Debates of June 9th, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for the President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, laid upon the table on Thursday, May 28, 1998, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 1998, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills.

In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just need some clarification. We just passed a motion that the hours would be extended to 4.00 a.m. as of June 10. As it will turn into June 10 at midnight tonight, I was just wondering if the House is sitting tonight voting or whatever we may be doing at midnight, does the order kick in at that time and we will be sitting until 4.00 a.m. Is that correct?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is reasonable to conclude that the order brought by the government House leader, which was voted on a few minutes ago, applies to the sitting days starting on June 10. Since the sitting will commence tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m., I assume it is the one that will be extended until 4 a.m. and it is not anything that might happen this evening.

When we conclude the business of supply and the other deferred divisions this evening, I think the House will adjourn at whatever time that might be and not sit until 4 a.m. That would certainly be the Chair's interpretation of the situation.

I believe the standing orders provide that the extended sittings start tomorrow night. Tonight is not an extended sitting except by reason of the fact that we have a final supply day.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for the President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Vote 1, in the amount of $193,805,000, under JUSTICE—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day. Today the House will consider the motion to concur in the main estimates for the current fiscal year.

Members of the House will approve all spending of the government and will debate the main estimates for 1998-99. We also have before us 50 motions in opposition to specific items contained within these estimates. Consequently the government has a similar number of motions on the table to reinstate opposed items. We will debate the first opposed motion presented by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough under the justice department for operating expenditures in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.

We have licked the deficit monster. We have looked it in the eye and we have met the challenge. We have put the programs in place to fight the monster and we have slain the monster. Four years ago few if any could have imagined the success we have achieved. Since the tabling of our fifth budget the fiscal achievements are still making news not only across this great country of ours but also beyond our borders. For the first time in 30 years the federal budget will be balanced this fiscal year. That is a reduction of $42 billion in just four years.

Along with the U.S. we are the only G-7 nation to balance its budget. Using the accounting standards of the United States we registered a surplus last year and a surplus of $12 billion is projected for this year, easily the best record in the G-7 nations. We will balance our budget next year and the year after. This will mark the first time in nearly half a century that Canada has three consecutive balanced budgets.

Put simply, we are at the start of a new fiscal era. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said repeatedly, this success story is due to the will, the forbearance and the patience of all Canadians.

In our efforts to restore the health of our nation's finances we have pursued a balanced approach, reducing the deficit steadily step by step while undertaking within our limited resources strategic investments to build a strong economy and a secure society. We will continue to follow the balanced approach of sound economic and financial management. It is an approach that works.

Looking back only four short years ago the financial markets considered Canada to an economic disaster in the making. We were lumped with every troubled economy in the world. The Wall Street Journal called Canada an honorary member of the third world. Canadians did not need The Wall Street Journal to convince them. They knew we needed a fundamental change.

Canadians were prepared to take the harsh medicine necessary to restore Canada's fiscal health. With this firm commitment we reduced government spending and encouraged economic growth without increasing personal income tax rates. We cut $14 billion from federal program spending. In fact we were the only country in the G-7 to actually reduce spending in absolute terms. I emphasize that we have cut more in our own backyard than in transfers to the provinces.

Between 1993-94 and 1999 to the year 2000 transfers to the provinces will have dropped by 5.3% compared to a decline of 8.7% in direct federal spending. The result is a leaner and more cost effective federal government. In fact as a share of the economy Government of Canada spending is headed back to where it was in the post-war era of the 1940s. Program spending to GDP fell from 16.6% in 1993-94 to 12.4% in 1997-98, a decline of 4.2%. We will never go back to overspending.

In 1999-2000 we project federal program spending will be down to 11.5% of the GDP, a drop of nearly 8% from a peak of over 19% during the mid-1980s.

More Canadians are now working. More Canadians are now paying taxes. More Canadians are now buying goods and services which in turn means higher sales tax revenues and increased corporate tax revenues reflecting higher profits. That is what a healthy Canadian economic growth is all about: more jobs, more sales, more production and a larger economic pie. All of that is good news for Canadians.

Our economy has improved thanks to our sound fiscal policies and our will to put our fiscal house in order. Thus now is not the time to relax and rest on our laurels. We now have to reduce the debt burden. The truth is that while we have won the battle of deficit we have not yet won the war on the debt burden. That is why we will stay on course.

We will take the same systematic determined approach to the debt that we successfully took against the deficit. Step by step, year by year, we will steadily reduce the debt and we will continue to present fiscal plans based on prudent economic planning and assumptions.

In the mid-1980s the government spent $1.20 on programs for every dollar of revenues collected. This year, given our large debt and cost of servicing, 72 cents of every revenue dollar collected will be spent on programs.

Notwithstanding our high debt and the need to service it, the government recognizes that the tax burden on Canadians is too high. It must and will be reduced. In each of our previous budgets we have introduced targeted tax relief measures for those most in need and where the payoff is the greatest. Now that the government will be balancing its books we have also begun to provide general tax relief starting with low and middle income Canadians.

The 1998 budget eliminated in its entirety 3% of general surtax on those whose incomes were approximately $50,000 and reduced it for those with incomes of up to $65,000. We have also added $500 to the amount that low income Canadians can earn tax free.

While these measures are necessarily modest for now they are significant. In fact over the next three years the measures announced in the 1998 budget will provide some $7 billion worth of cumulative tax relief for Canadians. Ninety per cent of all taxpayers will get some degree of personal tax relief from the 1998 budget. Thirteen million filers will no longer pay any federal surtax and another one million will pay significantly less surtax. Four hundred thousand low income Canadians will be taken off the income tax roles entirely.

Furthermore, as the Minister of Finance clearly stated, when financial resources permit we will broaden and deepen tax relief. In addition, to build a stronger economy the government's approaches entail investing in areas critical to our long term economic performance and to the achievement of our social goals. To do otherwise would be short-sighted and bad economics.

While the government recognizes that the private sector is the engine of job creation, we also believe the government has an important role to play in the economy. That is why we chose to invest in access to education, in skills, in low income families with children and in health care in the 1998 budget.

The centrepiece of this effort is the Canadian opportunities strategy. The strategy is a co-ordinated set of measures to provide greater and more affordable access to the knowledge and skills needed to help Canadians succeed in the 21st century. We want to ensure that we have the best educated and most skilled labour force in the world.

To that end the strategy increases access to post-secondary education through scholarship, grants and loan relief. It makes it easier for adults to return to school and helps parents save for their children's education. Our balanced approach to investing the fiscal dividend for the long term benefit of Canadians will ensure that we will build a stronger economy and a more secure society at the same time.

The measures we introduced in the 1998 budget are carefully targeted and matched to our ability to pay. They are a measure of our fiscal success. Also fuelled by our fiscal success the Canadian economy is showing significant strength. In 1997 the economy grew by 3.8%, our best performance since 1994. It was also the best performance of the G-7.

When the government came into office in 1993 Canada was caught in a vicious circle. Today we have set in place a virtuous circle that has made Canada an attractive place to do business, to invest, to produce goods and services, and to conduct research and development.

Job creation is up sharply. Over one million jobs have been created since 1993, 372,000 jobs in 1997 alone. The unemployment rate is now 8.4%, the lowest level since September 1990, down from 11.2% in 1993. While the level is not satisfactory the improving trend is clear. Long term interest rates are at their lowest levels in about 30 years and our inflation rate is one of the lowest in the world.

Our determination to keep it that way is illustrated by the fact that the government and the Bank of Canada announced in the budget that we were extending the current inflation control targets of 1% to 3% until the year 2001.

Looking ahead, both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to lead the G-7 in economic and employment growth this year. The good news is that we have reached a major milestone in our path of fiscal and economic health. The best news is that we have natural resources, the economic resources and, most important, the human resources to build an economy that has durable strength and a society that has security second to none in the world.

Canada will enter the new millennium with a healthy economy and Canadians can count on us to stay on track with sound fiscal policies.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member.

He spoke of his government's accomplishments. He spoke of the fact that the budget has now been balanced. He mentioned that the unemployment rate is now coming down. These are all positive things and Canadians should be pleased with them.

However, I wonder if the hon. member will acknowledge and recognize that it was the previous Conservative government that implemented many of the very important economic policies, like the free trade agreement and the much hated and maligned GST, and for those brave initiatives there was a great electoral price to pay.

Will the hon. member not acknowledge that it was those policies, which were adopted and expanded by his government, that really share much of the credit for what he would have us believe is his government's initiative?

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, most people in this House would know me as one who does not get involved in idle partisan debate and discussion.

There is no question that one administration leads into another. There is no question that it does not matter which party is elected to form the government, they all do some things right.

However, I must say that the political will was not there in the last government. In fact, what Mr. Mulroney said and what he did were two different things.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened very intently to my colleague's comments from across the way. He talked about the budget being balanced, that it was accomplished in four years' time and that the overall growth of the GDP in Canada has been some 3.5%.

In the 1993 election I recall that the Reform Party came out with a plan which we called our zero in three plan. We said that under our administration we could balance the budget in three years' time. We projected a growth of 3.5% in the economy. I remember very distinctly a lot of literature coming from the Liberal camp, and from my Liberal opponent, which said that it was impossible to balance the budget in three years. It was not even desirable to balance the budget. They also said that 2% of GDP was an acceptable level of deficit for any country. It was, after all, referred to as the United States' target of 2% of GDP which would have Canada's deficit at something like $14 billion or $20 billion per year.

I am quite amazed that in three or four years' time the Liberal philosophy has changed so much. I would ask the hon. member if he concurs that some of the change in the Liberal philosophy came about as a direct result of the platform put forth by the Reform Party in 1993.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but the answer is no.

What we have on this side of the House is a good management team. We have reviewed all of the departments. We have the ability and the will. Political will was lacking in the previous government.

I am not sure of the Reform Party and its political platform. I am sure its members had some projected statistics. But part of what it was going to do was to cut our social programs. It was going to privatize health care. It was going to reduce transfers to all of the provinces.

We have used a balanced approach. People of Canada have judged us. They have given us a second mandate. They recognize that we are doing a good job. We are investing in people. We understand the dynamics of a good economy, an educated and a healthy population, and we will continue to work in that direction.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Bruce—Grey may not like to indulge in partisan comments, but I do not have any such reticence.

I sat through the five years of the Mulroney government that the Conservative House leader referred to. I sat through five budgets where programs were cut and slashed, all in the name of reducing the deficit. However, the deficit kept going up and up. The amount of money that Canadians were paying on interest kept escalating and escalating. They talked a good game, but they really did not do a lot.

I sat through five years of unemployment that rose to over 11% and then heard the leader of the Conservative Party in the election campaign of 1993 saying that it would be well over that until after the end of the century. Now it is down to about 8%.

I saw all those years of high interest rates, high inflation and all those things that dampened business and economic recovery. I have seen a total change in those things since the Liberal government was elected.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the deputy whip for her comments. The hon. member has been here a long time and she witnessed a government that operated much differently than ours does. We are glad to have her on our side.

I know the member personally. I know her useful experience, which is on track with mine. People like her are very important for our government, as is the job that she conducts in this House.

Yes, I agree with my colleague when she says that the last government really was not a good manager.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board would suggest in his comments a term called political will.

He talked about the wonderful economy that we have now.

There are three things that the Mulroney government put into place. One was the GST. The second was the low interest rate policy that we had in 1991, which was based on the low inflation rate policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The third was the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I ask the hon. member, did it not take political will to implement all three of those particular policies? Why does this government not have the political will that he speaks of to scrap the GST, as was mentioned in the red book, to rip up the NAFTA agreement and in fact to go back to a high interest rate policy with higher inflation than we have right now?

Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell me where the political will of this government is with respect to those issues.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government looked at 17 different ways to find another accommodation and it found that a progressive tax like the GST was still required. It generated some $17 billion.

[An hon. member]

Why did you promise it?

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, as far as I know, we said we would look for a way to change the GST. We did look. There were 17 different things that we looked at and we came back to the same accommodation that the Europeans are using as well as everybody else.

We are running a good government. Last year, for instance, we paid down the foreign debt by $14 billion. This is a government that is very responsible, that walks the talk, that understands how to govern with a balanced approach. Slowly and surely we are refining government so that Canadians can prepare for the 21st century.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we should let inaccuracies go unchallenged. I want to suggest to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is no place that he will find in the Reform Party platform or philosophy where we are in favour of privatizing the medicare system of this country.

In fact, it is not the Reform Party that has gutted the health care system of this country, it is the hon. members across the way who have not been able to prioritize their spending to make sure that things like health and education are taken care of for average Canadians in this country. It is this government that has done that. It is this government that has gutted the health care system in this country on the backs of the taxpayers. It is not right for him to suggest that the Reform Party was going to do something that it has not done.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my estimation and on this side of the House, health care is one of the most important pillars of this country. There is no question. All we have to do is look at the way Reform approaches problem solving and we will find that the object is to privatize it, give it to the people with money so they can make money out of it.

However, I say that health care, the pocket book and the ability to pay by cheque is not the way to go for Canadians.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate which focuses on the expenses and the priorities of the government. Particularly in this portion of the debate we are looking at the Department of Justice and the priorities that have been set by the minister and this government as they relate to justice.

Since the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and did so only for a couple of hours, it is important that we have an opportunity now for a more open and transparent debate where we can exchange ideas and perhaps explain or at least go to some lengths to let the taxpayers know where their money is going as it relates to this very important department and perhaps even give some useful suggestions as to how we in opposition, and the Progressive Conservative Party in particular, would suggest that some of this money should be spent.

One of the very important initiatives that we have seen is the presentation of a DNA databank. This is without a doubt perhaps one of the most important crime fighting tools that we will ever see in the life of this parliament, if not in the life of many previous parliaments.

What it is aimed at specifically is using technology to combat crime. What we are talking about here is very violent crime, crimes of a sexual nature, crimes of violence that involve the most heinous invasion of a person's well-being.

If we are truly to take advantage of this particular piece of legislation, one would hope that the police would be given the opportunity to optimize the use of DNA; that is, that they would be able to take the DNA from a suspect at an appropriate time when a certain criteria has been met, namely, that enough evidence exists within the police officers' investigation to lay a charge, and when that does happen, when that particular bar has been crossed, the police will then be given the opportunity to take a DNA sample and use it in an investigation, use it perhaps to compare it to samples from crime scenes that had been taken previously. If a match occurs, then a very important link has been made to an accused individual and a crime. Due process, of course, will allow for the presumption of innocence, if it exists, to prevail.

This is an important piece of legislation that in its present form has come before the House and is flawed. There was an attempt made by members of the opposition on the justice committee to remedy that. We moved what I considered to be useful amendments. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of this legislation, the government chose to vote those amendments down.

I would suggest that this can be changed. This could be fixed quite simply by the initiative of the House.

There are other areas which are quite similar to this where the government could invest money, such as improving the Canadian police investigative computer system, the CPIC system, which police officers routinely use to track or to update themselves on the criminal involvement of suspects and those involved in committing offences against Canadians.

The violent crime linkage analysis system is another very useful system that, with the proper use of the police, could go to great lengths to help fight crime.

The government, however, has chosen not to touch that. It has chosen not to invest or to put the necessary resources and funding into these areas. Again, I really question the wisdom of that. The government, by doing so, is showing that it has no interest in optimizing this cutting edge technology that would, and I suggest could, prevent and, equally important, solve existing crimes.

I only use this example to emphasize this point. There are over 600 unsolved murders in the province of British Columbia alone. The statistics across the country would be even more disturbing and more staggering.

This is one area where the government could emphasize the necessity of putting resources into a specific area of technology and helping the police with this important crime fighting tool.

Another general area that I would refer to the House is the fact that the provinces themselves should receive greater funding, greater assistance in the administration of our federal laws. The Young Offenders Act is a prime example.

The federal government traditionally has been called upon and is legislated to supply or pay 50% of the cost of administering this federal act called the Young Offenders Act. In truth what is happening here is it is paying only on average 30% of the administrative costs of the Young Offenders Act.

There has been downloading of the majority of the cost to the provinces since 1994, and since 1994 we have seen a slashing of over $6 billion from transfer payments. Those cuts have hurt not only justice but certainly in a broad sweeping fashion health care. The hon. member from the Reform Party spoke of the cuts to education. It cut the absolute basic necessities of Canadians.

This downloading on to the provinces and subsequently on to the municipalities can only serve to further undermine the justice system, the health care system, the education system and take away the provinces' ability to administer necessities to Canadians.

Is the federal government prepared to put its money where its mouth is? We have heard numerous announcements and those announcements, most traditionally in the area of justice, come outside of this Chamber. They are either leaked to the media or the government chooses to have a press conference as opposed to a ministerial statement of policy in the House. I certainly question the wisdom of that.

Is the minister really prepared to pony up and pay the provinces and ensure that the provinces have these resources to administer changes that she has initiated, changes she spoke of in her youth policy initiative? She has indicated she wishes to scrap the Young Offenders Act entirely, to throw it out, the baby with the bathwater approach. One questions the wisdom of that.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the Young Offenders Act requires changes. It requires significant changes such as lowering the age of accountability, bringing the parents into the system so that they too will be accountable and will be asked the hard questions as to what their role has been in supervising their child when that individual might be out committing an offence, or changing the Young Offenders Act where the emphasis is placed on prevention.

I know the Minister of Justice has contemplated these changes. She has spoken of them at length. She has given great master's thesis presentations on what she would like to see happening within the justice system, but what we see lacking throughout these entire machinations and the process that we see when the minister makes these announcements are any of the hard figures, any of the concrete amounts, the dollar amounts that would be required to bring about this change.

The Young Offenders Act is just one of many changes that the government has spoken of, has taken the initiative to raise the consciousness of Canadians about and yet we are waiting and the clock is ticking. We see it time and time again where the government says it is going to do something and then when pressed on the issue or asked when we will see some legislation tabled in the House, the response has become a patented response. It has become the rallying cry of this government, in a timely fashion it will happen. There is a process that we must go through.

I certainly can respect that there is a process but as with health, as with education, when the time is rolling by, when the necessary changes that could have a positive impact are delayed, the result can be catastrophic. It is tantamount to not giving treatment in health care. One only has to look at some of the terrible examples of individuals suffering from afflictions like hepatitis, like cancer, and if the treatment is not administered the results can be death and injury.

That is equally true within our justice system. If there are preventive steps that can be taken, if there are measures that can be implemented that will improve the system, help prevent crime and help solve crimes that continue to be outstanding on the police record, if we can do something about it, why shouldn't we? Put aside partisan politics and move as quickly as possible to see that those legislative initiatives are taken.

On this side of the House, and I can only speak for the Progressive Conservative Party, if we saw that happening, if we saw positive changes like the DNA bill in its perfect form coming through this House, we would jump to our feet to support that. There would be no hesitation on our part to see those things happening.

Although the minister's policies look good on paper and certainly make for good press, we question their timeliness.

Another suggestion we have with respect to the Young Offenders Act would be to provide judges with more powers to provide or impose mandatory treatment or therapy when a youth embarks on a troubled career or the wrong path, and have that early intervention.

Further, the concept of restorative justice has become very prevalent in the discussions around young persons and actually more broadly within the justice system itself. Once more there has been a great deal of talk about what the government would like to do in this area but we have not seen anything concrete develop. We have not seen it materialize as yet. Restorative justice is something that certainly would be a positive initiative. It would be something I believe the government would receive a great many accolades over if it were to actually invoke that type of legislation.

I will mention one other area I spoke of previously, further parental responsibility, involving the parents in the justice system where they would more fully appreciate the consequences of their children's actions. They, for lack of better words, would be called to task as to why their children were permitted to be out after a certain hour of the night, perhaps breaking into somebody's house or behaving violently, perhaps because they are emulating something they have seen in their own homes.

These are not new initiatives. I will not say this discussion is redundant but it is certainly information that is available. It has been discussed at justice committee. It has been discussed by the government's own experts. Recommendations were made for things like lowering the age of accountability and the government has chosen to ignore that. We in the Conservative Party question the wisdom of the minister in ignoring that advice.

Where is the money being spent? Where do this government's priorities lie? It is incredible, and it has become almost a ruse in this country, the staggering amounts of money being put into the ill conceived and not thought out long gun registry. The howls from the government benches when anyone mentions this are quite incredible. There are indignant cries of “you are against gun control, against safe handling of guns”. That simply is not true.

I think the record will show quite convincingly that it was a Conservative justice minister who brought in Bill C-17 which was the most comprehensive legislation aimed at safe handling of firearms. The legislation spoke of safe storage. It spoke of safety courses that were to be implemented. It talked of trigger guards and keeping of ammunition separate from weapons.

The Conservative Party has always been consistent in its approach that it does favour safe handling of weapons. Simply putting a stamp with a serial number on a rifle and having that databank, a computer system that records who owns certain guns, is not in any significant way going to help combat the criminal use of firearms. We are targeting innocent Canadians who take part in sport shooting, recreational hunting, who go to firearms ranges. Why on earth would the government choose to spend the amount of money that this ill fated system will cost?

The cost has absolutely ballooned. The original figures said $85 million. We know that with the start-up date of this legislation fast approaching the cost has already gone far beyond that original figure. We are talking about a figure that will be tripled or perhaps quadrupled by the time this legislation comes into place, half a billion dollars at the worst estimate.

The government has chosen again to put the money into an area that will not have a significant effect when it could put money into something such as the suggestion yesterday of having an advocate or ombudsman for victims within our system. It costs only $1 million to have an advocate, the commissioner for correctional investigations. It would cost $1 million to have an advocate for victims and the government chooses not to do that. That is a conscious priority decision that the government has made. One has to question why the government would decide to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this gun registry.

I will refer to another very questionable decision and a priority choice by the government, the now nefarious and subversive investigation into the entire Airbus affair.

There is an investigation into a Canadian citizen and a former prime minister. This brings the entire office of the prime minister into disrepute when this type of scandalous investigation is embarked on.

The truth is that the former prime minister under investigation has been harassed and defamed by the current government's administration. That again was a choice that the government made.

It certainly is not just about cost when a person's reputation is attacked and resources are put into it for perhaps some politically motivated reason. We know there was an out of court settlement of $2 million. The cost of having government lawyers pursue that through the various court levels and appeals certainly expanded or doubled that cost. All this at the end of the day resulted in a very jaded apology and yet this investigation continues. It has expanded in its scope. There are more officers working on this file than before and to what end? Canadians need to know this is a choice the government has decided to make and pursue in the area of justice. It is certainly anything but justice that this is allowed to occur. It is a farce and Canadians should know that it is a farce.

What can we do about it? We can talk in the House endlessly and talk until the cows come home. We can make suggestions but it is the government ultimately that bears the responsibility and has the ability to act on these initiatives.

Many improvements could be brought to the system without spending a great deal of money by refocusing the choice as to where the money was spent and by taking the money out of the gun registry system. It is sad because the money is being spent and has been spent to a great extent. We know it is going to cost more. Police officers question whether it is going to improve the current justice system. The officers and those who are working directly on the front lines in our justice system are the ones who are best charged with the knowledge of whether this is going to work, and they say no.

Another example of a potential change in our justice system that would not cost the government a great deal of money would be the change to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving. It would be easy for the government to take an initiative to make changes to our Criminal Code as it pertains to impaired driving. On a number of occasions I asked the minister when that was going to happen. It has been before the standing committee. It has come back before the House and yet regretfully we are not in a position to bring about those changes.

I put these statistics on the record only to demonstrate how important it is that we deal the Criminal Code changes soon. Once again it demonstrates that as time goes by there is a very heavy price to pay in the area of human lives. Impaired drivers kill 4.5 people in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week. In 1995, 1,519 people were killed in Canada by impaired driving. Impaired drivers killed 17,630 and injured 1.1 million in Canada from the years 1983 to 1991. Shocking statistics. The havoc wreaked on the highways of this country as we speak in the House should be cause for concern for all.

It is very clear that alcohol has significantly increased the risk of motor vehicle accidents and yet we have not dealt with that in a substantive way in the House. We have not rushed to try to remedy the situation. That is another example of a change that could be made.

Another example is section 745 in the Criminal Code, bringing about truth in sentencing. Individuals who are serving life sentences for committing the most heinous of crimes are still given the opportunity in this section to apply for parole. It truly is a shame.

I make these suggestions in good faith and with the hope that the government will react in a positive way. I will be very interested to hear what the government has to say.

Before I sit down I want to amend the motion that is before the House. I move:

That Motion No. 1 be amended by adding after “$1,930,805” the following:

“, less $49,000, an amount equivalent to the Minister's statutory salary and motor car allowance”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The amendment is in order.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague, who can certainly not be accused of being pathologically partisan. On the contrary, thanks are due the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for electing such a distinguished parliamentarian, who tackles his work with such enthusiasm. He has already been very well accepted by all members of the House.

As did our colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out this government's complete lack of agenda, with examples from a few particular sectors.

This government was re-elected with a distinctly smaller majority than in 1993, after some completely incredible flip-flops on free trade. The Liberals battled the former government fiercely on this issue. However, this measure has resulted in our exports increasing from $90 to $215 billion. It was the same with the GST. We lost the election on the GST. They also had a lot to say about the acid rain treaty and defeated us because of national defence issues.

With such a track record of public contradictions, why was this government re-elected, even with a smaller majority? Was it maybe because the opposition parties are becoming more regionalized and divided?

In light of what my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, said, I find it completely incredible that a government that makes historic errors on national agendas adopted by the previous government, that in some cases contradicts itself while in office by passing measures it voted against, particularly with respect to national defence, and that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars after making election promises not on the sly but right out in the open, on television, is re-elected.

Why was this government re-elected? I think is has something to do with an aspect of Canadian politics that has cost us very dearly to date. Is it not because of the proliferation of opposition parties, which have trouble reaching any kind of consensus that could be constructive for our country?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond first by thanking my colleague from Chicoutimi for his very kind remarks. I take it as very high praise coming from a parliamentarian such as himself who has continually distinguished himself in this House, regionally and nationally. My father had the honour of serving with him. I take it as a great honour that the member would make those remarks in this place.

To answer his question, if an answer is possible, I suppose it is a question that many in the opposition ask when we see the performance of this government on certain issues. The member has referred to historical decisions that they have made. One might call them hysterical if they were not so far reaching. One might call them hypocritical if one examined the record as to what was said previous to this government taking office. It does lead one to question as to why we have the electoral response that we have and the regional breakdown that exists within this House.

We know there was a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed against the Progressive Conservative Party in 1993. There was a huge price paid for the necessary and brave initiatives that we paid a price for and now this government rushes to take the credit. That is something history will sort out. I suspect that history will be very kind to the Conservative Party. We are hoping that in the very near future the Conservative Party will be restored to government and that is certainly the aim of our party.

We continue to make positive suggestions and positive constructive criticisms of this government in the hope that the environment is going to improve for all Canadians. That ultimately has to be the purpose of an opposition that wants to be credible and wants to one day form a government which we in the Progressive Conservative Party certainly do.