Peter MacKay

[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.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of much consternation, even within the member's party. I fully acknowledge that decisions made in the House of Commons and in parliament generally will affect the current law. They will change the current law in most instances.

The definition of marriage and all the implications that flow from marriage, be it a legal definition, a moral definition or a person's own personal decision, will not be decided ultimately here. I suggest there are constantly changing definitions and constantly changing views of what is and what is not traditional in the country.

It is fine for the hon. member to suggest that we should clearly state that this is black and this is white, but that is not the case in an issue such as this one. Try as we might to cram things into small packages and to paint people into a corner, I do not believe we will further the debate by taking that stance, which is classic of the Reform Party.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take part in this debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has brought forward an issue that raises a great number of questions, perhaps more questions than we will be able to deal with in the time allotted for this debate.

The difficult aspect that I have with the motion and the wording of the motion is that it talks of the need to deal with this issue, which suggests that it is one of timeliness. I have to take some umbrage with that. I find myself agreeing with much of the discussion and the debate that is taking place, in particular when it was stated clearly by the Minister of Justice and echoed by other members that the definition of marriage already has quite a clear definition in common and civil law in this country. The acceptance of that reality in Canada is such that it leads me to question the necessity for this debate at this time, particularly given some of the very topical and more timely issues that exist.

We know of the strife that currently exists in places like Yugoslavia. We know, as well, that within our current justice system there is much that needs more full and open debate. We know that there is a crisis on the agriculture scene in western Canada, where most, if not all, Reform Party members find their homes. We know that tremendous challenges are being faced by our citizens in Atlantic Canada because of high unemployment and downturns in traditional industries like the fishery.

That is not to say for a moment that this issue is not one of importance. It is certainly one that I would suggest raises a great deal of emotion, which sometimes leads to extreme lines of thought.

Although it is an important issue, and is indeed important for those assembled here today and for those across the country to reflect on, I would suggest, given the amount of time that we have and the issues that are currently before us, that this is not something in which we should become bogged down. In acknowledging that marriage has very sacred and religious connotations and implications, and that there is always the need for the involvement of the church in this type of debate, there is also a need to acknowledge that there is a great deal of tolerance and clear thinking that has to be put forward before one draws clear legal definitions in the sand.

In my previous statement I said that the definition of marriage remains in place and intact to this time. To suggest, as is presumptive in this particular motion, that this is somehow under attack and is an issue of panic or urgency for Canadians is a misrepresentation.

This motion is very broad and asks for an affirmation, I suggest, of what already exists. The motion restates the current state of the law, both common and civil. Therefore, I question the nature of the motion, but I also question the motive for this debate. I cannot help but suggest that it is a presumptive and provocative attempt to raise what is considered a very divisive issue.

That is not to undermine the importance of the issue. There are many who would argue, in fact we have heard the argument today, that there is an erosion of social morals and that it stems from a decline in the institution of marriage. I personally do not prescribe to that thought. I believe that it runs much deeper and is far more complicated. My friend, the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, spoke very eloquently about the intimacy and the personal elements of marriage. I believe that to be very true.

This motion does not call for specifics. It does not call for an amendment to current legislation, particularly the Criminal Code. It does not speak of charter amendments. It does not speak of highlighting one particular right over another. It calls for the Government of Canada to acknowledge that this is an important issue. I think we have been given fairly concrete and static assurances from the Minister of Justice in her appearance in the House today.

What the motion does not do is dwell on the important issues which, in a sense, I feel we have perhaps a higher degree of responsibility to respond to in a timely fashion. We do not talk about jobs, health care, education, a desire for a better quality of life or deal with conflict where we find it. In fact, this is an attempt to seek out a conflict on a moral issue. I am afraid that leaders sometimes simplify issues that divide instead of bind our Canadian people.

Some day there may be a challenge to the constitutional definition of marriage. We heard from a speaker today that this has occurred in the province of Ontario, and it may occur again. Again, it underscores that there is a sense of paranoia that the courts will completely betray us. There have certainly been controversial decisions made, but they will be remedied over time. There will be an opportunity for us to reflect on them and to make corrections when needed in this legislature.

Why on the last day do we find ourselves, before we are to grant supply to the government, discussing an issue such as this? I cannot help but suggest that there is some degree of an attempt to raise ire and hackles and to divide individuals, not only in the House amongst party affiliations but around the country, for crass political gain.

We are going to be exercising our rights in the House of Commons today to raise grievances before voting on all of the money that the Government of Canada is going to spend in the coming year. To a certain degree this allotted day is a little different than any other day. This day has a greater priority. We have an opportunity to bring grievances to the Government of Canada. This is an ancient right that we can exercise in this place. It is an opportunity for us to remind the government that there is a greater degree of accountability and responsibility that it should be exercising.

I suggest that the government has in many ways abused the privileges and its relationship with parliament. To a degree we know this is happening. There is strife within the caucus of the government.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the government today with respect to our confidence in the job that it is doing in representing Canadians. One of the messages that I believe should be sent is that we are not having enough opportunity to interact directly with ministers of the crown at committee or in the House. Time and time again we see important announcements made in the press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons. We have a very limited opportunity to interact at the committee level. We have one hour wherein we might be able to pose a handful of questions and receive very packed, evasive, non-informative answers.

There is a message that can be sent tonight with respect to the confidence that we have in the government when we stand in our place to vote. I believe that, in and of itself, it is an important message which should be sent and received by the government.

Turning back specifically to the motion before the House, I do not profess to stand to speak for every member of the Progressive Conservative caucus when I say that this is a motion of importance which needs to be flushed out. It is not the priority of the government at this time, nor should it be. This motion is an attempt, I believe, to somehow give Canadians the sense that a crisis exists and that is simply not the case.

I believe that we should be having consultations. I am sure the mover of this motion has heard from his constituents. I know that in my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are many who have very strong and very reasonable attachments to the institution of marriage. That is fine. That is the way it should be. I do not believe that the institution of marriage is under attack or is in jeopardy, as this motion might suggest.

There are two very separate and distinct issues. I believe the hon. member would acknowledge that the issue of financial security, the issue of same sex benefits accruing to partners, is quite separate and apart. I do not believe the suggestion that one leads necessarily to the other. The courts themselves have given very clear rulings. The legislatures throughout the country, provincially and at the federal level, have in some cases led and in some cases followed. However, I do not believe that in this forum, in this debate today, we are going to find the magical answers that will preserve or fortify the institution of marriage. That is not going to be accomplished.

Again, I do not believe that the institution of marriage is in jeopardy. I believe that it is going to remain a very strong and important institution. When we talk of family and family definitions we find that traditional views of family have changed and they will continue to change and evolve. That is not to say that they will change necessarily for the worse, where there will be a clear reversal of what we have traditionally viewed as family. The importance of fortifying values in this country is recognizing what is safe, what is healthy and what is going to create a better citizenry.

I am afraid that this debate will not further that, at least not to the desired end. When we have an opportunity to vote this evening, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting individually.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have always felt that he was a very good sport.

My understanding of the intent and the spirit of the Bloc motion is one of setting a priority between any commitment of fiscal responsibility on the part of the government toward professional sport coming subsequent to the issue of a firm commitment to amateur sport and the development of our programs on an amateur level. That is my reading of it.

As for any concrete dollars or any figures that permanently attach, I am afraid I am not familiar with them, even having sat as a member of the committee. The chair of the committee might be able to provide that information. As far as the dollars go, I know one figure that was mentioned here. That was $1.3 billion in terms of revenue returned to the economy as a result of the contribution of professional sport in Canada.

The crux of the matter, as the member is aware, centres around the issue of offering some form of subsidy or financial incentive to our current franchises. This is what we are at a sticking point on.

Do we put that priority ahead of the other priorities that were set out quite clearly in this report, that we should be putting money into amateur sport, the development of Olympic programs, the development of community sport and all the very positive benefits the member has pointed out which flow from that level of sport as opposed to professionalism?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to finishing my remarks as they pertain to the Bloc motion before the House for debate.

I was at a point in my remarks where I was emphasizing the importance of recognizing not only the contribution that sports make in terms of the effect it has on providing children and youth with an activity, but the downside of not putting financial resources into that aspect of Canadian culture and the effect it will have on the other end. If there is not sufficient emphasis put on activities such as this there is a social cost to pay with respect to our criminal justice system.

I think the report highlights the importance of putting emphasis on Canadian sport. Another aspect that is somewhat intangible and somewhat difficult to quantify in terms of how much money should go in is the aspect of Canadian culture and the sense of pride it gives to Canadians in having competitive sporting teams, not only at the professional level but at the amateur level as well.

I also believe that the report, under the guidance of the Chair, highlighted the cultural aspect and importance of sport in the country to give Canadians a sense of pride and to give them something to unify them and cheer for collectively at times of international competition, such as the Olympics, and regionally at the Canada Games.

I have a constituent in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough named John Brother MacDonald who has been a fierce competitor, a tireless supporter of amateur sport and, later in his years, a coach and referee. He epitomized this concept and this psychology that sport makes many contributions at many levels. He used to say, sometimes jokingly, “f you cannot be a good sport, you can at least be an athletic supporter”.

The debate taking place today is certainly one of great importance. It should not just be focusing on whether we give tax breaks to the NHL. That is an obvious issue of great consternation and it is an issue that will continue to plague the national hockey league in the country because of the economic issues that surround it.

It also comes down to priorities. Do we as a country, specifically as a government, decide to allow an industry, which professional hockey has become, to be subsidized when we know there is a huge surplus in the players' fund that is untouchable and untaxable? We also know there are markets, particularly in New York and in Florida, where Canadian hockey clubs cannot be competitive, cannot return the revenues and do not have the market to accumulate revenues like those teams? Sadly, we have seen, and it has been noted, the loss of teams in Winnipeg and Quebec and some of our clubs are currently in jeopardy of moving south of the border.

I congratulate the Bloc for having the foresight to bring the matter forward again. I would suggest, on the specific issue of subsidies for professional teams, that it comes down to one of priorities. Canadians, for the most part, have said quite clearly that it is not palatable at this time to offer tax breaks when we still have huge problems with unemployment, health care, and other sectors of our economy. It is simply a matter of choosing priorities and singling out where the money is most needed and will be best received.

I again put forward that the Progressive Conservative Party's position is in support of the motion. I would suggest that we have an opportunity here to single out and look separately at the issue of professional franchises and their subsidization, but we should be encouraging and implementing the other very important recommendations.

I wish we had time to expound on one other aspect, that of gambling and the huge revenues that are generated both legally and illegally. We know that the provincial and federal governments have stepped into this area with respect to professional and sometimes amateur sport. However, I suggest there is more we can do in terms of having a return from the aspect of gambling that stems from sport.

We have to develop sound fiscal policy that is consistent with the development of amateur sport and the preservation of professional sport in Canada. With this in mind, I and the Conservative Party support wholeheartedly the motion put forward by the Bloc. I would once more put forward a request for unanimous consent to we make this a votable item.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the Bloc motion.

It is my pleasure to say that I was part of this debate from the beginning with respect to the subcommittee that was headed by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. I congratulate him on the effort and passion he brought to that subcommittee. I know the work of all the members was appreciated.

Members of the subcommittee on sport heard hours of testimony. We heard a passionate debate on both sides of the divide. We read hundreds of pages of documents which spoke of the benefits of active and well funded amateur sport organizations.

The most contentious issue was obvious. It is the same contentious issue which is before the House today, the issue of some form of subsidy for professional sport. Hockey is the sport that has been singled out most often, but it is fair to say other sports are being jeopardized as well. Here locally the Ottawa Lynx are under a very crucial time period with respect to their funding. The Montreal Expos have experienced problems. The CFL time and time again has been struggling to make budgets and payrolls.

I want to state quite clearly on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party supports all of the recommendations with respect to amateur sport in Canada. We are strongly in favour of the recommendations that encourage Canadians to engage in a more active and healthy lifestyle as well as those that promote the idea of ethics in sport, the integration of disabled persons into sports and their governing bodies and the support of parents and coaches in Canada.

Canada urgently needs an overall improvement to amateur sport. It bears mentioning that if we do not make those recognitions and contributions financially there will be a price to pay at the other end. I am talking about the criminal justice system.

I was raised in a small community in rural Nova Scotia. I participated in amateur sport, rugby, hockey, baseball and most sports on the go at high school and at the amateur level. I was constantly reminded by parents and coaches that I would stay out of trouble if I hung around ballparks and rinks as opposed to standing on a street corner and getting involved with drugs and criminal activity. Those are real facts and challenges faced by Canadians, parents and children alike.

I refer to some of the correspondence I received in regard to the issue before the House. I received a letter from Dal Bryant on January 14 which I will quote in part: “I am a parent of three athletes. My observation however was that unless you were very well off, your children would not even be provincially competitive and just plain forget the national and international levels”. This comes from a parent.

Charles Schafer wrote on January 7: “Amateur sport is a benefit to all communities at the grassroots level. These sports and athletes have been underfunded and often ignored by the media and politicians alike. This is where I would like to see my tax dollars directed”.

The final reference is to the Nova Scotia director of the Federation of Canadian Archers. Eric Mott wrote the following words: “Our national athletes receive zero dollars. We presently have several athletes who are in training at the National Archery Centre in Quebec, one of which trains eight hours a day and has to pay for her training to represent her country internationally. Imagine having to pay to train to represent your country”.

It is obviously not just professional hockey. It is not just any one sport we are talking about in the broader context of this debate.

I state again quite clearly that the Progressive Conservative Party does not endorse recommendations that would hand over subsidies outright to professional sports. This would be a failure to account for the actual overall costs of the subsidies and the effects they might have on those franchises.

Before the recommendations can be truly debated, there is a need for a full and proper examination of the concept of income sharing among professional organizations such as the NHL and a concrete plan for how any form of subsidy would benefit the greater overall community and promote greater community involvement.

No real assurances have been given from the league, the players, the owners, the associations. Mr. Wayne Gretzky has a bit of spare time on his hands now. Perhaps we could get some of his wisdom and insight because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and I am not talking about the previous speaker, that is required here. We need a real debate on how the effects of subsidizing sports ahead of important issues like health—