Peter MacKay

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from the constituents of my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt an official pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag, the wording of which would be determined through consultation with Canadians.

[Privilege, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege just put forward by the hon. member for Markham.

Keeping in mind the comments made by the hon. House leader for the government, I am not going to burden the House with a recitation of precedents on the issue of advanced disclosure of committee reports. The hon. member has put forward the principle that he certainly agrees that all members of this House should be given the opportunity to view this prior to it being made public. Unfortunately, that is no the case here.

Unfortunately, the Globe and Mail , the Star and another publication—I believe the Financial Post —had this information in advance of opposition members. This is a very serious breach of privilege, I would submit.

It is not only an insult to the House, but it is an insult to all members and an insult in particular, I would suggest, to staff members on this committee because as a result of this occurrence, it casts a shadow over their involvement in the process. Those persons are now under suspicion, I would suggest, as a result of this leak occurring.

The point brought forward by the member for Markham is very serious. This is a situation that the government is going to have to look into in more detail, not only to ensure that it does not happen again, but to ensure accountability and to ensure that the good name and reputation of those staff persons involved in this particular committee are not going to be besmirched by this incident.

It is problematic in and of the fact that some members of the committee had it and others did not, but I would suggest equal importance and equal emphasis have to be placed on the fact that these staff persons are now castigated by this particular occurrence.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of a distinct report on the matter from the standing committee, there is an overriding duty on you to permit this House to probe the situation which compromises the staff of this House. They should not have to tolerate this situation in silence, and I say emphatically that I do not believe for one moment that any staff person involved here is the source of the leak—that is not the allegation—but because of the leak, they have been placed in a non-acceptable position and it is up to this House, I would suggest, to remove that cloud.

If the House does not address this premature disclosure issue and the standards it expects regarding disclosure and non-disclosure, the bad situation will be made worse. Some members of this House favour more transparency at the committee deliberations. That, I would suggest, is a good thing. Certainly the Finance committee is not of a mind that leaking a report is going to do anything to help improve the reputation of this House.

They voted down a motion by the hon. member for Markham to bring this matter to the House and now I would suggest a double standard exists. The rules require confidentiality, the committee has voted not to bring the matter of the leak to the attention of the House and others may see merit in keeping it confidential.

However, I would suggest that having a report introduced through the media rather than the proper channels that we know exist in this House is completely inappropriate.

Whatever the views of this House, I would suggest that there should be some debate and an agreement on the standards that we expect with respect to the introduction of these reports.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider the position of the employees involved in this particular matter when this game is played and leaks are put out to the media and I would ask that should you find that a prima facie case exists meriting priority consideration by this House, I would be pleased to move the motion in this regard.

[The Late John Sopinka, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay tribute to one of Canada's greatest legal minds, the late Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka.

Much has been said this week to describe the life and accomplishments of Justice Sopinka. From modest beginnings he attained stature as a professional football player, respected criminal litigator and a member of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Whether catching a football or writing a thoughtful dissenting judgment, he did so with a class and unique style all his own. In his 64 years John Sopinka demonstrated numerous personal qualities that one could not help but admire and wish to emulate.

He was passionate about his vision for the law, often able to forge consensus over difficult issues at the Supreme Court of Canada level. Justice Sopinka had the ability to build coalition without watering down principles. He was unafraid to stand up to the changing winds of public opinion in making a decision if he felt that it was consistent with legal and social principles.

As an athlete, attorney, judge and family man, Justice Sopinka set new standards for greatness. If the magnitude of one's loss is the measure of life's gifts, this loss seems immeasurable.

His family and Canada mourn his departure for a higher court. Our sincere condolences to Mrs. Sopinka and the Sopinka family.

[Organized Crime, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as well in response to the Solicitor General's first annual statement on organized crime in Canada.

I would like to take this occasion to congratulate all the men and women of this country who are on the front lines of law enforcement in Canada. We know them as police officers, peace officers, customs agents, crown prosecutors.

We must address and recognize the need and responsibility that we as parliamentarians have to those individuals in charging them with this important task of fighting crime in Canada. They are the thin blue line, these men and women who walk the beat and patrol the neighbourhoods of Canada, and they are tasked with enforcing the laws that we make in this House.

Without the active support of these hard working Canadians, many of whom put their lives at risk time and time again, any government's anti-crime measures will fail and fall flat on their face.

The self-congratulatory tone of this report is fine but it is early in the game. I remind the government that as far as this initiative goes, the true test will be time.

I feel it is important to put on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada also had a key role in kick-starting the government's action against organized crime. Contrary to the implications of the Solicitor General, this government's fight against organized crime did not simply begin under the Liberal government. In fact between 1989 and 1993 the former Progressive Conservative government passed four major pieces of legislation to assist our law enforcement community.

In 1989 the Conservative government passed proceeds of crime legislation for the first time in Canadian criminal law history, making money laundering a distinct crime. This was done to help police officers trace the flow of money derived from criminal activities. The former Progressive Conservative government then passed new proceeds of crime legislation in 1991 which required financial institutions to maintain detailed records of transactions relating to crime.

The former government also passed legislation in 1993 with the passage of the Seizure of Property Management Act. This act created the office of an administrator to seize and retain forfeited property. More important, this legislation provided an incentive to organizations participating in criminal investigations by developing new provisions for the disposal of property obtained by crime.

The final initiative I would mention by the Progressive Conservative government was an act to modify the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. It was a far reaching omnibus bill and made many positive changes to the Criminal Code, in particular in the area of contraband products such as tobacco and alcohol.

I do not want to inject partisanship into the debate, but it is important that everyone realize that this government is picking up where previous governments left off. I mention these legislative initiatives not to dwell on the past but to put in perspective what is going on in this process today.

I am nevertheless willing to extend credit where credit is due. The Liberal government and the Solicitor General in particular have taken positive steps in this area. I commend the Solicitor General for recognizing that more can be done. The Solicitor today used his statement to renew a commitment first made in response to last year's national forum on organized crime. That commitment, although somewhat more vague today, was used to create a new financial reporting requirement regarding suspicious financial transactions and cross-border movement of currency.

To be successful, these requirements must include a very clear principle. Canada must adopt the current U.S. policy that requires financial institutions to report all transactions which exceed $10,000.

With the largest undefended border in the world, Canada and the United States share one of the largest bilateral legal trading relationships in the world. Unfortunately, because of this border, we also share the largest bilateral illegal trading practice in the world.

Because Canada lacks the same tough reporting requirements of the United States, we are allowing our country to serve as a safe haven for these large criminal organizations for ill-gotten gains.

A $10,000 reporting rule is not only my position but that of the party and it is the position of the solicitor general himself who just less than two months ago made a speech to the U.S.-Canada cross-border crime forum. I would therefore urge the solicitor general to live up to his earlier commitments. Instead of being timid and vague on the question of mandatory requirements, the solicitor general should be bold and straightforward and set clear financial transaction requirements in this legislation.

I would recommend that the solicitor general review the definition of participation in organized crime. The new criminal offence and anti-gang legislation approved by the previous Parliament in April of this year leaves that definition very vague in my opinion.

According to this definition, participation in criminal organizations occurs when “a person participates in or substantially contributes to the activity of a criminal organization and knows that all the members engaged or have engaged in an indictable offence within the preceding five years and when the person is a party to the commission of an offence indictable for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with criminal organizations”.

What a mouthful. The problem with this particular wording, I would suggest, is that it lacks specific intent. There is a huge vague definition that leaves open the issue of intent which makes it very difficult to prosecute. I would suggest that this particular definition could be reworked and the solicitor general has an opportunity to do so in his upcoming round of legislation.

The solicitor general also commented that arrests and seizures under the new anti-gang legislation are regularly making headlines. Headlines are nice, but law-abiding Canadians are seeking concrete results and, as has been referred to earlier by some of my colleagues in the opposition, this is what Canadians are looking for the most from government and from Parliament, concrete results not empty rhetoric.

There was also a very telling comment made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party about the government's apparent contradiction in fighting crime. On the one hand, it has taken the initiative to introduce anti-gang legislation but, at the same time, it has taken away one of the frontline abilities that law enforcement officers have in this country and that is by disbanding the ports police. This, by all intents and purposes, opens up many of Canada's ports for business in terms of illegal drug and gun trade. The port of Halifax was mentioned by the hon. member from the New Democratic Party.

I must say that people in the province of Nova Scotia are extremely concerned, particularly in and around metro Halifax, that these new organized crime organizations are going to be setting up shop. With these ports now falling under the jurisdiction of the RCMP or metro police in the coming months, it is going to be very difficult for them to combat crime in a substantive way when we already have a specialized force in the ports police who are charged solely with that task.

Again I would reiterate my earlier remarks. Laws are not the only answer. In fact, creating laws without accounting for adequate resources to properly implement and enforce these laws can be very dangerous. I would cross reference again the fact that there has been legislation introduced that is going to charge customs officers with more onerous tasks and a more proactive attempt to have them fight crime at the border. However, we do not yet know if adequate resources and training are going to be put in place as well to help them implement and enforce these new pieces of legislation.

Throughout the solicitor general's statement, we heard that the government has been creating partnerships between local, provincial, national and international law enforcement agencies. We have also heard about existing resources to fight crime. I am very much aware of the situation that is going on in New Brunswick presently between the Moncton municipal police and the RCMP who are imposing their particular services in place of the municipal police. This is a situation that I suggest the government has been very lax in addressing.

I support the government's efforts in bringing about various elements of our criminal justice system to fight organized crime. I do so wholeheartedly, but the government must not, however, use the co-operative partnerships as an excuse to withhold the necessary resources. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of many local police officers across the country.

The police chief in London, Ontario summed this up perfectly when he stated last month “Just because we now have a law, that does not realize anything unless we have the programs which mean resources for police and enhanced training. Laws for the sake of laws mean nothing. They are just more paper”.

Unfortunately, this is the impression that many law enforcement officers and I would suggest many Canadians have when we have legislation put through Parliament and the resources to see that it is enforced are not there to support it.

In conclusion, I thank the solicitor general for his statement. I would reinforce my comments with four main points. One, let us not forget the foundation upon which this present government is acting by developing policies and legislation with respect to organized crime. Let us work to build upon it.

Second, the solicitor general needs to commit to a straightforward, mandatory reporting requirement for financial transactions which will correspond with our biggest trading partner, the United States.

Third, the solicitor general needs to clarify the definition of a criminal organization to better establish the principle of intent so that prosecutions can be successful.

Fourth, the government should provide necessary programs and training through additional funds if necessary to help police and all law enforcement officers to properly implement and enforce this legislation.

I am hoping that we are not going to hear more self-congratulatory statements from the solicitor general. We must work toward concrete examples of crime reduction so that Canadians will be satisfied that this Parliament and our enforcement officers are doing their job.

I am very supportive of the government in its efforts, but let us not just give lip service to this serious matter. Let us see that the right thing happens and that we can actually report back in a year's time that these initiatives have been successful.

[Criminal Code, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-206, which requests that amendments be made to the Criminal Code of Canada.

I agree with much of the commentary I have heard from all hon. members of the House about the seriousness of this offence.

It saddens me to look around this Chamber and see the youth of some of the pages here, knowing that there are prostitutes out on the street younger than they who are engaging in this trade out of necessity. I agree with the comment of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party that it is poverty and unemployment which are, no doubt, at the very root of this problem in Canada.

However, I must disagree with her premise that this motion is a simple approach to the problem. Perhaps simple is a good word, but in a positive sense, in the amendment which has been put forward. The reason I say that is this. There is no question that an amendment to the Criminal Code can be cumbersome. However, I suggest that the reason it has been put forward is very positive. That is why I support it. The reasons I will put forward for supporting it are equally simple.

The hon. Reform member has suggested that this would broaden the ability of the police, and I would suggest the judges as well, in their approach to this most serious matter. It does so for a number of reasons.

By making this a hybrid offence which would include an indictable offence it does a number of things, to which my friend has referred.

First, it gives the police the ability, under the Identification of Criminals Act, to fingerprint and take photographs, which could be used for a broader purpose in terms of children who have been abducted or children who are runaways. It could also be used for the purpose of deterrence.

Deterrence is a whole philosophy and we could speak at length on the issue of deterrence, but let me say this. A person who is charged with an indictable offence must appear in court. I have seen it at the provincial court level. With prostitution being a summary offence, it becomes essentially the price of doing business. Young prostitutes, or prostitutes of any age, will come into court or have a lawyer appear on their behalf, pay the fine and waltz out the door. They can amass a lengthy criminal record which, in essence, will result in perhaps a higher fine the next time.

Making this an indictable offence would allow judges, in their discretion, to impose a more lengthy term of incarceration, if necessary, or at least to apply conditions in a probation order that would include treatment type programs. It would treat this matter in the serious fashion in which it should be treated.

That is the main reason for which I, on behalf of the Conservative Party, am in support of this motion.

Luckily I can say that prostitution is not a major problem in my constituency in Nova Scotia. However, there is always the difficulty and the problem that arises when youth, for whatever reason, take to the streets in the bigger metropolitan areas or, in more serious cases, when young people are abducted and forced into this particular trade.

Saying that it is the oldest profession in the world is not to trivialize the problem at all. I do not want to draw too fine a point on it but slavery was around for a long time too and it was the laws that essentially brought about the necessary change, along with the efforts and work of people against that particular problem.

Prostitution is not going to be solved by simple amendments to the Criminal Code. I think we can all say that quite simply. However there is no question that this is a step in the right direction. It saddens me to think that this can become a partisan issue. Like a lot of justice issues, this is something the House should be unanimous in its efforts to work toward solutions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary for the justice minister has stated that there is a report pending. I would hope and encourage her to keep this particular motion in mind and not to simply dismiss it. What if the report comes back and there are suggestions which move the Criminal Code in the very direction the hon. member from the Reform is suggesting? I reiterate it is very unfortunate that we see this forum being used again as a means to get up and simply dismiss the idea outright because it happens to come from one party or another.

I think it is a good suggestion. It is something that at least moves us in the direction of addressing the issue in a positive way. It improves discretion on the part of the police and judges to act in a definitive way by imposing more innovative sentences that might include treatment. It also allows the police to treat the matter in a more serious way.

Also, I would reiterate the comments made by the hon. member from the Reform. I would suggest that the perception of justice in Canada is extremely important as to how the community views how those actors who are imposing our criminal laws are viewing the problem. It gives the perception that we in this Chamber and in the justice departments around the country are looking at this problem and looking for solutions. Not simple solutions, but solutions that are aimed at moving in the right direction.

I am not suggesting that raising fines and putting people in jail in itself is going to solve this problem. But it certainly is a move in the right direction in increasing the ability of those people charged with the enforcement of the law and giving them a greater ability to do something about this crime. It is not going to, as my friends from the New Democratic Party and the Bloc suggested, get needles off the streets. It is not going to eradicate this problem in its entirety, not by a long shot, but it will increase the ability to act in a proactive way.

That is how I view this particular piece of legislation. It is proactive. It is preventive. It is doing something early in the process. This again is something which is tied in with the changes that need to come about under the Young Offenders Act.

It is doing something early at the front end. It is loading the resources at the beginning where the problem starts and doing something before we get further and further down the road where someone has been engaged in prostitution for whatever reason, poverty, drug addiction, all sorts of reasons, a forced situation where pimps are forcing young people into this area.

This is something that we should embrace within this House. It is something I am supporting and I would encourage all members to do so.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Bras D'Or. A fellow bluenoser, I might add, she certainly brings a unique and special perspective to the House. She faces many challenges from the many communities which comprise her new federal riding of Bras D'Or.

The motion speaks to the economic future of many of these same communities. The timing of the debate on the motion is quite appropriate in light of the recent troubles in the Phalen colliery.

I would also like to speak to the overall question of the future of the Cape Breton Development Corporation better known as Devco. While not a Cape Bretoner, my home in Pictou county shares the industrial Cape Breton tradition of coal mining.

For many years coal was a staple in the local economy in my constituency. Our most recent venture into the Westray mine, which ended in disaster, is certainly a sad reminder of the dangers associated with this industry in Nova Scotia in particular.

Coal mining is a tradition that must adjust to the realities of the 21st century. In my view the development of the Donkin mine under the auspices of Devco is the best way to ensure successful adjustment that has long term benefits for Devco, employees, taxpayers and those who supported Devco operations throughout the years.

Devco management announced that the corporation's five year plan last year completely ruled out the development of Donkin, emphasizing instead the Phalen colliery. Phalen has a history of instability and yet Devco management in its wisdom placed all of its mining eggs in one basket.

The Devco corporate plan also ruled out the identification of export markets despite significant evidence of the economic prospects of the exports of coal. As my colleague quite eloquently stated, it is apparent that coal still has a place in the industrial world. Tying the coal from Donkin to the coal markets locally in Nova Scotia is a huge mistake in my honest opinion.

Like all natural resources we have to try to capitalize on the ever increasing access to world markets that exist. We should keep in mind that the development of Sable gas in Nova Scotia could certainly have a significant impact on the local markets as it pertains to coal.

Last year during the hearings of the Senate committee on the future of Devco, Devco officials were warned frequently and consistently about the dangers of focusing solely on the Phalen mine to the exclusion of Donkin. Many industry analysts urged Devco to target foreign markets which would in fact require coal from the Donkin mine. Devco management, again in its wisdom, refused to do so opting to sell the Phalen coal to a strictly domestic market.

Devco management then turned around and announced plans to sell the Donkin mine to a private operator by the name of Donkin Resources Limited, DRL, for a single dollar. One dollar would be paid for this mine against a backdrop of millions of dollars that were put into the development of this site.

It is shocking to think that this could happen. The expense to taxpayers is something that should certainly make us all sit up and take notice. It brings to mind the situation that is happening presently in Hibernia where there have been rumblings that the federal government may contemplate selling this resource. It is an industry with perhaps huge potential that might allow the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia in particular, in some way, shape or form, to make giant steps forward toward becoming have provinces. The government is being very short-sighted if it is contemplating such a move.

The situation appears to be moving rather rapidly. The same Devco officials reported that the latest series of rock blasts at the Phalen mine could limit the potential of the mine for future ventures.

Without the future of Phalen and with the apparent position taken on the Donkin mine, what does Devco have left? What remains for Devco? If both of these mines will not be operating Devco is a dead duck. The answer is nothing.

It slams the door on the livelihood—I believe the number was given by my colleague in the New Democratic Party—of close to 700 workers. The impact of the loss of 700 jobs in an area like Cape Breton is difficult to imagine for anybody who does not come from the maritimes. The economic impact of that has expanded perhaps tenfold in comparison to the province of Ontario.

In an ideal world private industry would be able to assume responsibility and risk for developing Donkin, but in the real world and in private industry we know that private industry is often very reluctant and unwilling to make commitments to the future of the workers who would be negatively affected by the closure of Donkin. This is economic business reality but the government has a responsibility. The government must see that the Donkin situation is handled with great care.

Devco management clearly made a mistake in 1996 when it adopted this corporate plan. Not one of the three official parties in the House raised an objection at that time; not the Liberals, not the Reform and not the Bloc. They all gave Devco a free ride and made short-sighted decisions that were having a drastic effect on Atlantic Canada, particularly in Cape Breton.

Is it any wonder the Liberals were then wiped off the electoral map in Nova Scotia on June 2, 1997? Is it any wonder the Reform Party could not even find candidates to run in Cape Breton?

It was left to the Senate to raise objections, the Senate that is often so much under attack. It was the Senate that then brought the matter forward to deal with the issue of Devco's limited corporate plan.

Thankfully the last election restored some balance to parliament and Canadians now have voices from all regions, not just from the west and Quebec.

In conclusion I condone the member for bringing this matter forward in such a timely manner. The historic significance of coal mining not only in Cape Breton but throughout the maritimes is such that we must ensure that we will look at the long term viability of this industry and that we proceed with caution. That responsibility must be assumed by the Government of Canada.

[Justice, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is restorative justice week. True justice makes things right rather than lamenting what is wrong. True justice cultivates strength rather than perpetuating failure. I believe restorative justice could be a great part of the solution for our justice system in Canada.

Restorative justice views crime as a violation of the victim in the community, not solely a violation of the state. As a result, the offender becomes accountable to the victim and the community.

Under our existing justice system, offenders seldom are required to realize the harm they have caused. Restorative justice confronts the perpetrators with the personal harm they have caused and requires them to pay reparation and make real amends to victims and the community.

Restorative justice offers victims the opportunity to regain personal powers and allows them the time to become more involved with the justice system. It also gives them the power that was taken away when the crime was committed.

In one word, restorative justice puts victims at the centre of the justice system where they should always have been.

Restorative justice should be studied by this House as an alternative to the current way of thinking about crime and criminal justice in Canada.

[Airbus, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have repeatedly quoted from a document signed by Brian Mulroney as a means to protest their innocence.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile this fact with the fact that we have another letter charging that an innocent man has done something in a foreign land? This letter is still existing out there. When will the letter be withdrawn and when will we have a public inquiry into the matter?

[Airbus, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ottawa RCMP Association president stated that the Liberal government singled out the police as scapegoats in the Airbus affair.

Earlier the government tried to cover its tracks on this Airbus matter by placing a gag order on a golden handshake for former Staff Sergeant Fraser Feigenwald. The rank and file of the RCMP are not accepting responsibility for political interference in the matter.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he live up to his shallow rhetoric on government accountability and tell the House once and for all who is responsible for this mess?

[Child Benefit, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to see you in the chair this evening.

I rise today on a very serious issue dealing with impaired driving in Canada. Last October 24, I asked the Minister of Justice if she would table rapidly amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with this serious issue. I also asked her if she would commit to concrete steps on behalf of the government to review the Criminal Code, roadside procedures, and enact a victims bill of rights in unison with an effort to combat drunk driving in Canada.

The minister to date has not committed to either of those requests. One thing that we have seen in the past is that her predecessor and, I would submit, the current Minister of Justice have given lip service to amendments in this area. They have often talked of it and they have appeased, I would suggest, to some degree victims rights groups and those concerned with this issue by giving the appearance of wanting to do something about it, seeming very sincere and genuine in their efforts.

However, to date we have not seen anything concrete either by way of a legislative initiative or even the time spent in talking to these groups.

If there is anything that has become clear over the past number of months in this House on the issue of impaired driving it is that the statistics and the effect on the ground that impaired drivers have on the roads and highways throughout the country and on the lives of Canadians are significant. The statistics are absolutely shocking when one delves into them.

The minister in her answers to the questions indicated that she was waiting for a report to be tabled by the transportation department. As well, she was waiting to meet further with her provincial counterparts. I again suggest that this is a delay because it is very clear that none of these individuals in the Department of Transport or her provincial counterparts can effect an immediate change to the Criminal Code of Canada. That responsibility lies with the minister herself.

I reiterate today what I have said previously. In my mind, the Minister of Justice has an opportunity to do something and to do something quickly.

I want to suggest a few things in the time I have. The statistics I have indicated have been stated time and time again: 4.5 persons killed in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week, 365 days of the year. Impaired drivers injure or kill over 300 people in Canada every day. In 1995 alone, 519 people were killed across the country by impaired drivers. These are shocking statistics.

It is very clear that alcohol significantly increases the risk every time a person gets behind the wheel, regardless of the level of intoxication.

It is time to do something and quickly. The most effective way to do that is to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code that would strengthen police ability to deal with impaired driving. Nothing has been done to date.

I suggest there are concrete things the government can do today. As a start it would be to lower the blood alcohol concentration that is criminal in this country, to review the Criminal Code with respect to reasonable and probable grounds required by police officers so that they might investigate crash sites involving death and serious bodily harm. That evidence of an accident would, in and of itself, be grounds for police officers to make a demand.

The government could change the language in the Criminal Code to reflect the seriousness of impaired driving accidents involving death and the suggestion would be to characterize it as vehicular homicide. If nothing else, this would emphasize the seriousness of the offence.

The creation of these new standards would also go hand in hand with the enactment of a victims bill of rights which would include and enhance greater participation of victims in the criminal trial process.

If the Minister of Justice is committed to this issue and is prepared to do more than just lip service then these issues will be brought up further in the justice committee and will be acted on rather than simply given fair comment and ongoing debate.

This is something the government must take a leadership role in. The Canadian public has spoken very clearly. Eighty per cent of people in this country want the government to act on these issues.