Peter MacKay

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. As with the previous speaker, it was a cross between vitriol, high octane fuel and pure adrenalin. At the end of the day it really boils down to a simple question. He has told us what he would do and we have heard about what they would do before. That seems to have dissipated. Why should Canadians believe the member now?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Yes, there will be other members who will be long gone, too, if Canadians choose to dwell on this issue.

Should members of parliament therefore receive a pension? Yes, they should. Should we look at making further changes in the future? Perhaps we should look at something that is more consistent with the private sector. However, we have to look at the whole picture. We know that members of parliament are not remunerated on the same level as those working in the private sector, for example, in certain positions.

If we are going to look at this issue we should do it in a holistic way, not holus-bolus and not to the benefit of one party and to the detriment of another.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I hope there is sufficient attention being paid to what is playing out before us here, this morality play that was so convenient in years past that has now come home to roost. I hope all members of parliament, including members of the reform party, will reflect on their conscience and review their words. Maybe they will not be so quick to shoot from the hip the next time.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Yes, they were challenging members of the House of Commons to fight. That was reminiscent of a new way of doing things, of saying one thing and doing another.

In simple terms, there has been a reality check that has taken place. I hope Canadians are paying attention because I think we sometimes fool ourselves. We think Canadians are watching this place with a close eye. I would suggest it is becoming more and more of a jaded eye because of this type of, dare I say, hypocrisy. The Greek god, Hippocrates, would be looking down on us right now with a very wry smile.

When we arrive in this place we learn in very short order that this is an onerous task and a heavy responsibility. We have to choose our words carefully and we have to be prepared to stand by them. I think the next election is going to be very much about truth and about restoring some semblance of faith and belief that Canadians might have in their elected officials again. This exercise is certainly not going to help that task.

When it is all over, when it is all said and done, if we are prepared to say something to get elected, we had better be prepared to follow through with it. We had better be prepared to stand by those words. The inflamed passions that we see here today are only the beginning of what may be a very rigorous campaign that is potentially going to take place this fall. The spears being used to lampoon one another here may be repeated out on the hustings.

Canadians deserve to know where we stand. They deserve to be able to check up after the fact to see if we have followed through on it. I sincerely hope that members of parliament, particularly members of the reform party, can go back and look their constituents in the eye and say that, yes, they have followed through with their promise in this regard because they chose to make it an issue. They did make it an issue. There is no doubt about that. Pages and pages of Hansard have chronicled the commentary that has taken place in the House.

This bill is about fairness and, in principle, all Progressive Conservative members of the House of Commons support what this bill attempts to achieve, which is a fair and equitable system that brings parity in for all members of this place. What we do not accept is that this pension plan was used as a club with a nail in it to beat other members of parliament. We oppose the fact that the reform party is now very quick to embrace this same pension plan and gather it in.

However, that was then and this is now. What we have seen is that there are no more references to gold-plated pensions. That seems to have dissipated. The rancour has somehow died. The righteousness has disappeared somewhat. Well, lo and behold, all the reformers are accepting what they once rejected, embracing what they once despised, counting and caressing what they once so vehemently opposed.

Similarly, they cast aside this previous commitment to their constituents. In simple terms, that was then and this is now.

On that principle, although I accept the magnanimous remarks of the reform party House leader, it is a bit of bitter medicine to have to swallow. He has talked about changes. I think we can all agree that we want to see any sort of change that will be inclusive and recognize the value and worth of members of parliament in their efforts, their daily tasks, what they do for their constituents, what they do here and what they do on the national scene. We diminish that when we embark on this type of partisan exercise.

I will not deny that were are engaged in a partisan exercise. It is necessary to point to the record on how quickly we sometimes forget what was said. That has been much of the case in Canadian politics and with the government. It will have its record to defend. It will have to explain to Canadians what happened to all that money in the HRDC department. It will have to explain why the Prime Minister was so quick to talk about tearing up the free trade agreement and then expand it when elected. It will have to explain why the Prime Minister said very clearly that he would axe the tax and get rid of the GST and it is still here. If we go to the store we see that we are still paying the GST. It was expanded and harmonized in the maritimes.

However, it was convenient. It is always easy to tell people what they want to hear. There is a public appetite for it, just like this issue with the pensions. People wanted to hear that and the reformers fed it. They fanned those flames to their benefit. Now it is only fair and just that this has come back, and that it has come back, in what some would describe as a very nefarious way, in the last dying days of parliament.

I know that members of my own caucus take issue with the way in which this was brought about. I am certainly not proud of the way this has arrived before us. I, as the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, have been a part of it.

However, that is why, at the end of this debate, we will be saying that we cannot support this legislation. We cannot support the way this has been brought about, not because we are against fairness or any form of pension that recognizes work, labour and input, but because we are against hypocrisy. We are against saying one thing because it is politically advantageous and then doing another.

I know that members of the reform party do not want to hear that. It is not consistent with what they have done. There have been all sorts of examples of this as well. It is played out here in the House of Commons on a partisan level every day. However this is one occasion where there is nothing that can be said that will exonerate members of that party. There is nothing that will to replace those words in the minds of constituents who voted for reform members after hearing that they were not going to be a part of the pension plan. Guess what? They are in, they are a part of it and those promises are long gone, just like the promises on the other side of the House that we heard before the previous election.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, like other members of parliament, I am not anxious to jump into this, but there is an element to all of this debate that we have to keep in mind and put into a certain context. It is very easy to say that we want to ensure fairness, that this bill is aimed at changing some anomalies that exist and that there are some technical adjustments that need to be made to ensure fairness. We have pointed them out ad nauseam as to the purpose of the bill.

Let us not kid ourselves for a minute. This bill is tailored to allow members of one particular party to opt back into a pension plan that they denounced. I take very much to heart the comments that have been made by the previous speaker. I believe him to be very sincere in what he has indicated. I do not do this with any great relish, but it is a matter of that was then and this is now. Those words were easy to say at one time and now they are a little bitter when they have to be swallowed.

I want to point out something that the hon. member for Fraser Valley said on this issue not that many years ago in debates in the House of Commons. On May 9, 1995 he said, “All Reform Party members are going to opt out of the pension plan because we stand on principle and do not swim in gravy. We are going to opt out”.

His leader that same day in the course of the debate said, “It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the pension plan. We call upon every member of the House to do likewise. Opt out or get out will be the cry in the constituencies. It is the cry which must be respected if fairness and leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to parliament on any budget it endorses”.

That was obviously a bunch of malarkey. Now by virtue of this bill, as my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has indicated, the reform members of the House are now swallowing themselves whole. They are completely capitulating on their earlier stances.

It was not so much what they said here that really hurts, that really makes it hard for some members like the member who was here in 1993 and was defeated. It is not just those members and the debate that is taking place here, but it is members that are not here who did not return and do not have the ability to collect a pension. They stated quite clearly where they stood and still stand, but now there has been a reversal of fortunes.

There has been a change in the mindset because individuals, in fairness, came here having said one thing and realized that things were a little different. The pension was not so sweet after all. It was not so easy to get on a plane and come to Ottawa and leave family and friends and a previous occupation behind. It was not such a great deal after all.

What this comes down to is having said one thing and now turning completely around. They have made a complete reversal of fortunes in their favour and have opted back in by virtue of this bill. That is what this bill allows them to do.

I know they do not like to hear this, but the unravelling of Reform principle is what we are seeing here. There is a thinly veiled attempt at reinventing themselves and what they said. There was a name change but all the while they kept the same policy, the same membership and the same leadership. A futile redundant exercise. A cynical attempt at re-branding. That is what this is all part of in the big scheme of things.

It is easy to find integrity after the fact. It is easy to opt into the pension plan, the same plan that the Reform Party railed against. They screamed like banshees and suggested that somehow it was completely malicious and untenable that members of parliament would accept some remuneration after the fact for the hard work they do. That was an issue that was not put forward by any other party. This was an invention, a tool, a spear that was used to impale other members of the House. Now it is impaling them. They are going to have to go back to their constituents and explain how they can do this, how they can swallow their principle now and take the pension, vote against it perhaps.

This pension plan will now be mandatory. Make no mistake about it. All 301 members of the House of Commons are in. When this pension plan passes, they are all in. Nobody is out. We have an added bonus and it is a stroke of genius. I am not questioning the government House leader's intention, it is a beautiful thing. It is the ability to buy back retroactively all of that pensionable time. Fair enough. Why not?

Nobody is suggesting that members of one party work any harder than members of another. Those members are entitled to pensions and we do not dispute that for a minute, but they should not tell people they will not take the pension and then take it. They should not try to hide behind some guise, as was seen in the last attempt to bring in a severance package that would set up two separate types of plans. There is the evil pension plan that members of parliament get and then there is the fine severance package that will be a lump sum that will go to Reform members. That is okay. A big lump sum payment is fine, but a pension is bad.

This reminds me of George Orwell's classic novel Animal Farm which we all studied in grade 9 or 10 in high school. I know, Madam Speaker, that you are a scholar and you will recall this story. We all recall the premise of what was going to take place in that famous novel.

The pigs were appalled at the farmer and the lavish life that he lived and the terrible conditions the animals were toiling in. In Animal Farm the animals gathered in the barnyard and talked about rebellion and what they were going to do to change things. They spoke in wild terms of equity and fairness and what they would not do if they had the reins of power. The animals continued to gather and whip each other into a frenzy.

Finally the rebellion came. Does this sound familiar? The animals gathered up their strength and courage and pumped each other up. They said they would do things differently if they ever had the chance. They chastised the farmer for his comfortable life. Remember the rallying cry, “four legs good, two legs bad”. When the rebellion was over the pigs moved into the house. They started walking on their hind legs and they took the comforts that the farmer used to enjoy and which they had previously opposed. Does this sound familiar?

In our current circumstances: reformers good, other MPs bad. That is what we have been hearing for 10 years. For 10 years we have been hearing “No pensions, no car, no clothing allowance, no Stornoway. That would never happen”. The list goes on.

The reform leader is standing in the House on hind legs. The barnyard buddies are also here. The moral of the story is that it is very easy to say one thing but when one is saddled with the actual reality of what is taking place it is a different story altogether.

That is what we have heard. We heard one story when that party wanted to achieve office, but now that it is in office it is a different story. The story does not apply anymore. The conditions are not the same. However, that will be for the Canadian people to decide. Opting into the pension plan, the same pension plan that everyone here is entitled to and reformers are entitled to as well, is not what a lot of them said they would do. Some of them did address the issue in an upfront way. What it comes down to is truth or consequences.

What happened to bring about the change? What was the crisis of conscience? What was the shallow pool of principle that caused things to turn around? It was simply the reality that some people may have to leave here and go home. They have families to support and, as my colleague said, they may have children or spouses who have made great sacrifices. Those are fundamental things that cannot be denied. They are fundamental things that every member of the House has to confront, yet that was put to one side when it was politically advantageous to pillar other members of the House of Commons on this issue. I would suggest that it was done with reckless abandon and malice aforethought.

It was easy to criticize something when reformers did not really know much about it. They came to the House, after having created this atmosphere of fear and loathing—and it has taken almost 10 years to go that full circle—and completely swallowed themselves from head to tail. What we have seen is a reptilian transformation, a shedding of the skin. Now it is okay to have a pension.

It is very easy to get up, speak emotionally, tell us that it is fine and that we wish things were different, but I am just one small voice. There are many members of parliament who feel very offended by what has taken place, particularly members who are not here and who were defeated, and perhaps very much on this one issue. It was made an issue. It was not something that was a creation of anyone other than themselves, which is what makes it so difficult and so distasteful. This is a bed that was made completely by the reform party, no one else.

It is very easy to criticize and vilify one's opponent, but at the end of the day, when it has come full circle, in the sharp light of day and the cameras are on, and we are being asked to explain ourselves, that is where it gets a little more dicey. That is where the reform party finds itself now.

The wrecking ball approach is simple: come in, destroy institutions, strike everything down and criticize. However, when harnessed with the reins of power, as we know this party never will be, it is different.

That is what the Liberal government has had to do. It is nothing new for the Liberal government. The reform party has been very critical of the current government but even this exercise cannot hold a candle to swallowing itself whole: the GST, free trade, privatization, helicopter programs. This government has not even begun to hold a candle to that record except the red book promises and the red faces that now exist in conjunction with that. I suppose there is some comparison with the green book and the envy and greed that might be associated with what is taking place now.

This debate, unfortunately, does take a bit of a nasty turn because it is personal for members of parliament, having suffered the slings and arrows of what was deemed to be outrageous fortune by the reform party, which now it wants to delve into it. We no longer see the plastic pink pigs being stuck in the front lawn of the House of Commons. Of course, that was part of the new dignity that was coming to this place, just like the mariachi band in front of the Senate, a class act. Those things certainly raised the profile and the feeling of dignity that members of parliament have for this place. Double that up with the Canadian flags being tossed on the floor and the old jalopy with the Canadian flags painted on it circling the parliamentary precinct, it certainly raised the profile of parliament. A new dignity.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Let us get rid of those phoneys in Ottawa.

[Young Offenders Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this important debate that deals with youth in this country.

I want to begin by commending the hon. member for Surrey North who has been tireless in his efforts on this subject. The hon. member has much credibility and great sincerity with respect to this issue, as it holds great personal importance for him. I commend him for this, for all the work he does on the justice committee and for the contributions he makes.

Bill C-260 was the forerunner to the present bill, Bill C-297, which would amend the Young Offenders Act in its current form and place significantly more responsibility on persons who agree to ensure that young persons will abide by specific court conditions. They would be sureties that the judge would look to to give the public the confidence that in fact conditions that are placed on a young person will be adhered to. Most often it would involve parents, but there would certainly be guardian situations and times when agencies would be involved in the assumption of these responsibilities.

In the time that has passed since October 1997 the government has had ample time to revamp the Young Offenders Act and could very easily have incorporated much of the same spirit that is behind Bill C-297.

In that time the youth criminal justice bill has been brought forward in parliament and has been before the justice committee. Sadly, it is hopelessly bogged down in that committee and will not see the light of day in the remaining time we have in this parliament. The majority of witnesses who appeared during the deliberations on Bill C-3 consistently denounced the bill in its present form. They were very much in opposition to the bill itself and the manner in which it was drafted. For these reasons and many others, it brings us to the current day where a new bill is sitting on the order paper in the committee and, because of a number of factors, the country will be deprived of very common sense and very positive amendments that could have been made, much like the premise of the private member's bill.

Public pressure is very much on the Liberal government to change this legislation because there is an active feeling in the country that the youth criminal justice system is not working. It has in fact failed Canadians and exacerbated the situation to such a degree that there are many young people in the country who feel that the current legislation protects them rather than Canadians.

I would be the first to acknowledge that there are parts of the country where the current legislation works better than others. One of those provinces is Quebec. The initiatives taken within the justice system in the province of Quebec are quite innovative. It leads the country in many regards in the application of programs and the positive initiatives that can and do in fact take place under the current legislation. That province has interpreted this legislation in such a way that it works better there than it does in many other provinces. We have to be quick to acknowledge that. It signals that the problem is something that can be addressed.

Sadly, one of the most overriding flaws in our current young offenders system is the lack of funding, the lack of resources which the current government has allotted to address the issue. We know that the original intent of the Young Offenders Act was that the funding would be shared 50:50. The federal government has never approached that level of funding commitment. It has never held up its end of the bargain. In spite of this, Quebec has been able to be very innovative and use programs to move into areas of restorative justice, early intervention, police counselling and community policing.

That is what was behind the spirit of the new youth criminal justice bill, minus the funding. In fact, what we saw was a bill that became very convoluted and very cumbersome in terms of the references, new interpretations and new processes that we would be putting into place. There were things like a parole system for young individuals that would undermine any concept of truth in sentencing that currently exists.

We would see a new type of system that would determine whether an offence was a violent offence or a serious violent offence; very esoteric and subjective notions which would be a make-work program for many lawyers. I know that there are many criminal defence lawyers in the country and we heard from many of them at the committee. They were wringing their hands in anticipation of the work that was going to be created by this new youth criminal justice act.

There is a great and dire need for the government to introduce legislation that will be effective, and effective in a way that will address the current problems, but will also streamline the way the system is working and address the issues of funding, not only for those in the policing community, but also for those in social services upon whom much of the responsibility of the current system falls.

There have been many high profile cases in recent years. The previous speakers would be very aware of them. Many of the cases have tragic implications. I am speaking of cases involving victims such as Clayton McGloan, Matti Baranovski and Jonathan Wamback.

I had the pleasure of meeting Jonathan Wamback's parents quite recently in Newmarket, Ontario, and again recently in February. We heard from Mr. Wamback at the justice committee. He raised many of the same concerns we are discussing which form the premise of this debate.

Their teenage son Jonathan was brutally attacked by a group of teenage thugs and is still recovering from life threatening injuries. As a result of this incident, his father Joseph Wamback is actively involved in a petition drive that has currently received over 800,000 signatures. The petition calls for mandatory adult court trials of youths charged with serious violent offences with sentencing changes which involve strict incarceration, mandatory treatment programs and compulsory follow-ups, to mention a few of the initiatives.

It is the action of concerned citizens like Mr. Wamback as well as the actions of members of the House that are needed to bring about legislative change. Bill C-297 is a very good beginning in dealing with but one of the many complex mosaic of issues that arise in our youth criminal justice system.

Sadly Bill C-3 will very likely die in committee. It is too complicated. It establishes too many hurdles. Most of all it accomplishes persistent, experienced, repeat offenders preying upon a system that does not address their needs and does not address the needs of the public.

Teenage victims like Matti Baranovski and Clayton McGloan lost their lives in violent attacks by young offenders. Their cases and that of Jonathan Wamback are glaring examples of what is currently wrong with our system and our ability to address serious violent offences. If Bill C-3 were to pass it would only aggravate and further undermine the confidence of Canadians in an overloaded and overburdened system.

As a crown attorney I have had firsthand experience in dealing with young individuals, the victims and their families, and the fallout. When I was elected as a member of parliament I came to this place on a platform that included changing in whatever way I could the way in which the system and the Young Offenders Act were operating.

The Progressive Conservative Party has advocated changes. One of the changes is to give judges more power to impose mandatory treatment on troubled youths, those in need of therapy, those in need of an attitudinal adjustment that came about through no fault of their own. Many young people who find themselves involved in the criminal justice system have been victims themselves and have come from extremely troubled homes. They have been involved in alcohol and substance abuse and have never had an example or a guiding hand. With early intervention and the attention and counselling that sometimes come with it, those individuals would have a chance.

We in the Conservative Party would also be advocating an ability to make it easier to transfer serious violent crime cases involving young offenders to adult court. Much of that has been accomplished. We would also enact parental responsibility into our system in the way in which young offenders would be held financially responsible, as would their parents if there was in fact culpability.

We would lower the age of accountability to include violent criminals of all ages. Currently violent offenders below the age of 12 face no criminal punishment under our system. I saw on many occasions the failings of our system up close and personal.

I commend the efforts of the member for bringing the bill forward. It is a bill that we support. It is a bill that we very much embrace in the need and the drive to change our system.

With Bill C-3 the focus is correct. The focus is on rehabilitative front end justice, modelled after what they are doing in the province of Quebec. I support that. However, to have front end preventive measures enacted it is necessary that the resources and the focus be there to help those programs reach fruition.

The type of initiative before us in the form of a private member's bill is very much a step in the right direction. We need to broaden the approach and create more accountability, and this is what the bill seeks to do. By putting greater emphasis on protecting the public Bill C-297—

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in the debate, which everyone is aware focuses on a motion that is now before the House to essentially remove a subsection of the criminal code, which is before us within Bill C-18. The proposed subsection arrived back here, and I would suggest it is arguably the most important part of much needed and anticipated legislation pertaining to impaired driving.

The proposed subsection would replace subsection 255(3) of the criminal code with the following:

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

This bill is very much aimed at the emphasis and putting forward parity in the criminal code with respect to individuals who embark on this type of reckless behaviour that results in threats to life and limb. We have seen repeatedly the carnage on the highways that is the end result of impaired driving. This is a criminal code change that would address that particular problem in a direct way.

The Conservative Party of Canada was very encouraged when the government and all other opposition parties, with the exception of the Bloc, finally came around to support Bill C-18.

We know that last year there was capitulation on the part of other parties when the government agreed to take this proposed subsection out at the urging of the Bloc Quebecois. Members of our party were very tough with this particular item and insisted that it remain, and we did receive personal assurances from the Minister of Justice that this bill would be reintroduced as a stand-alone. I want to acknowledge and commend the minister for following through on her word. Sadly, we have not seen her ability to deliver Bill C-3, the new youth criminal justice act, with the same level of efficiency, or timeliness.

Bill C-82 was the original bill from which this proposed subsection was deleted. It was because our party was insistent on it being reintroduced that we see it here today. After that long period of delay, it is encouraging. The timing, of course, is very important. With the summer months now upon us, graduations coming up, with more and more people on the highways headed to cottages and to the shore, impaired driving sadly is a threat to all individuals on the highways. This bill would send a proper message of deterrence, both general and specific deterrence, for those who are foolhardy enough to embark on impaired driving and jeopardize other's lives in a very serious way.

All members of the committee will recall, and I certainly recall, working closely with members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have been very much in support of changes to toughen up our legislation pertaining to impaired driving, and this subsection in particular was one upon which they were insistent.

The life imprisonment provision does send the message of deterrence that we seek to send. I want to personally thank members of MADD for their consistent support for legislative change, and this bill in particular.

I also want to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the justice committee for enabling this legislation to make it through the committee, and to do so quickly. Now that we have the amendment at report stage, although I know the Bloc Quebecois may be opposed to this provision, I do commend and acknowledge its commitment to exercising its right to oppose and to its participation in the debate.

I hope the report stage will not be delayed any further, particularly with respect to this important legislation, with the timetable we have and the likelihood that parliament will wrap up this week.

I spoke earlier of the summer vacations that our now upon us. There are many families and individuals across the country who will be on the roads, and needlessly impaired drivers could cause fatalities and absolute horrific carnage to individual lives.

The hard-core drinkers who continue to embark on this exercise of drinking and driving, getting behind the wheel and endangering Canadian lives, is exactly the type of individual who this bill addresses.

The message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated in that form and fashion is one that we wish to send from this place forward.

From day one the Conservative Party stressed this as a priority. The government has acknowledged that by bringing it forward today. It is high time that we put emphasis on the protection of human lives and the needless tragedies and loss of life that we see on the roads and highways throughout the country. They are a testament to the need and to the void that existed prior to this bill coming into effect.

During the original debate of Bill C-82 we were very worried when other parties softened their position with respect to the life imprisonment aspect of the bill. This was done, many will recall, in exchange for speedy passage through the House, but now we have come full circle and we are seeing the inclusion of this important provision.

The bill is now before us in a separate form, but it very much complements and works with the previous legislative changes that took place in the last session. This will improve the bill and will give police further powers and the courts the further ability to mete out sentences that are more indicative and more reflective of the serious type of negligent behaviour that is encompassed by impaired drivers.

Bill C-3 was another important bill that we would have liked to have seen come through, as I mentioned earlier, but that has not happened. However, we do embrace this bill and support it wholeheartedly.

The Conservative Party has been adamant all along that the provision of life imprisonment be reinstated and that judges be allowed greater leeway, greater discretion to reflect public outrage and public sentiment about the seriousness of taking another's life through an automotive accident where alcohol is involved.

Tragically, many people have experienced an impaired driving accident. There are few Canadians who have not been touched by the tragedy of an impaired driving accident. Careless actions and careless behaviour of drivers when it involves alcohol have to be treated with the same type of response that we see in other actions that are reflected in the criminal code.

Criminal offences involving drunk drivers declined by 23% between 1994 and 1997, but we do know that there are staggering numbers who are not caught and continue to drive under the influence. It is hoped that through the efforts of all present we will have this legislation before the Canadian people. It will benefit all in the country and send a message of deterrence that is so important in changing and refocusing the attitudes toward this criminal behaviour.

That is very much a part of this exercise. Putting forward a more vehement message of deterrence, emphasizing that this is behaviour that will not be tolerated, emphasizing that this is the type of behaviour that will warrant serious criminal sanctions up to life imprisonment, will help to send that message out.

If and when Bill C-18 passes, the Liberal government should not rest on its laurels, for certainly it and all governments should continue their fight against impaired driving. Many suggest that we should be lowering alcohol levels even further, some to a zero tolerance level. There was lengthy discussion of other ways to approach the problem of impaired driving, so the fight is not over and there is more to be done.

Ontario and Alberta are two provinces that have been at the forefront in bringing forward legislative changes and putting in place provincial statutes to address this problem. Provincial statistics show that more than 300 people were killed in drunk driving related accidents in the year 1997. In Ontario there is a legislative initiative that if caught three times for impaired driving a lifetime suspension will follow.

We know that fines have been increased. Judges now have the ability to impose sanctions with respect to the use of driver interlock systems, which is an innovative technical advance that will allow a person convicted of impaired driving to continue driving if they comply and take full responsibility for the cost of installation.

It is time for the government to follow the lead of some of the provinces that are moving in that direction. Innocent victims who are killed as a result of thoughtlessness and selfishness on the part of impaired drivers have to be addressed in a serious way. The federal government has an opportunity to send the message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. Bill C-18 is a step in that direction.

This legislative initiative, as I said, complements legislation that was brought in in the last session, legislation that expanded the window of time that police have to take samples up to three hours. The legislation also strictly enforced the .08 blood alcohol concentration level and made effective amendments to help police in the performance of their duties. Surveys indicate that it takes police officers on average two hours and 48 minutes to process criminal code charges involving impaired driving. Therefore, there is a greater need for a streamlined approach to the way in which impaired drivers are handled by the police. Physical sobriety tests and passive alcohol sensors will also help the police in their important task.

As well, we know there is a need to fill another gaping hole in the criminal code as it pertains to impairment by drugs, which is not as easy to detect as alcohol. The province of British Columbia has taken very innovative steps in training police officers to be able to recognize the impairment symptoms brought about by the use of drugs.

Police do their very best, and I commend all officers and those involved in the criminal justice system, but they are often frustrated by the fact that technicalities result in cases being thrown out of court on many occasions. Police are still denied the right to demand an automatic breath or blood sample from those involved in accidents.

I just wanted to indicate that there is more that can be done. I believe education plays a big part in that. Part of this debate will hopefully educate the public in that regard.

Parliament has put aside its partisan attitudes on this level. We are glad to see this legislation come in. Graduations are coming up and we hope that all students will embark on a very safe, alcohol free graduation.

[National Defence, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that does not restore confidence about the system itself. Years of cuts to the defence budget have hobbled the military and made it very difficult for it to conduct investigations of security breaches.

Concerns of office security for the frigate project became the subject of a 1995 segment of W5 . Since that time the audit has found that five complaints against the department merit investigation.

We have a pretty good idea who was responsible for the breach, yet the department does not want to pin it on anybody and again, no names have been released. Will the minister call in the RCMP to ensure that a full independent investigation occurs?

[National Defence, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberal government leaks like a sieve, yet another government audit has shown that a significant amount of defence department contract information was slipped to two Canadian companies bidding on parts of a $10 billion frigate program. The audit implicates a senior official and clerical staff and speaks of documents being removed without authorization. If true, criminal acts may have been committed.

In the interest of regaining public confidence which is waning, will the minister disclose the names of the companies which received this sensitive information so that an independent investigation can occur?

[National Defence Act, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague of the Bloc Quebecois on her speech.

I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Sydney—Victoria, for allowing me to pre-empt his remarks with my own. I also commend the parliamentary secretary for a very titillating speech. I know he takes a great deal of pride in bills and his knowledge of the technical aspect of bills such as this.

As has been said, these amendments pertain to the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act, as well as the criminal code. Obviously, there is very much a spirit of non-partisan support for the bill and its practical implications.

I was once told by a good friend and colleague in Nova Scotia, Kenneth Fiske, who is a lawyer, that when appearing before the court of appeal a person should be brief, be concise and be gone. That is what I intend to do with this speech.

The purpose of the bill is to include the genetic profiles of offenders, which will allow law enforcement officials to collect genetic fingerprints, which are very much useful in the investigation of serious crimes.

The bill is set up to mirror existing legislation which came before the House in recent times. It is there to enhance and equalize the system with regard to the military and ensure that those who are involved in serious offences involving violence will be held to equal account. As well, it provides that the evidence, which is necessary to prosecute and hold individuals to account, be available to the military.

This legislation, in essence, helps to achieve that goal and helps to bring about equality and fairness in the military justice system.

In recent years the courts have seen many high profile convictions, such as that of Paul Bernardo, and the eventual acquittal of Guy Paul Morin due to the use of DNA evidence. This demonstrates the usefulness of this latest tool of law enforcement in the protection of Canadian society.

We know that it is used for both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, which is an important nuance to understand. It enhances the accuracy and the truth of our justice system.

The DNA data bank, while being useful and careful not to trample on individual privacy rights, is a very good piece of legislation. It has been brought about by the hard work of individuals in this House, as well as those in the other place. It is very interesting and telling that it was brought forward as a Senate bill, and I commend and applaud the efforts of those in the other place.

I have recently spoken with regard to the tragically flawed conviction of Stephen Truscott. If DNA had been available in 1959 there is certainly reason to believe that it is quite possible his conviction could have been avoided. He would have been exonerated and spared a very horrible fate.

Also, the similar types of injustices suffered by Marshall, Milgaard and Morin may likely have been spared with the timely use of DNA evidence. Therefore, we should do everything possible to expedite its implementation.

This could be a very powerful legislative tool in the conduct of criminal investigations. My friend and colleague from Sydney—Victoria, who is a defence lawyer, would be quick to agree that it could often avoid a case even appearing before the courts. If there is evidence that exonerates, the prosecution may decide in its wisdom not to proceed. Or, if there is evidence which categorically places the individual at the scene of the crime, it may result in an earlier guilty plea.

Warrants for the taking of DNA samples provide a safeguard on the evidence that exists and meet some of the privacy concerns that were raised during the course of the debate.

It should be noted that the data bank itself, according to the government, will be operational by June 2000. We are into that month and we have had no word yet as to whether the government will fulfil that commitment. We have seen it in the past with health reform. We have seen it with the youth criminal justice act and environment legislation. Many times Canadians are led to believe that they will get a piece of legislation or a program, and sadly that does not come to fruition until months and sometimes years pass. Because of the importance of this type of bill and this very useful tool for criminal investigations, we are hoping that this will be the exception to the Liberal record in that regard.

We can only hope that the federal government will come through with adequate funding as well. We have known all along that this would very much enhance the present CPIC system and would allow police to be armed with the DNA strand and evidence which could be used to both convict and exonerate, and they are very much in need of a system that will accommodate that.

We know from earlier reports that the CPIC system, which would house this information, is at a point in its history where it is about to collapse. Money has been allotted for that. There was an announcement of $115 million for the data bank. At the same time, RCMP experts have estimated that they would need double that amount, $280 million for the data bank, for it to be really state of the art for the 21st century.

I must say that the reactions of the Liberals, when it comes to problems and cries for help from people like the law enforcement community, are nowhere near their rhetoric in terms of delivery. Law enforcement has been given short shrift in the past. We hope that will not be repeated. We are encouraged that this bill will certainly move in that direction.

This bill came about as a result of Senate hearings. It began back in 1998 with a report that was drafted to amend the National Defence Act and it was meant to reform the military justice system. The defence minister, I believe, was enlightened by this report, which contained a great deal of useful information in this regard.

For cases of sexual offence involving members of the military, the RCMP would not have had the jurisdiction they needed to do the job of taking and storing DNA samples. This bill, in essence, reacts to that perverse anomaly in the law and is very much, as I said earlier, about backfilling that inadequacy in the current legislation. The report of the committee was very useful and pointed out some of these inaccuracies and injustices under the current system.

The report also recommended that the federal government strengthen legislation concerning the administration of the bank itself and the security of that information, along with the ability and necessity of strict monitoring to ensure that there was a process whereby that information was not released into other government agencies.

We also know from the past number of weeks that this is very much a concern when it comes to cross-referencing Canadians' information. Again, this government has had a very dismal record to defend in recent weeks.

The commissioner of the RCMP would have final authority to make a report on the DNA data bank and he is required under law to make an annual report to parliament. We see this as a good safeguard.

This type of legislation is very much a technical and time-sensitive type of justice strategy that we are very encouraged will enhance the ability of our law enforcement agents to do their very important and sometimes under-recognized work in Canada.

Under this bill the DNA profiles of offenders subject to the code of service discipline who are convicted of serious and violent offences will be included in the national data bank, which again will allow for greater cross-referencing to solve, in many instances, unsolved crimes in the country. This is very much on par with the entire purpose of the DNA data bank and provides a standard of evidence that should be applied equally for all Canadians.

This new bill provides provisions that are included in the National Defence Act. It very much mirrors the existing legislation in our criminal code. It is there to contain a list of designated offences that would apply when it comes to the use of DNA. Again, it is the mirror image of what we see in the criminal code.

In cases of primary offences, it is mandatory for samples to be taken at the time of conviction, except in exceptional circumstances. This was an issue that was hotly debated at the justice committee in the Commons. It was one on which there was a great deal of disappointment in the law enforcement community, which was pushing for the legislation to very much reflect the same type of evidence gathering that exists for fingerprints, and that is that the officers would have at their discretion the ability to take DNA at the time of arrest when reasonable and probable grounds, the other standard that is always applied, existed.

It is an important point to note that they would be permitted to gather that evidence at the earliest possible point to prevent individuals being released on bail, knowing that they have outstanding offences or have been involved in other criminal activity that, upon the taking of the DNA at the time of conviction, would very much link them to those outstanding crimes.

I know that is a bit of an antiquated way of explaining it, but it would be very crucial for the Canadian Police Association, for example, to have this guarantee, which unfortunately did not come about.

For secondary offences, it is not the case that there would be mandatory convictions for a sample to be taken, so there is some solace to be taken.

Under Bill S-10 the list of scheduled offences limits the situations in which DNA samples can be taken and now applies to members of the military who have been convicted of those same said offences.

Within five years after the act comes into effect there will be an opportunity to review it. We feel that is consistent with transparency. I mention transparency because this government does not really possess a strong record on transparency and openness, irrespective of what was said in the red book. Sadly, that is a book in which Canadians cannot put a lot of faith.

There is a clear statement in the DNA profiles and samples that come from those convicted of crimes that establishes DNA profiles that can be used and held and cross-referenced for future investigations.

The implementation of this bill will enable police officers to be more effective in gathering evidence and using it to obtain convictions where justified and also address some of the backlog of cases where DNA evidence could be used to exonerate those who are awaiting trial.

This legislation is a positive move. I see it as a very powerful tool with important implications and repercussions for our justice system and for society generally. The provisions of the bill will ensure greater respect for the privacy of Canadians by setting clearer guidelines for the use of DNA by the police, the courts and others in our justice system.

The Progressive Conservative Party unequivocally supports this bill as it will help bring our society closer to achieving a sense of public safety. Anything that moves our justice system in that direction is something that we in the House certainly embrace.