Peter MacKay

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her remarks. They were very insightful, passionate and sincere. I could not agree more with the need for reasoned and moderate debate.

However, along that line I would ask the hon. member, in all sincerity, that if this was the true intention, why did her government, three days after the Marshall decision was handed down, decide to prorogue parliament, thus hamstringing and in no small way completely doing away with the ability to debate this issue in the House of Commons? It was the Progressive Conservative Party that had to call for this debate. It was not done voluntarily by the government.

If that is the case and if debate is what will lead to a solution—and I agree with the member that it will—why did her government do away with that ability by proroguing this House?

[Speech From The Throne, October 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it has become obvious that not only was there an omission in the throne speech but also there was a lax approach by the government to this emerging crisis. It was two weeks before the government chose to act. Going back even further, it is shocking to think that the government did not anticipate or foresee that this was one of the possible scenarios the supreme court could follow in its decision in the Marshall case.

I know that members of this party, members from South Shore, West Nova, Southwest Nova, Petitcodiac, Beauséjour, our newest member, and Saint John have worked very diligently to meet with both the native and non-native fishers to get their ideas and input. I am encouraged to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has followed that tack. Now the time has come to sit down with these members to try to come up with a solution that is going to work respecting the need for conservation and respecting what the supreme court has done in a meaningful but measured way to avoid violence or possible death in this issue. It has to be done quickly.

[Speech From The Throne, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I begin on a congratulatory note. I extend my congratulations to all previous speakers and leaders. I also extend congratulations on behalf of the party to the new governor general, Madam Adrienne Clarkson, and offer our best wishes to the outgoing governor general, Mr. LeBlanc. Some congratulations are also in order with respect to the Speech from the Throne which broadly and vaguely stated the government's willingness to look to the future.

It is necessary to compliment the Liberal government for finally recognizing that the modern economy exists, for showing an awareness for the next century and for spending some time in the throne speech telling Canadians that new technologies will play a larger role in all our lives. These are penetrating statements of the obvious, yet it marks a shift in simply following the policies of a previous Conservative government and reaping the benefit of those visionary initiatives.

We are on the verge of the 21st century; that is an undeniable fact. The Liberals acknowledge it, and that is encouraging. They may have taken six years to do so, but finally the government has taken the risk of stating that the country is in a period of transition and that there are a number of challenges ahead on the horizon. Yet there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne that helps Canadians understand the direction in which the Liberals wish to steer Canada. Nothing in the throne speech assures Canadians that the country is going in the right direction. The Speech from the Throne says nothing about all the complicated workings of governmental affairs.

I compliment the government for making a grand gesture to the Canadian public yesterday, a gesture that exhibited supreme confidence in the future of the country and the ability of Canadians to respond to future challenges. Unfortunately it was an empty and shallow gesture, one which offered no vision and no leadership. This was not a blueprint of where the country is headed. It was a pencil sketch or connect the dots. Sadly it showed a government with no ideas, no focus and no sense of how we move the country forward, only vague notions of what the future might look like.

Canadians want some serious issues addressed, issues like increasing the tax burden, the agricultural crisis in western Canada, the issue of immigration, or the consequences of a hostile takeover resulting in a single national airline. Those looking for these issues to be addressed in the throne speech were sadly disappointed.

There were a lot of right sounding words in the throne speech, words like knowledge economy, building a higher quality of life, technology and advancing Canada's place in the world. These are all important issues that this parliament will have to address, but beyond the catch phrases themselves there was nothing, nothing new and nothing that explains the purpose of the government.

It is disheartening to see over the course of several months that the federal government failed to prepare itself for this new parliament, even with the three-week delay in the opening. It failed to meet the demands of Canadians for a responsible government and for the delivery of a vigorous new plan for this parliament.

It has also failed to anticipate the Supreme Court decision in Marshall, the void that it would create and the chaos it would initiate.

It is appropriate now to quote a respected Canadian philosopher, John Ralston Saul, who wrote:

The modern tools of communication become the tools of propaganda. And fear of the consequences of non-conformity is propagated.

This statement takes on a wonderful clarity and irony in the context of yesterday's throne speech. What was the meaning behind the promises we heard? Were they one line promises with little if any detail on how exactly these promises were to be implemented? It was much like we have seen from previous throne speeches from the government. Much of what we heard were ideas generated by the PC Party of Canada or ideas that have been long media tested, words that sound wonderful and warm people's hearts but do not amount to much.

No one would deny that we need to improve our commitment on children's issues, to a stronger economy, to a quality health care, to aboriginal peoples amongst other issues. These we can all agree on but where were the details? When can Canadians count on the government to explain its vision in a manner that provides answers rather than more questions?

We have heard much about the Liberal's concept of diversity. We heard it many times in yesterday's speech. How can the government speak of respecting diversity when it chooses to antagonize Quebec, when it chooses to antagonize Atlantic Canada, the west and other regions and when it chooses to antagonize every region of the country with alienating provocative approaches to federalism?

When the government boldly states that the supreme court decision on the clarity of the referendum question must be respected it makes clear that the goal is to provoke Quebec. The Liberal plan B approach has done nothing but antagonize Quebec and is completely unconstructive.

We need to encourage Canadians if we are to evolve as a strong and united country. When the government ignores the plight of western farmers or Atlantic fishers it shows that it respects diversity only when it falls within the Liberal agenda. It demonstrates that it is only a true crisis that evokes a response and even then the government responds slowly and inadequately.

It is heartening to know that the government has finally recognized the priority that needs to be given to environmental issues, six years too late, I might add. And still the Liberals have done nothing more than to affirm and reaffirm Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocols and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The government speaks of a children's agenda but it has not taken any meaningful action to protect the environment in which our children will live. Thankfully, some industries have stepped up the challenge and have taken meaningful steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to do so from their factories. Others have not been so noble. The government needs to stop talking about the reduction of harmful greenhouse emissions and start meaningful implementation of those commitments.

I talked about what was in the throne speech. What we uncover more about the government is in discussing what was left out of the document.

The throne speech delivered the message of the new economy, of high technology and of the Internet, but here we have a government that has abandoned the country's traditional industries, industries that have powered our economy for more than a century, industries such as forestry, fishing, oil and gas, mining, farming and shipbuilding. These industries continue to play an invaluable role in keeping our communities alive, prosperous and thriving, traditional industries that have sustained Canadians and provided not only income and occupation but also pride and purpose. They continue to do so. They continue to be a part of Canada's overall economy despite Liberal government indifference. Where on earth was the commitment to our brave men and women of the armed forces for equipment and resources to ensure their safety and success? This glaring omission speaks volumes.

Within the pages of the speech there was a flavour of the abandonment of the past. While the push to the future is a noble ideal, we cannot forget the fact that our traditional industries continue to provide meaningful work in areas of high unemployment. The speech was littered with reaffirmations of previously unfulfilled promises or commitments.

As a Maritime member, it becomes obvious that the lack of focus on significant industries will have a negative impact. It sends a message to Atlantic Canadians and others that they are not a high priority for the Liberal government. One only has to look at the results of the last federal election and two recent provincial elections in the Atlantic provinces to know how Atlantic Canadians react when ignored.

When the Liberal government speaks of high technology and of the knowledge based economy bringing a higher quality of life to Canadians, it neglects to mention that the costs to the quality of life in our smaller communities amongst fishers, farmers and miners will be hurt. Let us build a stronger future by encouraging and connecting Canadians from coast to coast. Let us not disconnect from the important industries that continue to drive the economy.

It is appropriate tonight that we in the House will be participating in a debate on the crisis emerging in the commercial fishing industry between native and non-native fishers. The government has tiptoed around this critical issue for weeks allowing it to fester and grow to the point of confrontation and violence.

Let us hope that the government uses tonight's debate as an opportunity to reset its priorities and focus on the necessity of finding a swift and long term resolution to this crisis. This must be an inclusive focus on consensus building and it must avoid the base political antagonism that has been practised by some.

We have learned recently that aboriginal chiefs, including those who have until now supported the moratorium, have just left the meeting in New Brunswick and that the fisheries self-imposed moratorium is now off. This means that boats and traps will be put back in the water and there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and addressed quickly.

Across the country other crises emerge. The crisis faced by the western farm families went literally and figuratively unnoticed in yesterday's throne speech. The low agricultural prices caused by subsidies among our trading partners threatens to put many Canadian farmers out of business completely. This issue needs government action before it is too late.

There is nothing in the throne speech that will stem the brain drain. The government must move to keep highly skilled Canadians from emigrating to the United States. As well, there is nothing to stem interprovincial brain drain. Far too many young Canadians are forced to move away from home and family depriving their communities of the knowledge and the skills necessary to build a strong foundation for the country in the 21st century.

We cannot wait for more Centres of Excellence to be established and more implementations of millennium scholarships. A focus on research and development and the improvement for our children is laudable. However, if our children are to simply grow up, become well educated, armed with skills and then move to the United States what have we accomplished and what have we gained?

We can do more than simply applaud the government's commitment to a free trade arena or area of the Americas by the year 2005. We can do that but it is finally heartening to see that free trade has become a government priority. Free trade is something that this party initiated. I would certainly like to see the Liberal government undertake this effort with as much vigour and tenacity as it did with its anti-free trade efforts in 1993.

It may have taken the Liberal government six years but it appears that it has finally realized that for Canadians to succeed they must be innovative and productive. They must invest in skills development and they must seek new opportunities around the world.

The reality is that the Liberal track record has been about declining productivity and investment, record levels of taxation and punishing regulations and red tape. Pie in the sky platitudes are not enough for Canadians and after six years they should and do expect more.

The Liberals are simply paying lip service to increasing our quality of life. Under this Prime Minister, Canadians have seen their federal tax revenues go up while their disposable incomes and revenues go down. At best, we have seen incomes decline. The Liberal government's lack of vision and leadership is actually destroying and undermining Canadians' quality of life not improving it as the throne speech would have us believe.

The government needs to cut taxes starting with personal income taxes and capital gains taxes. We must put money back in the pockets of those who have earned it and allow them to generate economic growth. The government must set firm, achievable debt reduction targets.

The PC Party of Canada has given specifics about where it stands on tax issues such as the decrease in the capital gains tax and a full indexation of tax brackets. The Liberal government has remained silent. Our party will continue to consult with experts and Canadians on this matter. Our federal government chooses to avoid consultation.

This reluctance to put forward a plan for tax cuts is part of a trend. We have not seen any ground-breaking initiatives in the last six years that would reverse the trend. The government's commitment to seasonal workers is abysmal. Agriculture, natural resource workers, middle class families and scores of other Canadians have been ignored and undercut by the government.

Tax reduction is fundamental to the economic well being of Canadians and tax relief, more dollars being left in the hands of families with children, would be a step in that direction. To help children, the government must help parents of those children with meaningful tax relief. In the throne speech, the government said it would make a third significant investment in the national child benefit but there are no details of exactly how much the government will invest nor are there any contingency plans should the provinces and territories choose not to co-operate.

Just as it has done with a series of other issues, issues such as poverty where the Liberals identified a problem that was obvious to all and then provided Canadians with false hope. Canadians are becoming cynical and despondent. The government even created a separate ministry aimed at poverty but with no budget and no mandate and then tried to convince Canadians that it had addressed the problem. Canadians will not be fooled.

There are more examples of more promises and no action. The government's day to day management of native issues contradicts the promise that aboriginal people will be able to more fully participate and contribute to Canada's economy. This paternalistic attitude flies in the face of the government's pledge to promote greater aboriginal self-reliance.

The government's attempt to present itself in a caring and compassionate way as a government that helps families and children in particular is a sham. However, in the Year of Older Persons nowhere was there even a mention of seniors. To quote my colleague from Saint John:

Too often in our society today, seniors are overlooked and ignored. Our society is aging, and as it does, more and more seniors are falling through the cracks—substandard housing, inadequate health care, and in many cases, just plain neglect. Yet this government didn't see fit to mention them even once in their blueprint for the new millennium.

Whether I speak of families, children or of the elderly, it is obvious that when it comes time to implement legislation that would be truly beneficial the government has constantly failed to deliver. One need only look at the government's chance to reform family law and strengthen support with the joint common senate committee on child custody in 1997. The government ignored its report and the justice minister has already indicated that she wants more consultations that will last until the year 2002.

Another area where the Liberal government has failed to deliver has been with the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. It has called this legislation a priority yet it has refused to acknowledge how it is going to pay for this when it is already not living up to the monetary commitments under the old young offenders act.

The lack of attention to youth crime has spilled over into other areas of law enforcement. An abysmal lack of funding for the RCMP has constantly forced our Mounties to do more with less. This has literally endangered the officers and the public at large. Bowing to public pressure, the government is now expecting the already overworked members of our national police force to combat high tech crimes such as money laundering, organized crime and the smuggling of people, guns and drugs.

The government speaks of public safety as its number one priority yet it continues to release dangerous offenders into our communities.

Finally we have more Liberal rhetoric regarding the future of health care. It is fine for Liberals to talk about improving our health care system but it cannot be forgotten that the dire straits of health care in the country was created by this government. By simply putting money back in when it does not even equal the amount of money that was taken out, our health care system will not improve.

This approach simply will not cut it. Accessible and universal health care is one of the things for which Canadians take the most amount of pride. We are very anxious to see how this government plans to keep the proud tradition of our health care system alive. Certainly this throne speech gives no hint. Medical research is vital. If the government intends to foster an international reputation as a world leader in this field, we cannot continue to ignore the daily health care needs of Canadians. They are sadly off course.

The Throne Speech represents a government whose vision is a mile wide and an inch deep. There were some fine platitudes about this country's potential but there was nothing that provided Canadians with an understanding of where this government is coming from, and where it is going.

With the dawn of the new millennium, this Liberal government had a golden opportunity to present a comprehensive plan on the path that the country should take. Sadly that opportunity was missed and the government has traded vision for vagueness at the expense of all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I thank you for the opportunity to present our response to the throne speech.

[Fisheries, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that the native fishing issue has escalated so dramatically is that the minister's department had no plan regarding the court ruling, no ideas, and exercised none of the leadership that the minister should have been exercising.

Can the minister now explain why DFO was caught so off guard? As minister, does he accept responsibility for the violence that has occurred thus far in the wake of his inaction? Will he take responsibility for the future risks?

[Fisheries, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the 1990 Sparrow decision giving natives the right to conduct a food fishery should have sent warning bells when Donald Marshall Jr. appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada to fight his conviction for illegal fishing.

Given the Marshall decision and the ample time the government has had to study all possible scenarios coming out of the supreme court ruling, can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain why his department was so ill prepared to respond to the supreme court ruling?

[Airbus, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have come to expect stonewalling and delay every time they come in conflict with the Liberal government. When issues arise citizens face a barrage of government lawyers intent on foot dragging and legal manoeuvring.

A second named party in the airbus debacle now has a $50 million lawsuit pending against the Canadian government. My question is for the architect of airbus, the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Liberal government intend to settle this matter the way it did with Mr. Mulroney, or does it intend to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts before facing a final costly, humiliating verdict?

[Airbus, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, serious allegations of wrongdoing involving private holdings, campaign donations and questionable use of taxpayer money continues to plague the Prime Minister. As evidence mounts and the plot thickens, the grey fog rolls in to present the Liberal spin to cloak the facts and cover the tracks.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, when will the government withdraw this spurious letter of baseless allegations against Mr. Mulroney sent to Swiss authorities and call an end to the ill-founded airbus investigation?

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the heels of the previous speaker and all speakers who have participated in the debate. I commend each and every one of the participants who have taken part tonight and those who have taken part in the extensive consultations and efforts that were made to bring the legislation to fruition.

It is truly a very important response to what can only be deemed a national tragedy. It has been a very long and arduous process to arrive at the point where we are today. More important, it has been a long and arduous process for victims and groups like MADD, the Canadian Police Association and many others that constantly kept this issue at the forefront. Finally there has been a legislative response.

I acknowledge those groups and the efforts they made. The Victims Resource Centre was another group that was instrumental in bringing forward important issues at the committee level. It was very helpful in facilitating the testimony of many victims.

The victims themselves were those who had the most impact and had the most direct testimony to give. It was helpful and extremely useful in the formulation of many of the legislative initiatives which will be very instrumental in helping to protect Canadians and hopefully in helping to prevent some future tragedies on our roads and highways.

There have been many references to the fact that there are few members, and in fact few Canadians, who have not been touched at some point in their lives by some tragedy stemming from impaired driving, such as the hon. member for Chicoutimi, our party whip and the deputy leader of our party from Saint John. This tragic list goes on and on. Senator LeBreton is another example of someone who was very directly affected in this regard. She has been a very strident advocate of necessary changes to this legislation.

The remarks of my hon. colleague from the NDP were quite apt. Summer is approaching. Celebrations are afoot. Families are spending time together. I understand the House will be recessing soon and people's thoughts turn to vacation. Sadly a lot of drinking is often involved in those occasions.

If we can give any gift to Canadians, if we can participate in an effort to educate and respond in a responsible way to drinking to prevent tragedies and further carnage on our highways, this is perhaps the best and most telling thing we can do.

The efforts that have been put into the legislation hit some snags. The non-partisan nature of this legislation is very much borne out by the comments we have heard today. It is the implicit and intrinsic good found in the legislation which allows us to pass it quickly and to deliver it to Canadians in a meaningful way, which is what will happen.

Much has been said of the statistics that attach. One of the most chilling statistics I heard during the deliberations was the fact that 13,000 deaths and 90,000 injuries yearly were related to impaired driving. That breaks down further to 4.5 Canadians killed or 125 severely injured daily on our roads and highways as a direct result of impaired driving.

The statistics go further. We know that the human effects are not borne out by cold statistics. It is much like the sterile atmosphere we find in a court room where victims are often sitting there trying to make some sense of what has happened, some semblance of understanding of the effect it has had on them. These statistics are useful in demonstrating the need for a legislative response, the need for a strong deterrent message borne out by the legislation.

Changes have been brought about as a result of legislative initiatives and tougher sanctions. When I speak of sanctions I am talking of monetary penalties, periods of incarceration and periods of suspension or prohibition on driving. All three are very important cornerstones or underpinnings of the legislation.

Because of the statistics and the need for a speedy and expeditious response, I believe the provisions we see before us will have an effect. I suspect their impact will be immediate in the sense that some of these provisions in particular empower police officers to do their job in a more efficient and protective way when it comes to dealing with the problem of impaired driving.

I am speaking specifically of the ability now for a police officer to take a sample outside of the two hour time limit which was a static period of time that often left officers, victims and Canadians generally feeling very frustrated that police were being curtailed in their efforts to deal with impaired drivers on our roads and highways. There is obviously more that can be done. There have been lengthy discussions about some of the changes that we will not see as a result of Bill C-82.

It is very important to highlight some of the very positive aspects. Those aspects have been touched upon by previous speakers, such as the increases in fines and in prohibitions.

Some provinces in their provincial jurisdictions have taken their powers to the point where they are now seizing vehicles. I believe that this is a very important step. By taking away the car it removes from the offender the actual instrument of death. I believe that also sends a very important message. It is a message of deterrence and a message that this type of activity will not be tolerated because the stakes are too high. The human cost, the loss of life, the injuries and the life altering end results of impaired driving, is what all of these provisions are aimed at attacking.

There are increased penalties and an increased ability for judges to mete out sentences that are more reflective of society's abhorrence of this type of offence. It is also reflective of an overall attitudinal adjustment or shift in the way we have viewed this type of offence. For some reason, for far too long this has been somehow an acceptable behaviour. Perhaps acceptable is casting too broad a net, but it has been tolerated by our courts and our judiciary. Generally, we have not viewed this in the serious light that we should.

Previous speakers have touched on an important point. When a person's life is snuffed out through a careless act and a preventable crime occurs, the responsibility is there for our judges, our judicial system and our legislation to respond in a very strict way. That is what the legislation attempts to do. It puts more teeth into the Criminal Code. It is a more proportional response to the offences that alter people's lives and leave people dead, injured and shattered as a result of these types of offences.

We seem to have a much different tone in the debate here in the House of Commons than the very arduous one that took place at the committee level. The emotion that was invoked in those discussions and deliberations was quite reflective of the response and the need to respond on this particular issue.

Sentencing judges now have very proactive tools at their disposal. They have the ability to require a convicted impaired driver to have an interlock device. This is a very innovative approach. It will take away the ability of drivers to start their vehicles unless they provide a breath sample through an instrument that will be attached to their vehicles. The car will not start without the provision of a breath sample. That technical device interprets and reads the blood alcohol concentration in a driver's breath before the car will actually start. This type of approach is very innovative and positive in terms of allowing impaired drivers to get on with the rehabilitation.

We talk a great deal about the deterrents, the need to annunciate this type of offence and the need to respond in a harsh way. However, we cannot lose sight of the rehabilitative steps that have to be taken because this affects so many people. We can attend any provincial court in any province or region in the country and time and time again, when those arraignments are read, a disproportionate number of those offenders will be before the courts for impaired driving offences. Statistically, we know that these offences are still occurring at an alarming rate. One can only hope and pray that the steps we are taking here with the legislation that is now before the House will in some way start to curb those numbers.

I think the numbers bear out that we are starting to see a decline. It is a slow decline but it is steady. The attention that has been brought to bear on this issue and the efforts that have been made in committee go a long way to achieving some of these gradual steps that are occurring.

The interlock devices are but one attempt at this rehabilitative process that I spoke of. Another step is the mandatory treatment aspects that are now in the hands of a sentencing judge which gives a judge the ability to mete out a sentence that requires a person convicted of impaired driving to submit to counselling.

This counselling aspect ties in with what is an obviously inextricable element to impaired driving because many of the offenders have an alcohol addiction problem or a drug addiction problem. This is another often overlooked element of impaired driving. Many of those who take a risk and get behind the wheel are impaired by other substances which may be prescription or illicit drugs. These substances still have a very impairing effect on the driver which often results in tragedies; accidents and deaths on the highways.

Drunk drivers should be required to submit to a form of counselling wherein they would receive treatment for what is sometimes and has been deemed on many occasions to be an illness and an addiction problem. It is the repeat drunk driver, the hard core drinker who repeatedly takes a risk, who is responsible in the majority of cases for the death, carnage and loss of life and limb on the highways.

There are very proactive attempts and very deterrent oriented effects found within the legislation. Mr. Speaker, you are very aware of the issue and have spoken in this place on occasions on this issue as well. I think it is something that Canadians have waited a long time for. We are hopeful.

I commend all members of the committee and the Minister of Justice for recognizing that this as a priority issue. We are thankful that now, through the co-operative efforts and the negotiations that are literally, as the House leader of the opposition has said, taking place at the 12th hour, that we are able to bring forth this legislation in a timely fashion.

One of the elements that is missing from this legislation that was previously included in the report and in the draft legislation is the ability of a judge to hand down a sentence of life imprisonment where a person's impaired driving causes a death. I personally have strong feelings about the deterrent message that this would send.

We know that the sentencing range for this type of offence was previously punishable by incarceration of up to 14 years, but the benchmark appears to have been in the range of 8 to 8.5 years. I suggest that if we raise the ceiling to life imprisonment, we will see judges respond appropriately and proportionately across the country and ratchet up those sentences to reflect society's abhorrence of this. This would also send the message that this type of offence is no different than murder.

When I say murder, I am talking about the current murder provisions in the Criminal Code that allow for and permit sentencing judges to impose life periods of incarceration for manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and second degree murder which do take into consideration culpability. Alcohol, of course, is obviously the mitigating factor and, I would suggest, an aggravating factor in the determination of an appropriate sentence.

Because of the shocking statistics and because of the human cost and human element to this, I feel that empowering judges with this range of sentencing is an important part of the legislation. Sadly, we were not able to include that in the current legislation. However, I have the written and verbal assurances of the government House leader and the Minister of Justice that all efforts will be made to have this included.

If we are not able to pass legislation in this session, which appears unlikely, we will enter a stand alone bill that would permit the insertion of this particular section into the Criminal Code empowering judges with the range of sentencing up to life imprisonment. We will introduce that this week and then return in the fall to again have an opportunity to bring that section to fruition and have a debate here in the House of Commons.

One expression I believe that was used by the parliamentary secretary was a reference to Russian roulette and the obvious risk that congers up in one's mind when one talks of impaired driving and getting behind the wheel while impaired and the endangerment to others' lives. It is an apt statement.

There was a provincial court judge of Sunnybrae, Pictou County, Judge Clyde F. MacDonald who sits in the Glasgow provincial court who often used to say to impaired drivers who appeared before him that their actions were no different when they got behind the wheel of a car and drove down a highway than pointing a loaded gun at every car that came on to meet them.

I think that graphically illustrates the danger that is involved. One only has to pause for an instant and think about that scenario when we are driving home at any time of day and thinking that the car that is coming to meet us at a high rate of speed, speeding down the road, that several thousand pound piece of metal could veer off into our lane and take our life or the life of a loved one. Sadly, that is the reality of what takes place in far too many instances.

At the justice committee we heard from a young woman by the name of Sharleen Verhulst who lost her beloved sister in a tragic impaired driving accident. She has turned the negative energy that would flow from that and the absolutely tragic circumstance into a very positive action. She has taken her message, her very powerful presentation, to the committee, to high schools and groups across the country. She has made very useful suggestions to us, as did many other groups and individuals who appeared before the justice committee. They all made a very positive contribution which is reflected in the legislation and in the report that we have before the House.

The death of a victim is final, chilling and culpable. There needs to be greater accountability and responsibility on behalf of those who are willing to take the risk. This legislation is extremely positive. I have very little to say about it in a negative way.

The only criticism I have is that in some instances it may not go far enough and in some instances I question the resources that will be allocated to allow for the enforcement of some of these provisions. I speak mainly here of a lack of resources that are currently available to our municipal and federal police enforcement agencies.

There is also a degree of semantics and a degree of language that surrounds this discussion. Many of the victims, including Ms. Verhulst, were insistent that we do not refer to impaired driving accidents as accidents because they are not accidents. There is this degree of culpability. There is this degree of intent when a person recklessly consumes alcohol, gets behind the wheel of a car and assumes that risk. They do so at their own peril and at the peril of any innocent bystander who may then come into contact with them.

Vehicular homicide is perhaps a more appropriate phrase and a more appropriate way to describe this type of offence. This legislation is going to come into effect this summer, and we are thankful for that. However, as has been previously stated, there is still more work to be done. There is more work to be done in empowering police to respond appropriately.

We in the Conservative Party would very much like to see police officers being given the ability to take an automatic breath sample at the scene of an accident where there is reasonable and probable grounds to believe that alcohol is involved. We would like to see a greater emphasis and experimentation for alcohol sensors and that type of technology. We would also like to see greater training for police officers to recognize drug impairment.

With all that said, I believe this is a positive step that we have seen. It is a non-partisan issue that we have all anticipated in and embraced. I am very thankful to have been a participant in bringing the legislation this far. We look forward to working with the groups that have been so instrumental in the introduction.

[The Late Hugh Hanrahan, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I join in sending our sympathy to Mrs. Hanrahan and their daughter Margaret on the loss they have suffered in the passing of Hugh Hanrahan.

From what others have said, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice, it is very clear that the community in Edmonton is poorer for the tragic early death of Mr. Hanrahan. Yet it is very clear that in his short life he achieved much.

As an educator, orator and member of the House of Commons, Mr. Hanrahan served his constituents and his country proudly. He received the accolades and the respect of his peers in each capacity, and he served with dignity. This is not surprising for he was a son of Antigonish and the product of St. Francis Xavier University. His attachment to his Scottish and Irish ancestries was worn with pride. He has now returned to the welcoming arms of his beloved Nova Scotia.

We are grateful that Hugh Hanrahan was prepared to serve his community and the House. The country is richer because he did so. He served the public in a noble and dignified way. The loss to his family and his country is immense. With all members of his family, his party and this place, we mourn his loss.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. I tend to agree that hot button politics are not needed at this time in the country. Hopefully we will enter a perhaps more stable period on the political landscape. The last thing we need to do is to try to find open wounds and pick at them. That is not productive.

Because of our charter and because of the way our history has evolved, individuals in the country have been left with many rights and freedoms, but they are often collective rights and silent majority rights that are not always heard.

It is never difficult to find issues that inflame passions. What is difficult is trying to find a very tolerant and non-intrusive path to take that will be respective of the collective rights and respective of individual rights. That is what we should be striving to do.