Peter MacKay

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and a very apt description.

We know that the Prime Minister has always been prepared to manipulate the process, to use a provocative, powerful approach when he has a majority government to beat other provinces over the head. We know that other governments have been less likely to do so.

What about the farmers? Why did they not make today an agriculture day instead of sitting over there on their butts?

The province of Quebec is very concerned about why this is happening now. Why is the Prime Minister creating an issue at this time when there are other important issues brewing like agriculture, the crisis in the fishery on the east coast and problems right across the country? He is just creating an issue. There is no reason whatsoever to be in this debate right now. There is no reason. It is only because the Prime Minister once again wants to create a problem.

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Perhaps it is that it is Christmas. Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister is very good at manipulating the rules. It is very clear to him that we will be out of here some time in the next week. Of course that is at his urging; he is the person who will control the agenda. Then Quebeckers and the rest of the country will be left to stew in their own juices over the holidays, to sit and wonder and wait to see what the Prime Minister will do next.

This supply day is focused on agriculture. There will be significant debate on the issue. My colleague for West Nova will speak further on the Conservative position. Sadly the member for Brandon—Souris cannot be in the House. He is travelling with the agriculture committee and doing his good work on behalf of his party, of Canadians, and of his home province of Manitoba.

We are faced with a very crucial issue in and of itself, the issue of what the Prime Minister is up to. We read about it through a leak. The government policy is to leak things through the press rather than have any meaningful debate or interaction with members of the opposition. We see this time and time again, not only from the Prime Minister but from all ministers across the way. They would rather leak something to the press gallery than come in here to make a ministerial announcement, talk with members of the opposition or go to committee.

Why are members of the opposition even in the House if they cannot expect some kind of meaningful dialogue, some indication that government members are listening? Members of the House have been elected to put forward their beliefs on behalf of their constituents. Yet the government completely forgets that and abrogates its responsibility when it comes to having any kind of dialogue with members of the House. We see it in committees when ministers are simply too busy to appear before members of the committees to speak about the government plan, and we are left wondering what the point is.

With respect to Quebec we know that the plan is to be provocative and reckless. The government will impose what it thinks it should do as opposed to sitting down with Quebec and discussing what should happen. Does it try to include the commentary and thoughtful insights of the province of Quebec? No, that is not the way the government approaches the situation. It has not been and it probably never will be under this Prime Minister.

The Liberal government has very skewed priorities. It knows that its one driving or motivating force for being in government is to remain in government. That is what the government is about. It is not about identifying issues that are important to Canadians. It is about how it stays in power.

Government members are like survivors of the Titanic clinging to a lifeboat. That is the way they approach this matter. They will do whatever they have to do to stay in power. They are clinging to power by dividing the country. They have taken a provocative approach that will pit members of one province against those of other provinces. That is an easy thing to do. It is always easy to find issues that divide the country. The Prime Minister has demonstrated that time and time again.

It is very easy to keep the passions of people outside Quebec enraged against those who live in Quebec. It is very easy to leave Quebeckers with the impression that the rest of Canada does not care about them, and that is not true. That is not the case. There are people right across the country, francophones both inside and outside Quebec, who want to make the country work.

We have to remind Quebeckers and Canadians of that time and time again. Unity is something that can and will work in the country, but the Prime Minister does not understand that. He would rather pick a fight, get down on a very base level and try to impose his will, his vision if he even has one, of how Quebec should exist within the country. It is a sad day in the House when that happens. It is a sad day every day that the government takes a provocative and mean-spirited approach toward one province and one people in the country.

That is not the position of the Conservative Party of Canada. It never has been and never will be. We have a long and proud record of what we have tried to do to keep the country together, not in an appeasing way or in a way that is meant to give away rights but in a way that is meant to respect, understand and at least make meaningful and truthful gestures when it comes to keeping the country united and people of the country working toward a common goal.

I realize my time is short and that we are somewhat off topic in talking about agriculture, but it is too important an issue to let it go by at this time. We have not seen the type of leadership that one would expect from the Prime Minister who is from Quebec. He has abrogated his own responsibility and understanding toward his own home province in the move he has made today.

I suspect that members of the government are surprised and taken aback at the approach their leader, the Prime Minister, has taken. There is very little unity in the government as opposed to the unity in the country at this time, yet the Prime Minister, I suggest, is prepared to stumble recklessly into this issue for his own political gain.

When the press conference occurs today, Canadians should beware and be ready for what the Prime Minister will say. It is not going to be all wine and roses. That will be the approach he takes. It will be an attempt to baffle Canadians with his insights into Quebec. They should look a little deeper as to what is behind this provocative move by the Prime Minister. It is not an approach to heal; it is an approach that will harm the unity of this country.

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for West Nova.

With respect to agriculture we are very pleased that it was the Conservative Party that brought about this debate. Obviously the minister has been forthright in his remarks today, but it is increasingly clear every day that the federal government has not clearly recognized the importance of agriculture in Canada. Due to the urging of members of this party and others a standing committee is currently travelling in an attempt to deal with this crisis.

A crisis is the proper word. The government manages by crisis. It waits until the wheels come off and then it reacts. It is not like there has been any planning. The minister talked about long term planning. It will be a long time and a cold day in this place before we see long term planning coming from the government.

With respect to that topic we now know that legislation is coming that is meant to provoke the province of Quebec. Yes, the little cat from Shawinigan is out of the bag. We now know that the government plans to bring in legislation in very short order. There will be a press conference later today in which the Prime Minister will outline his attempt to poke Quebec in the eye once again and try to get the country embroiled in a debate over national unity.

We question the timing, the procedure, and the process that has been followed. It has been demonstrated again. We just finished a 40-plus hour debate over a similar issue, an issue that is divisive, an issue where the government has failed to consult, and an issue where the government deliberately ran roughshod and used a process to beat the opposition and rest of the country over the head to impose its will. We are about to embark on that same process again. Later today in a press conference the Prime Minister will outline his way to impose things upon the province of Quebec in a referendum.

We have to question that. As members of the House we are representatives of the people of Canada. It is our responsibility to question the Prime Minister as to why he is doing it and why he is continuing to demonstrate such a provocative, aggressive approach toward one province of the country. We have seen it. It is always Quebec that the government and the Prime Minister single out in an attempt to impose their will. We do not see leadership demonstrated in the government. We see dictatorship. We do not see democracy. We see autocracy. That is what the government stands for.

There has been very little insight from the Prime Minister. Time and time again he has demonstrated that he does not understand his home province. Again the process is being abused and used by the government to impose its will.

Why are we dealing with the issue of agriculture today? A supply day is traditionally and has always been a day on which the opposition was allowed to choose its priorities. It is clear that the opposition understands the priorities of the country a lot better than the government.

I am of the mind that the Prime Minister gets up every morning with no plan. It is whatever pops into his head that day. He got up one day and decided to pick a fight with the premier of Quebec and with the province of Quebec. Why? Maybe in the back of his mind he thinks that this is a way to somehow rewrite history, to correct the wrongs or correct the way he somehow dropped the ball in the pass. He is trying to make Canadians forget that he completely mismanaged this issue during 1995. He has completely misunderstood Quebec from the very day he entered public life.

There is very little faith not only in the province of Quebec but in every province. I suspect the premiers will be extremely upset when they come to understand what the Prime Minister is doing.

The premiers have not been consulted. The provinces have not been consulted. God knows the opposition has not been consulted at all on this issue. Why now? Why at this time when we have seen in the province of Quebec the most sustained period of stability that has existed for some time?

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-237, which is an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Strengthening property rights is a sentiment that we in the Conservative Party embrace wholeheartedly. The party has a long history in this regard. This legislation would afford greater protection in the bill of rights for property rights for both individuals and corporations.

The bill was last before the House on October 1998. I congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing the issue of property rights back to the House of Commons. He has been very dogged in his pursuit of this issue and his perseverance is duly noted.

It is unfortunate in a way because if the bill of rights was properly respected to the letter, this type of amendment would not be necessary. Once again, it is to underscore or strengthen existing law to co-opt a good idea, so I think it is somewhat a statement of the obvious in some areas. The Progressive Conservative Party has always been a proponent of the rights of Canadians and in particular the rights to own and enjoy property. Fully and unconditionally we support this concept.

The Canadian bill of rights itself was enacted in 1960 by the Progressive Conservative prime minister of the day, John Diefenbaker. It extended protection for the right to enjoy property, the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process, and obviously the right to a fair hearing.

In my previous comments at second reading I noted that in 1995 the Progressive Conservative Party across Canada approved a new constitution which lists one of the four principles as the following:

A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and the well-being of the people of Canada are:

1. the freedom of the individual Canadian to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;

2. the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and

3. the right to own property.

That is in the Conservative constitution.

The protection of property rights has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect of social and economic justice in this country. From the first settlers to those who faced the most overwhelming challenges of the size of this country, property was an immediate challenge. Yet there are inconsistencies within the laws concerning property rights today.

Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights over 50 years ago. It underscores again the importance of these rights.

Through the costly and discriminatory Firearms Act, the government is depriving law-abiding Canadian citizens of their property. Let us not beat around the bush, this is what is at the principle of this bill. I am referring specifically but not exclusively to rural Canadians who rely on the use of long guns for hunting, and farmers who use them for the protection of their livestock, for the elimination of predators. It is viewed more as a tool and a farm implement.

It is incumbent upon me at this point to say that on the 10th anniversary of the Montreal massacre it is perhaps ill-timed that we find ourselves debating this issue. Anyone on either side of this gun registration debate I think would agree that we should be focusing on mourning the loss of the 14 bright young future leaders of our country who were gunned down in Montreal. Yet the debate is here, it is before the House.

It must be noted that even with the current Firearms Act, nothing could have been done to prevent the psychopathic killer Marc Lépine from engaging in his shooting rampage. Criminals simply do not register guns. The Liberals' gun registry will do nothing to prevent gun related crime, but will impose increasingly expensive and discriminatory regulations upon law-abiding citizens. Criminals will not participate in any form of legitimate gun registry. The Conservative Party would repeal that element of the gun registry system. This is a narrowly focused law. Other existing safety provisions introduced by the Conservative Party would be left in place, but the gun registry system would be gone.

Bill C-237 is not of great concern to many Liberals because most of their support comes from urban Canada. Only approximately 10% of the Canadian population would be immediately affected by this law. Most Canadians do not register their firearms. They do not have firearms to register. The perpetual costs and inconvenience of this law is affecting mostly rural gun owning Canadians who live outside of city centres.

Issues like gun registry are a concern everywhere. Guns are property. Law-abiding gun owners in rural Canada have a right to have guns.

The recent amendments to the Firearms Act unleash a discriminatory system on law-abiding property owners. The act was designed to put pressure on legitimate gun owners who have consistently demonstrated until now that they favour reasonable gun control and desire to live within the law. It targets the wrong group. The criminal code is being used to run roughshod over property rights in this regard.

Gun registry has been a complete failure, facing massive non-compliance by the over three million gun owners in Canada with seven million guns yet to be registered. Provincial challenges at the supreme court level are indicative of broad disagreement about the approach the government has taken.

With the costs now spiralling into the area of $300 million, one has to question the priorities of the government with respect to crime in Canada. As an example, $206 million has been set aside for the new youth criminal justice act over the next three years. This particular initiative has already cost Canadian taxpayers close to $300 million with very little impact, if any, on crime.

Even if registration could be processed on time, the cost is unreasonable to keep a farmer or a hunter from engaging in a very legitimate, legal exercise. Because the process has failed, many people will not register. The government will be confiscating property which legally belongs to the person in question without compensation. Many may face arrest as a result of this criminal code amendment.

To recap, big brother can take our property without compensation and then throw us in jail. This will commence an unchecked growth in illegal gun sales around the country, encouraging sales on the black market. A panel of Liberal experts told the justice minister this would happen but she did not listen to that advice.

The bill denies and drives more legitimate owners into selling their guns or giving them up. This will put more guns, illegal and otherwise, on the black market.

We know that our prison system is suffering problems from funding and overcrowding. We know that our police agencies are breaking down as a result of underfunding. But the government is spending millions of dollars seizing law-abiding citizens' property.

Will the government spend more money on organized crime? Not likely. Will it set a greater priority for where the money should actually be spent? It does not appear so. There is a lack of consistency on the part of the government. It is refusing to act on constitutional grounds with respect to this bill. It, among other groups, will oppose it. But the Progressive Conservative Party is going to support this bill for the reasons I have referred to.

The Liberals rejected a truly effective DNA data bank system for similar reasons. They said they were afraid of the legal consequences. Yet they are going to keep a law that barely survived the Alberta Court of Appeal and is now going before the Supreme Court of Canada which we hope will succeed.

Governments have a duty to taxpayers to wait until the supreme court settles issues of constitutionality. They should not be deterred or afraid by it. The government suffers perpetually from charter constipation. It has already spent close to $300 million and counting. This will be followed by confiscation and lengthy court battles as a result.

The government argues that property rights are already adequately protected under the Canadian bill of rights. If it cannot continue, this will violate article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights by arbitrarily taking property from Canadian citizens.

The PC Party does not want to limit the government's ability to legislate. It needs to be constantly reminded that its powers to override property rights go against individual rights in this country. There is a delicate balance that must be respected.

The issue of property rights in our constitution is also very problematic. The omission of property rights from section 7 of the charter greatly reduces the scope of the charter in this regard. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or a fair procedure for the taking of property by the government. It also means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with powers over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.

Thus section 7 “liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not including economic liberty”.

Bill C-237 will help enhance the protection that most people thought they already had under the constitution. It does not try to change or challenge the charter because this is a complicated process. Rather, it tries to strengthen property rights and provisions of the bill of rights.

Section 237 would also accord greater strength to the charter of rights and for Canadians to enjoy property. It would also enhance the right to be paid fair compensation, to have fixed compensation, to have timely compensation and to apply to the courts to obtain real justice.

Bill C-237 recognizes that the gun registry system has not been working. The protests and legal challenges continue to mount against the existing Firearms Act, but the Liberal government is not using its good discretion. It is abusing its authority. We need legislation such as Bill C-237 more than ever.

In conclusion, I want to send a message to those who do oppose gun registration. Today is the day to remember the 14 women who died at École Polytechnique. It is a day to remember that violence against women still exists. The PC Party feels that this particular bill is worthy of support. We want to send our condolences to those affected by this massacre.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my colleague from West Nova. I know that he and all members of the House are very concerned about this type of scenario. He poses a very practical question.

Earlier I referred to the commentary by Judge Clyde F. MacDonald in Pictou county when he made that exact analogy. I suggested that the current criminal code provisions spoke to murder and manslaughter when alcohol was involved. Oftentimes that is the case, particularly in domestic situations. It seems in those cases it is only an aggravating circumstance. Or, sometimes defence lawyers use it as a mitigating circumstance as to the state of mind of the individual who committed the murder.

Surely impaired people, who voluntarily put alcohol in their systems and get behind the wheel and go out on the highway and kill someone, have to be dealt with very harshly under the current provisions of the criminal code.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question. I agree that there are other sections of the criminal code that address similar types of situations.

Impaired driving could also be prosecuted as criminal negligence causing death. I personally favour the insertion in the criminal code of a section that recognizes vehicular homicide. Perhaps that might satisfy the hon. member in terms of having a code section attached to that provision when there is a degree of negligence coupled with the presence of alcohol.

With the greatest respect to my colleague from Quebec, we have a difference in philosophy in terms of the rehabilitative process. We also have a difference in philosophy on the vision of the country. There is no question that we can do more about rehabilitation when it comes to alcohol and drug related problems, but the money has to be available.

Currently that is not the situation. The government has not put the money forward for these types of programs to protect society. Sometimes these individuals have to be incarcerated for lengthy periods of time.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague who is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice for his question. The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has worked very hard.

The hon. member makes a very good point about rehabilitation. There is no question that a person with an alcohol addiction problem will not be cured out and out by a lengthy prison sentence. However I spoke about the issues of deterrence and denunciation that are required when it comes to the taking of a human life.

The simple short answer to his question is that yes, sadly there are occasions when a person has repeatedly taken a chance by getting behind the wheel. As remarkable as it might sound, there are occasions when four, five, six or ten convictions are racked up and even after having spent time in prison the person will still take that chance. If one life can be saved by a lengthy period of incarceration, why would we not want to give judges the discretion to impose that type of deterrent sentence?

My hon. friend is also a practising member of the Quebec bar. He is intimately familiar with the criminal code, speaks in a very erudite way about criminal law matters and shares my passion for criminal law. However he knows that even the imposition of a 14 year sentence, or potentially a life sentence, does not mean that the person will serve that amount of time in prison.

Time and time again we have seen corrections and the parole board release individuals one-third, one-sixth or one-fourth into their sentences. If a judge decides that an individual offender has taken liberties and has jeopardized human life or human life and limb, the person deserves a sentence in the range of a life period of incarceration, which in Canada does not mean life. We know that means at a maximum 25 years and usually much less. If a judge can get the message out to the community, the small communities that are willing to take the risk, then let us put the tools in the hands of our judiciary to send that message.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with pleasure that I rise in this House, and particularly now to address this bill. I believe it is critical that the minister recognize this important issue and have this legislation introduced before Christmas.

I am very pleased that after months of delay the government has come forth with legislation that will reintroduce the life imprisonment clause for impaired driving causing death. This is a very timely introduction of the bill.

The life imprisonment provision was originally part of Bill C-82, the act to amend the criminal code with respect to impaired driving, which came into law and into effect in the last parliament.

Bill C-18 will allow a judge the discretion to invoke a life sentence for impaired driving, in essence strengthening the existing provisions of the code. Obviously it is contemplated for the worst of all case scenarios, most aggravated circumstances, repeat offenders, high readings and the like.

This simply raises the ceiling for this type of offence. Vehicular homicide is murder, let there be no doubt. When it comes to the result of a reckless and negligent act, the intrusion that this places upon the victims of these types of offences, the harsh reality is that a person killed by a car is just as dead as a person killed by a gun.

These imprisonment provisions came in exchange for speedy passage in the House. Some of the parties in opposition backed away from this particular provision at the justice committee when the legislation was to be introduced. Now they have recapitulated and come forward in support and I am hoping that support will continue throughout this debate.

The Conservative Party felt that these provisions were very important and thus assurances were received from the Minister of Justice that these clauses would be reintroduced as separate legislation. I congratulate the minister for having had the integrity and foresight to follow through with that.

The Conservative Party does support Bill C-82 but felt that there were areas for improvement, this being one of them. Bill C-82, without a doubt, improves upon the current outdated legislation and introduces tougher sanctions in the areas of fines and suspensions. But the bill itself did not give police sufficient powers to protect society from hard-core drinkers resistant to charges of impaired driving, nor did it allow for automatic breath and blood samples to be taken from those who were involved in impaired driving related accidents.

Tragically, most people have experienced or know a person directly or indirectly whose life was affected due to careless and negligent acts of a drunk driver.

Criminal offences involving drunk drivers have declined 23% since 1994. However, this is a bit of a misleading statistic. In 1997, we know that the statistics started to level off again. It is misleading because many individuals involved in this type of activity simply do not get caught. We know that with the cuts to police forces across the country, detachments are often understaffed and officers simply do not have the sufficient equipment and patrol cars to be out on the roads to combat this most serious problems.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving released a press release in November 1999 in which Carolyn Swinson dealt with the stats over the last 15 years. The press release stated:

Jurisdat (did the statistics) reports that 103 people were charged with impaired driving causing death. Yet Transport Canada reports that 1,350 were killed due to impaired driving. Jurisdat reports that 886 were charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm. According to 1996 figures, there were approximately 46,000 Canadians seriously injured in alcohol related crashes...in some cases, police are opting to suspend an impaired driver's licence with provincial administrative sanctions rather than lay a federal criminal code charge.

This is because provincial governments proceed quicker through the courts when a code section is invoked under those provisions. As well, provincial governments do not collect statistics that reflect this. Therefore, to suggest that the statistics are truly indicative of the numbers of impaired drivers on the highway is quite wrong.

British Columbia does collect statistics of provincial licence suspensions that arise from these types of problems, and these do increase proportionately to the same number that are showing up in the federal statistics.

The problem itself is quite clear. Hard core drinkers continue to get behind the wheel irregardless of efforts that are made either through federal or provincial statutes. We should not be content until we have tightened up both federal and provincial legislation to deal with this problem in every way possible. Where we can accomplish the saving of lives, it stands to reason and is a statement of the obvious, that we as legislators and elected persons should be putting every effort into the task of ensuring safety on our roads and highways.

Positive steps that do come from this legislation include provisions that would increase the time limit for breathalyzers and approved screening devices in the testing of impaired drivers to three hours, and also encouraging and strictly enforcing the over .08 provision of blood alcohol concentration. All these amendments will assist police officers in the performance of their duties.

The previous speaker from the NDP spoke about the province of Nova Scotia and the efforts made there to toughen its impaired driving legislation. Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm has just introduced and ushered in legislation that would suspend drivers for 24 hours if .05 trace of alcohol was found in a person's blood while operating a motor vehicle.

Premier Hamm and members of his administration, like Jim DeWolfe, Bill Dooks and Ron Chisholm, are all working very hard for all Nova Scotians and their constituents in this particular legislative area. Yet, sadly, the problem persists. It does not only persist with young people, which is another misnomer about this particular problem. The Canadian Automobile Association, CAA, says that its message to drunk drivers and the dangers that flow from this is getting through to the age group of 16 to 25, but impaired driving remains a stubborn problem with respect to those in the age group 35 and older.

In 1997 in Ontario, more than 300 people were killed on the roads as a result of drunk driving. If all of these drivers were caught, that would hopefully stem the problem. However, it does not stem the problems for the victims of these related accidents. We know that lifetime suspensions that can result are one way to deal with these particular drivers as an after the fact approach.

However, drivers do have the provision and option now to install interlock devices that will get them back on the road sooner. These are very encouraging steps that the government, in co-operation with the opposition, has worked toward bringing into fruition.

Fines can be increased to at least $2,000, with judges being given the option of imposing higher fines if the circumstances dictate.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that over a two year period an impaired driving conviction costs at least $5,000 in terms of additional premiums to consumers. There are obviously spinoff costs that relate to this problem as well. It is surely not to suggest by any means that this is just a fiscal problem, because the cost in human life and limb is the most prevalent and serious aspect of the issue.

Yet even with financial hardship, embarrassment, publication of names and this type of information, there are still individuals who take the chance or stubbornly refuse to give up this type of lifestyle and activity. The message has to be sent and sent clearly.

There is often reference in the criminal code and in the court rooms across the land to deterrents and denunciation. However, the seem to be, in many instances, bad words or words that are not quickly embraced by the justice system in the country. They are noticeably absent from the new youth criminal justice act. However, deterrents, both general and specific, still very much have a role to play when judges and our criminal justice system are attempting to send a message to individuals. That is to be coupled with all sentencing provisions and all of the considerations that judges must take in when crafting a sentence.

To combat the problem itself, we must assist police officers. Police on average indicate that it takes two hours and forty-five minutes to process a criminal code charge relating to impaired driving. Police need better access to mobile breathalyzers, physical sobriety testing and passive alcohol sensors to make their job more efficient and to enable them to assist the public in this battle against impaired driving.

Police officers do an amazing job with the tools that they have but they are faced with fiscal undermining and a very complicated and ever-increasing active criminal element in the country. The police do the best they can to the best of their abilities but they are increasingly frustrated. Warnings and fines do not work on hard-core drinkers. The police need to have their powers enhanced in some instances to get that message across.

As I indicated earlier, the Minister of Justice is to be commended for reintroducing the legislation. I hope, and the previous speakers have indicated that there will be broad support for the legislation. I hope it will receive swift passage through the House.

When it comes to the age of majority and the age of drinking, one has to recognize that with privileges come responsibility. Some consider a driving licence to be more of a right, than a privilege, but it is in fact a privilege. It is incumbent upon the legislators in this place to remind Canadians that there is responsibility associated with that. Giving additional powers to police officers to demand breath and blood samples whenever an accident occurs would also be a welcome inclusion in the criminal code when the accident that results from an impaired driver leaves a person dead or injured.

I understand that the demand for a breath or blood sample without sufficient evidence raises problems in the legal community. There is a strong argument to be made about the violation of an individual's rights, the presumption of innocence and the charter implications, but on balance the need for these powers to gather evidence and protect society from impaired drivers, and because of the prevalence of this particular type of offence, I suggest it is justified. This minor infringement is certainly in the public interest. Currently an officer is allowed to request a roadside breath sample based on reasonable suspicion.

Based on an accident, this, in and of itself, is a suspicion that an officer should and could rely on for the demand for a blood or breath sample. In the confusion of an accident, it stands to reason that officers are often very much concerned with assisting injured individuals and evidence is simply lost. Instead of forcing police officers to make sometimes very tough judgment calls, everyone should be subjected to a breath or blood sample within the discretion of the officer when the circumstances arise. This eliminates the judgment calls and relies on technology to determine the guilt or innocence based on an approved screening device.

Inevitably there is a lengthy and legal wrangling that will result over the admission of this type of evidence and the police are very often put on trial in these types of criminal code offence prosecutions.

This will allow a police offer to better do his duty. I also suggest that it would free him up to be back on the street sooner doing the job that he or she is entrusted to do.

I am suggesting that the strengthening of impaired driving legislation will help the country. It will help all citizens in improving the safety on our highways. It certainly will strengthen the criminal code in its approach to this type of offence. Bill C-18 is but a part of the puzzle. I am hopeful that the House will also consider future changes to the criminal code in this particular area.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other such administrative arms have done a terrific job in raising the profile of this issue. We can do a great deal more in terms of educating people about the problem itself. We do have to do more to send a message to habitual offenders who continue to endanger lives on the highways.

Judge Clyde MacDonald, in my hometown of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, often used to say that an impaired driver under the influence of alcohol driving down the Trans-Canada highway, pointing the vehicle at innocent oncoming traffic, was no different than pointing a gun at a person. That is the type of realistic approach that we are hoping judges will take when combating this problem.

We hear time and time again from the government, and hopefully with all sincerity, that public safety has to be the number one concern. I encourage all Canadians to support and embrace Bill C-18.

I would like to recognize all members of the justice committee who participated and worked extremely hard on this legislation. I also want to thank the numerous witnesses who appeared before the committee and gave their expertise and insight into this issue, many of whom had been affected directly and gave heartbreaking stories about how their lost loved ones had been taken from them by impaired drivers.

For these people and for all Canadians, we have to send a message that impaired driving will not be tolerated. As they did with Bill C-82, I am hopeful that all members of the House will put aside partisan politics and work together in this public interest and vote in favour of Bill C-18.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to wish you and all members of the House the best for the holiday season, a healthy and safe holiday season.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, are these questions and comments for the government House leader or for the previous speaker, because I would like to ask how many times the government has invoked closure at this point in the parliament.

[World Hockey Challenge, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to inform the House that Pictou county, in another sporting triumph, will be welcoming the world to our community in January 2001 when it hosts the under 17 World Hockey Challenge.

This tournament brings together the best 16 year old hockey players in the world, many of whom will go on to star in the NHL. Joe Sakic, Pierre Turgeon, Mike Recci and Wade Redden, to name a few, are all former participants of the tournament.

The talents of these young men will be showcased at the New Glasgow stadium, which in 1998 hosted the Air Canada Cup and this summer raised to the roof the sweater of Stanley Cup champion John Sim.

They will be participating in the Under 17 World Hockey Challenge and will be surfacing again representing their country at the world junior championships and, quite possibly, the Olympic Games.

My congratulations are extended to those who have worked so diligently to bring this winning bid in the first ever world hockey championship to be hosted by the province of Nova Scotia. As any Nova Scotian will tell us, this province is no stranger to hosting these types of tournaments.

On behalf of the PC Party, I extend our support and encouragement to all participating teams.