young life.

I had been to the roadside memorial in Carley's honour. In fact, after the accident, I drove that road regularly for a month at different times during the day and evening trying to figure out what had happened. Carley's death was a tragedy that affected many people, and it should not have happened.

To keep our sanity, police officers, health workers and others like myself who work on cases like, we try to keep an emotional detachment. With Carley Regan it was impossible to detach oneself. I would think about what if it was my child, what if it was one of my loved ones? The tragedy was that she lost her life. The tragedy was that the driver should not have been on the road that night. The tragedy was that Paul Wettlaufer had a choice to stop but he did not. He left Carley there dying.

Bill C-275, Carley's law would require a minimum of seven years to life for a hit and run causing death; a punishment less than murder sentences but greater than manslaughter. It would also equate hit and run causing bodily harm with attempted murder, a punishment of four years to life. Carley's law would prohibit plea bargaining cases of hit and run.

Wettlaufer was committed to trial to face charges of dangerous driving causing death. Crown counsel however plea bargained the case with Wettlaufer subsequently pleading guilty to three counts of hit and run and one count of driving while prohibited. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, three years of probation and 10 years driving suspension. He served 12 months in prison and was released.

Carley's law, if passed, will prevent for the first time in Canada crown counsel from plea bargaining the charge of hit and run so that those who hit and run must face the charge. A message needs to be sent that it is unacceptable to evade responsibility by fleeing the accident site.

Bill C-275 is name for Carley Regan, but she is by far not the only victim. We have heard of others from members who previously spoke. In my riding of Langley right after Carley's death there was another Langley hit and run.

A Langley father of two, David Slack, was left to die on the shoulder of the Fraser highway. The person who hit him left him to die. He should have stopped. Right after that in Vancouver there was an elderly gentleman hit and left to die on the side of the road. This happens all too often and they flee with the plan that they will get away and not be caught, and often they are not.

Carley's law would make Canadians aware that if a person hits someone with his or her vehicle, the person must stay at the scene. Carley's law will save lives.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving are asking us for sentencing reform. MADD says that current practices are making a mockery of the Canadian judicial system. MADD Canada wants conditional sentences eliminated for the crimes of impaired driving causing death and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Canadian courts have been frequently handing out conditional sentences for violent crimes, which were never intended by Parliament.

In an impaired driving crash where a person has been killed or seriously injured, there needs to be appropriate sentences handed down that reflect both the seriousness of the crime and our value of life.

Every driver in Canada is aware of the punishment drunk driving. As we have heard, fear of a drunk driving conviction can be an impetus for a person to commit a hit and run, which is just as serious a crime, if not more so. Therefore, if we establish penalties for one crime, we must keep them in line with others. We need Carley's law to keep drunk drivers from simply leaving the scene of an accident to avoid an impaired driving conviction.

MADD Canada wants an active commitment from all members of Parliament to initiate a comprehensive plan that will answer for the loss of lives and the social cost of these crimes.

I am one MP who will do that very thing. I believe legislation like Carley's law needs to be part of a plan. For a justice system to promote public safety and generate public safety confidence, it must place a premium on truth.

Canada's current sentencing system does not promote truth in sentencing. In section 245 of the Criminal Code, 25 years can mean only 15 years and 15 years does not really mean 15 years when we consider parole eligibility: clock running from the point of arrest, not the point of sentencing.

Federal law now permits conditional sentencing, intermittent sentencing, suspended sentencing, merged sentencing and sentence administration. Truth in sentencing means when a judge issues a sentence that is what one will serve.

Carley's law shows the need for complete sentencing reform in Canada. Carley's law highlights the need for truth in sentencing.

The official opposition has been calling for a complete overhaul of our sentencing legislation for many years. Opponents of mandatory minimum sentencing say that it gives unwanted direction to judges who, some fear, have too much flexibility in sentencing. In reality judges are so hemmed in by the current restrictions on sentencing that they have no room to impose the higher sentences that the public demands. We never see maximum sentencing.

Canadians want sentencing reform. We need to bring forward sentencing reform. We need to follow guidelines and principles of minimum sentencing. We can start that right now with Carley's law. We have heard the tragic stories. It is not adequate. My riding of Langley demands better and Canadians demand better. It is our responsibility, each of us in the House, to provide that.

Let us allow Carley's law, Bill C-275, to proceed to committee. If amendments have to be made, the drafters of the bill are open to that, but it will be a good start to providing accountability and eliminating the ability of people to flee from their responsibilities.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Maybe there is going to be a start, but I would appreciate it if they would stop the heckling. Let us do something to keep Canadians together.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

All I receive, even now, is heckling on compassionate care. Not once in the House have NDP members supported our call for the government to permit family members to take care of a dying loved one. Not once.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question but we are talking about a previous Parliament. In this Parliament--

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I looked through the motions with which the House dealt. There was a Conservative motion that there be no clawbacks, that the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, receive those. It was the government that voted against it. I do not believe the government really wants Newfoundland and Labrador to get those funds.

There have been all kinds of tactics that it has been pulling. Now the latest one is that it wants to have this as part of another bill, an omnibus bill. It does not want to break it up because it knows it will pass and it wants it stalled.

We want to help Atlantic Canada and I believe Liberal government does not.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your very successful marathon race and we are very proud of your efforts.

This is a very interesting motion that we have before us today brought to us by the NDP to provide EI benefits to Canadians in regions that have unemployment rates at 10% or more.

I acknowledge that there are problems with the EI benefit program and I would like to focus on some of those problems rather than creating a new issue.

For regions that have unemployment in excess of 10%, it is suggested to give them money to keep people on employment benefits and to keep them unemployed. That is not the solution that Canadians want. They want to see those areas that are struggling to be vibrant areas where their unemployment is lower and not to maintain people in that type of situation.

I am thinking of the Atlantic accord. Why is the House delaying the passage of that? It is the Conservative Party that wants to break that off, deal with it right now, and let the Atlantic people have their money. However, it is the NDP-Liberal alliance that is keeping that money from the Atlantic provinces.

I also have some difficulty with the EI fund. It is the $46 billion. I used to be an employer and I was also an employee. The EI program is an excessive tax. Canadians are being overtaxed. It is a prime example where the government tries to get more taxes out of Canadians by overtaxing them through the EI program. It is a $46 billion surplus. We have heard from the government that there did not used to be a surplus. There is now. The government is overtaxing Canadians. It is overtaxing employees and employers. It has to stop.

We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there is a new compassionate care program that is part of EI. I am disappointed that the NDP is not dealing with some of the problems with the EI program that are causing problems for Canadians.

The compassionate care program touches me passionately because I have a constituent who is dying. Her name is Sue. She is 43 years old. She has been taking care of her mother. I have spoken with the NDP about this. I have been bringing this matter before the House to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development since January. Time and time again I have been asking for support from the NDP on this and there is nothing.

This is part of the EI program and the NDP is not supporting compassionate care for Canadians. We have heard nothing but excuses from the Liberals on compassionate care. We heard today that it is a new program. In fact, this is the third fiscal year that it has been in and the government is still calling it a new program that is still under review.

The government, with the backing of the NDP, is not calling a sibling part of the family. It is not calling a sister part of the family. It is absurd. Why is it not dealing with this in the deal that the NDP got over a weekend in Toronto? Why was it not in budget Bill C-48?

All of a sudden the NDP comes up with something that sounds good, but it does not meet the needs of Canadians. It is not practical. There are all kinds of opportunities to help Canadians and compassionate care is one of them.

My constituent who is 43 years old had been taking care of her 73 year old mother and then she contracted cancer. She is not able to take care of herself or her mother. She is not married and has no children. It is a very sad story. Her sister came from the Okanagan to take care of Sue and she applied for the compassionate care program. It is a program that is already in existence to keep families together in the last days of their lives.

They can apply for six weeks of EI benefits, providing they qualify. The government, with the support of the NDP, says that a sister is not called a family member. Genetically they are the closest, sister and a sister, or a brother and a sister or a brother and a brother. Siblings are the closest genetically and the government is saying that it will not allow a sister to take care of a sister. It is a tragedy.

What happened in Langley is they appealed this. They went to the board of referees, which is the appeal board. I want to read the decision of the appeal board was. The appeal board was very critical of the government and gave some strong recommendations of what should be happen. The board of referees hears a great number of appeals on the issue of compassionate care benefits which is an EI program. It said:

The Board finds that there is no compassion in a piece of legislation that would not specifically prescribe a sibling to be a family member and consequently, deny that sibling the basic human decency to receive benefits while comforting a dying sibling.

Why have we not heard about this from the NDP? Why is it not fighting for this?

The board went on to say:

The Board is of the understanding that the Commission can enact new Regulations to the Employment Insurance Act that would serve to broaden the definition of family member to include sibling and other persons who are members of a class of persons prescribed.

Why are we not hearing about this from the NDP? It further said:

This Board believes that the failure of the Commission and the Minister to act swiftly in these matters of Compassionate Care amendments has only served to exacerbate the suffering endured by families as they care for a dying family member.

Why are we not hearing that from the NDP?

The board went on:

The Board believes the Minister and the Commission, in their failure to act urgently to rectify the inadequacies of the Compassionate Care legislation, can be viewed as being neglectful of the trust reposed in them.

Why are we not hearing from the NDP?

The board of referees goes on and recommends that the commission and the minister review this matter as an urgent, critical matter of business.

It is unbelievable that we are hearing rhetoric and not dealing with the real issues that Canadians are facing.

Being involved with this, I have heard now from Olga Petrik from Ontario. She went to take care of her dying sister in Richmond. She also applied for the compassionate care benefits and the appeal board said that absolutely, a sister did qualify, that a sister was a family member. She was approved for the compassionate care program. The minister has now put a stop on that and is appealing that decision of the board. It is disgraceful.

Why are we not hearing anything from the NDP about that? It has been totally silent about this. Canadians are suffering and are dying. The NDP is not speaking about it. It wants to keep Canadians who are unemployed on unemployment.

We need to take care of Canadians. I encourage the NDP to bring up motions that are not rhetoric, but that deal with the real issues with which Canadians deal. It is too important. Dying Canadians cannot wait. The NDP is not dealing with the motions and the issues with which Canadians want to be dealing.