Mark Warawa

[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.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from my riding of Langley in British Columbia.

The petition states that the rate of children being diagnosed with autism is high and is increasing at an alarming rate. Currently one in 195 children has autism.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include autism treatment as a medically necessary treatment. They also ask that Parliament create academic chairs at a university in each province to teach autism training.

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is very enlightening to hear from the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP and their position on this because this is a question that I have asked the justice minister every time he has visited the justice committee. I do not seem to get a straight answer. I have asked the justice minister during question period and have not had a straight answer. At least now I have heard today, in a riveting dialogue, the position of the Liberals and that of the Bloc.

I want to start by thanking my colleague from Lethbridge. He has brought forward a private member's bill that truly represents what Canadians want.

We heard from the Bloc that this was out of sync with what Quebeckers wanted. That is absolute nonsense. The people of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and across our great country want to protect our children.

The House has heard for years, through chiefs of police, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and through experts that we need to raise the age of consent because 14 is too low. Canadians want to know why we are not raising the age to 16.

We are seeing the very reason right now why it is not being raised. It is resistance by the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP. When we talk about being out of sync, Canadians really see what is out of sync. It is not the Conservative Party. It is the other parties.

The Liberal Party has said that Bill C-313, the private member's bill put forward by the member for Lethbridge, is incomplete and ineffective. That makes no sense. That is ridiculous. The bill will protect our children. What we see as ineffective and incomplete is the government.

We heard that kissing and touching is illegal. I will confess that every time I see my grandson, I kiss and hug him. Let us not go on to the absurd. Kissing and touching is not illegal.

We are talking about is kissing and touching a child for sexual purposes, which should be illegal. A 14 year old does not have the cognitive skills to realize that they are being duped, that they are being lured into a very dangerous situation.

We have heard from the member of the Liberal Party that some 14 year olds have more maturity than 17 year olds. I would agree with that. When I hear statements like that, I could say that some 14 year olds have more maturity and experience than some members of the government across the way.

Fourteen year olds generally do not have the cognitive skills to know what the consequences will be of their decisions. There are sexually transmitted diseases that they may be in danger of receiving if they have a relationship. There is pregnancy. There is depression. It is a very important decision to engage in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Edmonton. He is right on. The first choice is to do it within the context of marriage. I agree totally. That is the way I was raised. I am proud that I have been married 33 years. We have five children and one grandchild. I am just so blessed.

Before I was elected to the House, I was a councillor, a member of municipal government, and child prostitution was a huge problem. I was on a task force dealing with child prostitution. Our group listened to experts from across the country who said that one reason why our children were being lured into prostitution was because of the low age of consent. The age of 14 is one of the lowest in the world. That is why pedophiles come here to look for our children. It is not a position authority. It is a position of abuse and luring.

Ask the average person on the street if it is acceptable for 40 year olds, or 50 year olds or 60 year olds to have a sexual relationship with 14 year olds or 12 year olds who say they are 14 years old. That is sick and it should be a criminal offence.

I am frustrated with what has been said. It is not accurate. It is absolutely wrong when members say that this private member's bill is going to criminalize relationships between teenagers and their peers. That is anything but the truth.

What we want to do is focus on protecting our children. There is an age differential exception built into this because we know that children are going to experiment. That is not my first choice. I recommended to my children that they wait until marriage, but Bill C-313 has this exception as an option. It will not criminalize teenagers.

I ask members of the House not to give false statements, please. This bill deals with adults having sex with children. Fourteen year olds should not be lured. What we want is the truth. Canada, as I have said, has one of the lowest ages of consent in the world. As such, we put our children at risk of being lured. International pedophiles come to our country and lure children. They use child pornography. They take them out for pizza and to movies and then it is deemed consent when a child is lured to do this.

Our children are our up and coming generation. We need to protect them. If we fail our children, we have failed. I encourage every member to read the bill carefully. It is a good bill and it does provide protection.

[Petitions, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the wonderful residents of my riding of Langley, British Columbia.

The petition deals with marriage. It says that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children and that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged. It also says that this honourable House passed a motion in June 1999 calling for marriage to continue to be recognized as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.