36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 106
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 14, 1998
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1005
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-405. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parental Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Property Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1010
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Wheat Board
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement On Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Conscientious Objectors
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1015
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Armed Forces
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1040
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1045
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1100
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1135
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1200
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1215
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1230
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1235
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1250
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1305
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1325
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1330
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1350
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1355
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAVIGATING A NATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORTION
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE PAROLYN FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THEATRE ONTARIO FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LES VIOLONS DU ROY
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL MINING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAVID LEVINE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM BUG
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTICULTURALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIDDLE EAST
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHIAPAS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Forces
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1515
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1530
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1545
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1600
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1605
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1610
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1615
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1620
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1635
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1640
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1655
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1700
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1715
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1720
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-247. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1735
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1750
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1805
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1810
![V](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1815
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 106
![](/web/20061116190926im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 14, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honor to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to a petition.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, April 22, 1998,
your committee has considered Bill S-3, an act to amend the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, and has agreed to
report it without amendment.
I also have the pleasure to present, in both official languages,
the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant
to its order of reference of Monday, April 27, 1998, your
committee has considered Bill S-9, an act respecting depository
bills and notes and to amend the Financial Administration Act,
and has agreed to report it without amendment.
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report
of the Standing Committee on Industry on the year 2000 computer
problem.
I also have the honour to present the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Industry on the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honor to present, in both official languages, the third report
of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Pursuant to its order of reference dated Thursday, March 19,
1998, your committee has adopted unanimously with amendment Bill
C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency, which your
committee wishes to change to parks Canada agency, and to amend
other acts as a consequence, and has agreed to report with
amendments.
* * *
1005
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-405, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(ballot papers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to table today, in both
official languages, a bill entitled An Act to amend the Canada
Elections Act.
This bill is aimed at amending the provisions of the Canada
Elections Act concerning ballot papers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask for your patience this morning. I have a large
number of petitions to present.
In the first grouping there are 74 pages to this petition with
the signatures of 1,819 concerned Canadians from Ontario,
Alberta, Manitoba and my home province of Saskatchewan. They are
concerned that by ratifying and implementing the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child that government bureaucrats
and the courts will be legally entitled to determine what is in
the best interests of the child, not parents.
The petitioners feel parental rights and responsibilities are
being undermined by government implementation of this UN
convention and they request parliament to address their concerns
by adding protection of parental rights and responsibilities to
the charter of rights and freedoms.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the second group of petitions that I am pleased to
present there are 48 pages with 1,134 signatures of citizens from
Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia calling for
the repeal of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act.
These petitioners have asked me to keep a running total of
repeal Bill C-68 petitions that I have introduced. These year I
have introduced 139 pages with 3,409 signatures.
These Canadians are concerned that the government is spending
hundreds of millions of dollars registering more than 18 million
legally owned guns while the number of police officers per capita
has dropped to its lowest level since 1972.
Therefore these petitioners request parliament to repeal Bill
C-68, the Firearms Act, and spend their hard earned tax dollars
on more cost effective crime fighting measures such as putting
more police on our streets and highways.
ABORTION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the next group of petitions there are 24 pages with
the signatures of 603 concerned Canadians from Ontario, Nova
Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia. These petitioners believe
that many thousands of the more than one hundred thousand
abortions a year in Canada are medically unnecessary and actually
increase health risks for women undergoing this procedure.
These petitioners request parliament support my motion, M-268,
which would require a binding national referendum at the time of
the next election to ask voters whether they are in favour of
government funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): I am also
pleased, Mr. Speaker, to present four petitions comprised of 30
pages with 710 signatures of concerned Canadians from Ontario,
Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.
These Canadians are concerned that there is no provision in the
charter of rights and freedoms that prevents government from
taking anything they own without compensation and nothing in the
charter which restricts the government in any way from passing
laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of their
private property or reduces the value of their property.
These petitioners request parliament to support private member's
Bill C-304 which would strengthen the protection of property
rights in federal law.
JUSTICE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present two petitions with 56
signatures of my constituents of Yorkton, Saskatchewan.
These constituents are concerned that the public is not being
protected under the current Young Offenders Act. They are
concerned that young offenders who commit crimes such as murder,
arson, rape and robbery do not get adequate punishment under the
current act.
Therefore these petitioners call on parliament to bring in new
and tougher laws for young offenders and also request better
enforcement of these laws.
1010
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present my last petition with 36
signatures of citizens from the province of Saskatchewan.
These petitioners are concerned that the Canadian Wheat Board
exercises its monopoly power in a discriminatory manner by
forcing only prairie producers to sell their grain to the board.
They call on parliament to either scrap Bill C-4 or support the
following amendments. Change the object of the act to maximize
financial returns to the producers, remove the inclusion and
exclusion clause, allow producers to opt in or out for fixed
periods, allow the auditor general to conduct annual audits and
allow producers to get information under the Access to
Information Act.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very timely petition from residents of this
region reminding parliament that over 30,000 nuclear weapons
continue to exist on earth and that these weapons pose a threat
to the health and survival of human civilization and the global
environment.
They call on parliament to support the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which
will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions today.
The first is signed by residents of my constituency of
Burnaby—Douglas and members of the Richmond riding of the New
Democratic Party.
They note the multilateral agreement on investment will
disproportionately expand and entrench unprecedented rights to
transnational corporations and foreign investors at the expense
of the Canadian government's ability to direct investment policy
as a tool for the benefit of all Canadians.
They call on parliament to consider the enormous implications to
Canada by the signing of the MAI and put it to open debate in the
House and place it for national referendum for the people of
Canada to decide.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by hundreds of residents
of the four western provinces of Canada. It is co-ordinated by
the Animal Defence League.
It refers to the very low penalties currently in place for
deliberately causing pain and injury to an animal.
It calls on the Government of Canada to impose harsher penalties
for serious offences against animals and to establish an
education program for judges to help them understand society's
abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition refers to the Constitution Act of
1982 and its guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion.
It urges parliament to establish peace tax legislation by
passing into law my private member's bill, the conscientious
objection act, which recognizes the right of conscientious
objectors to not pay for the military and within which the
government would declare its commitment to apply that portion of
their taxes that was to be used for military purposes toward
peaceful purposes such as peace education, war relief and
humanitarian and environmental aid and housing.
THE SENATE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present petitions signed by 151 people from my riding
of Red Deer.
These people believe we deserve an accountable Senate and I
fully and strongly endorse—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has been here a long
time and he knows he is not supposed to do that.
I know he likes presenting petitions and the House likes to hear
him present petitions, but I know he would want do it within the
rules.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I got a little carried away.
The petitioners call on parliament to request that the Prime
Minister accept the results of the Senate election in Alberta and
any other province that might so choose to elect a senator.
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present an additional 14 pages to the
many already presented on this subject.
The petitioners, residents of West Kootenay—Okanagan, draw to
the attention of parliament that violent crimes committed by
youth are of great concern to Canadians, that the incidence of
violent crimes by youth would decrease if the Young Offenders Act
were amended to hold young persons fully accountable, and
increase periods of incarceration to deter young people from
committing criminal acts; therefore your petitioners call upon
parliament to significantly amend the Young Offenders Act to
include—
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member, but I can tell from the words he is using that he is
reading the petition, which I know he knows is wrong.
If he would like to give the House a brief summary of the
petition we will hear that.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, in brief, the petitioners
would like to have the age limit lowered, have longer periods of
incarceration for individuals who commit violent crimes, to hold
them more accountable and also to hold the parents more
accountable when they contribute to the crime by not giving
proper attention to their children.
1015
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today. The first has to do with the subject
matter of misuse of alcohol.
The petitioners are from a number of parts of Canada including
from my riding of Mississauga South. They would like to draw to
the attention of the House that the Food and Drugs Act is
designed to protect Canadians from the harmful effects related to
food and drug consumption and that the consumption of alcoholic
beverages may cause health problems.
Specifically they point out that fetal alcohol syndrome and
alcohol related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding
alcohol consumption during pregnancy and generally, that
consumption of alcohol impairs a person's ability to operate
machinery or an automobile.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to mandate the
labelling of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and
others of the risks of alcohol consumption.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with the family.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners also concur with the recommendations of the
National Forum on Health which cites that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who choose to provide direct
parental care to children in the home.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate that tax discrimination against families
who choose to provide direct parental care to preschool children
in the family home.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Question No. 21 has been absolutely languishing now for eight
months. In the name of patience it would be nice to know from
the government if it intends to answer this question, let alone
when. I have raised this countless times. I would like to know
when we might expect to get an answer to this very
straightforward question.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. He
has repeatedly sought an answer to this question. I can assure
him that it will answered.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, some of these questions require an
inquiry to one department of the federal government. Question
No. 21 which we are working on involves inquiries to every
department of the federal government. We are working our way
through them.
The Deputy Speaker: I can only remind the House that
patience is a virtue.
Shall the questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC) moved:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to
provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian
Forces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity
to put forward the following motion that be it resolved:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to
provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian
Forces.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to put forward the motion,
but it gives me no pleasure that this government has created a
situation where a motion such as this one needs to be put
forward. It gives me no pleasure. It gives the Tory party no
pleasure. It gives Canadians no pleasure that this government
has failed to provide strong political leadership to the Canadian
forces.
The truth can no longer be hidden. Everybody in this country
knows that the Prime Minister abuses the forces. Nobody knows it
more than the men and women who serve Canada in Canadian forces
uniforms.
Today's debate will show how this government's failure has
resulted in the terrible living conditions for members of the
Canadian forces. We will demonstrate how this government's
failure has resulted in inadequate health care for members of
Canada's forces.
Today's debate will show how this government has failed to
provide proper equipment.
1020
All these things have resulted in deplorable morale in the
Canadian forces. That is not leadership. For these reasons this
House must condemn the government for failing to provide strong
leadership.
When I have completed my opening remarks members from the
government and maybe even the minister himself will give a list
of great achievements by the government. They will tell this
House that they have bought new search and rescue helicopters and
new submarines for the navy. They will announce how they are in
the process of overhauling the military justice system with Bill
C-25 which at this very moment is in committee. They will talk
and talk but that is what this government is very good at,
talking.
[Translation]
However, I want to draw the attention of all members of this
House to what the government is not saying. This government must
recognize these shortcomings. It must recognize problems such as
poor living conditions, inadequate health care and low morale,
and it must take action.
In its 1994 defence white paper, the government wrote: “Defence
policy must respond not only to an uncertain and unstable world
abroad, but also to challenging circumstances at home”.
My party strongly believes that we must recognize the efforts
made by our forces in times of peace, and particularly in times
of war, to defend Canada, its honour, its interests and its way
of life. We must recognize that contribution by leading the
Canadian forces into the 21st century, because they are the ones
who are carrying the torch.
Our forces have been criticized a lot over the last few years.
While the Prime Minister, referring to the Somalia inquiry, said
that everybody can make a mistake, he did not address the
problem.
[English]
Instead the Prime Minister has looked for quick and easy
solutions to the problems that need real attention. He disbanded
the airborne regiment and the problems grew. He disbanded the
Somalia inquiry before it had a chance to finish its job. That
is not leadership. The problems continue to grow.
The 1994 defence white paper committed to combat capable forces.
The government made that decision to have combat capable forces.
However to make those forces effective and truly combat capable,
the Prime Minister is ignoring the problems the Canadian forces
are facing.
I want to share with the House my experiences and the
experiences of the members of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs as we travelled across this country
from base to base. We covered a lot of bases.
I first want to talk about equipping our forces. I am sure my
colleagues in the House have read recent reports on how our
soldiers are trying to do their jobs when they do not have the
most basic equipment. Recently there was a cover story in
Maclean's magazine with the headline “Fighting Mad”. I
am talking about uniforms and boots.
When the committee visited the base at Petawawa the commander of
the Royal Canadian Dragoons was wearing a one-piece jumpsuit
instead of his regular kit. He said it was because he could see
right through his regular uniform and did not see a new uniform
coming. When we talk about equipment we have to consider major
purchases as well.
This Prime Minister spent $500 million to cancel a helicopter
contract in 1993. One year later the 1994 defence white paper
stated that the forces desperately need that helicopter. What I
am speaking about right now is the replacement for the 30-year
old Sea King helicopter which flies off the back of our brand new
frigates. That was in 1994 and now it is 1998. This government
spent $500 million cancelling a contract and there are still no
helicopters.
No one should think that the government paid only $500 million.
This government is still paying and paying dearly.
1025
I visited Shearwater last week and was amazed to see the Sea
King helicopters on the maintenance floor completely torn apart.
I wondered what had happened that the helicopter needed such
extensive repairs. I was told that the helicopter needed 70
hours of maintenance work for every one hour in the air. That
does not sound very efficient to me. The helicopter through its
regular life was supposed to have eleven and a half hours of
maintenance for every one hour. Even that would seem high.
Not only that, the pilots are afraid to fly them. They are not
coming out in public and saying this, but when one talks to them.
And their hair is turning white. If one motor fails, it is a
chance whether or not they get back. Why are new helicopters not
being ordered? Our guys are doing a super job keeping these
things in the air but the Prime Minister is not giving them any
help. He does not give them any leadership.
That is not all I want to talk about this morning. I feel it is
my responsibility to tell the House about the inadequate health
care the government provides to men and women in the Canadian
forces.
It is my understanding that doctors on military bases can treat
soldiers but cannot treat soldiers' families. This creates
problems that are simply not necessary. In fact the base doctors
I have spoken to who are trained as family doctors want to
practise family medicine. Instead, because they are not allowed
to treat the families of soldiers, they end up dealing only with
the soldiers themselves and their particular medical and
psychological problems. If the House needs further evidence, I
will read from the testimony of a Canadian forces member who came
before the committee in Halifax:
My name is Michael Robert Innes. I was released from the
military on a 3A medical category on December 23, 1997 stating
that I was unfit for military service or any environment.
I have a decision from the Charlottetown medical review board
that my illness is attributable to my service in a special duty
area in Croatia, the former Yugoslavia. Subsection 21.1 of the
pension act provides entitlement for a disability that is
attributed to, was incurred during or aggravated by your military
service. I receive 25% of this decision currently.
The quality of my life has been affected to the point where I
cannot work, ride a bike, play hockey, go camping, swimming,
rough house with my kids, household chores. God bless washing
dishes. These are things I used to take for granted. Showering,
getting dressed is difficult for me. The physical activity is
painful, debilitating and affects every area of my life. I limit
my activities and try not to let the illness regress to the point
of being bedridden because it happens very easily and it is
harder to come back each time.
My family as well as myself had to make adjustments in our
lifestyles dealing with limitations of this illness.
Michael Innes cannot get his full benefits because although he
was released from the military because of his disability, he has
been denied his claim because he does not meet the definition of
disabled. This makes very little sense. The government closes
its eyes. It provides no leadership.
In fact as the committee travelled from base to base I learned
that soldiers suspect that when the government no longer wants
them, after 20 years normally, it just lets them go. It usually
finds a medical excuse to use to get rid of them. It gets rid of
these soldiers because they are past their prime. Soldiers who
expected to learn a trade in the military find that their skills
are not recognized outside and life only becomes more difficult.
One Canadian forces mechanic I met explained that he works on
heavy trucks that are all well over 20 years old. When he leaves
the service he told me he will not be able to get a job as a
mechanic because he does not have a clue how the newer vehicles
are built today with modern components. He has no idea how they
operate, so he is out.
The Prime Minister should be considering a program to better
educate our soldiers and perhaps provide them with an option of
civilian course work under a program that both the soldier and
the government would pay into. Has the government proposed
anything like that? No. Why not? Because it never shows any
leadership.
1030
I want to talk about living conditions on bases across Canada.
In fact it is probably best again if I read from the testimony of
a witness who came before the committee. They speak far more
eloquently on how the government failed than I ever could. At
Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Angela Hulbert explained how she
lived on the base with her corporal husband in their PMQs,
private married quarters. She said:
Gale force winds blow through our window frames in the
wintertime. We have to chip the ice off the inside of all our
windows. Our furnaces run steady just to keep the house
liveable. Actually, it is not liveable.
My kitchen cupboards are on the outside wall. I can actually
freeze things in them, so we do not need a beer fridge because we
have a beer cupboard.
We have such bad mould and mildew on our window sills, the water
runs off it constantly and makes big patches of paint and gyprock
come off the walls.
If we decorate the place ourselves just to make it liveable, we
have to put it all back the way it was when we leave. I do not
consider dirt-white liveable. We like to decorate a little bit
and then we have to change it all back to dirt-white.
We have a river that runs through our basement every spring.
They tell us that we do not pay for our basements, so it does not
matter what condition they are in. We do not have a storage
closet, so we have to use the basement.
When we showed up in Halifax, the whole thing had changed a bit.
Then they were receiving letters saying that the Canadian Forces
Housing Association is now charging $30 to $40 because now they
consider that the basements are usable. Maybe they consider they
have indoor swimming pools. She also said:
Our washers and driers are down there. I do not think it is good
for my appliances when they are sitting in at least six inches of
water for part of the day or two days.
We ask for something to be done and of course they are either
coming or they say they will call us in a few days. We don't
hear from them and they figure we'll just forget it, I guess.
They never show up. They never call back. If you call them
back, they just say they are coming. A couple of years go by and
they are still coming. I do not think any other landlord would
get away with this.
Is this acceptable to the House? Is this the way the men and
women who protect Canada deserve to live? Is this right? I do
not think so.
I could say more about the horrid living conditions but I hope
the House gets the idea. Our soldiers and their families are
living in terrible conditions.
Until now these have been secrets the Prime Minister has refused
to share with the public. Canadians have to know and they are
starting to know that men and women who serve in Canada are not
properly respected and do not have the proper political
leadership.
The government has cut the defence budget by 30% in the last
five years. That is taking its toll. It is taking its toll on
equipment. It is taking its toll on training. As the defence
committee travelled from base to base this spring, we found it is
taking its toll on the simple quality of life that my party
believes soldiers all through our forces should enjoy.
Things have become so desperate, something called the Canadian
forces personal support agency has been set up within the
Department of National Defence, mandated to provide for the
morale and welfare of the men and women of the Canadian forces.
How will they achieve this? They will sell space, just like a
hockey rink. The Department of National Defence will sell space
for corporate logos. We will be the only NATO country that
instead of our flag painted on our trucks and helicopters—we do
not have them yet—we will see a big logo that says “Drink
Coca-Cola”.
An hon. member: What about McDonald's?
Mr. David Price: Everybody will have a chance. If that
is the best leadership that the Prime Minister can provide, the
House must condemn the government for its failure.
While the government expects Canada's forces to jump when the
Prime Minister gives the word and while the dedicated people who
make up the Canadian forces will always respond when the
government calls, the government abuses the dedication of the
forces to the country.
I cannot think of a more disgusting waste of talented and
dedicated men and women than to abuse their dedication by not
providing them with equipment, training and resources they need
to do their job.
Because the government continues this trend of abusing the
Canadian military there will come a time when the Prime Minister
says “Okay, boys, it is time to go”, and the response will be
“I am sorry, sir, we cannot do the job”.
1035
The answer will come not because they will not want to perform
that particular mission, not because they do not want to come to
the aid of Canada, but because their government has let them down
and they no longer have the resources to do the job.
That day will come sooner than we think because the government
refuses to show the smallest ounce of leadership and do its
fundamental job to protect Canadians. For that the government
must be condemned.
Maybe it is best to close with the words of Marguerita Bargiel
who came before the committee at CFB Petawawa. Her husband has
been in the Canadian forces for over 20 years and she was a
military brat before too. She is somebody with a long
experience. She said:
This stinks. Let me tell you, I'm not too impressed with the
whole system. I'm fed up. I guess I'm not the only one. You do
your best and you get screwed. That's the way it is these days
in the Canadian forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great interest to my hon. colleague, whom I had the pleasure of
working with on the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, which he referred to.
I noticed pretty much the same things he did. I think the main
concern right now in the Canadian forces is pay. Our military
feel they are underpaid, and I agree. In addition, for
non-commissioned officers and enlisted men, opportunities for
advancement are practically nil. The organization is top heavy,
which is unusual nowadays. That is another problem.
With respect to equipment, I agree with him that we need state
of the art equipment meeting current military requirements. I
think that, for the next little while at least, governments will
have to balance spending between human resources, military
equipment and military training. These three budgetary items
must, unfortunately, be kept under tight control at this time.
I would like to hear what personal thoughts the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead has on this issue of financial resources
apportioning for the purchase and use of equipment, for human
resources, military pay, severance pay and so on, and finally
for training military personnel, exercices conducted on land, on
sea and in the air. Does he have any idea how these funds should
be apportioned?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I did not talk about salaries, which is also another
problem. It was one of the main issues raised during our tour
across the country. I am convinced that we will hear more about
it.
As I did briefly, the hon. member also raised the issues of
training and of how personnel are treated. I briefly mentioned
that the problem has to do with the possibility of getting an
education. People join the army and most of them stay for 20
years. Then they leave without a profession to fall back on.
Let me give you a specific example. Let us assume that a person
is a licensed electrician in the armed forces. When that person
leaves the forces and tries to find a job anywhere in the
country, his licence from the military is not worth anything.
That person has to start from scratch again and serve an
apprenticeship of at least four years to become an electrician,
when he is already one.
I could also talk about mechanics, whose situation is exactly
the same.
1040
I am confident that soldiers would be prepared to pay their
share, as is the case in the United States. What they do down
there is a good example, because they have a fund to which
soldiers contribute so that, at the end of their stint, they can
attend university or an apprentice school. They have that
opportunity.
The member talked about maintaining a balance between equipment
and personnel, and I definitely agree with him that our soldiers
are getting the short end of the stick. General Baril said there
would be no trade-off. I do not know how he is going to do it,
but he will definitely need more money. It is not possible to
achieve both, but we have no choice. There is clearly a shortage
of personnel.
Our military personnel need proper equipment and clothing to do
their job properly. A significant amount was budgeted for
clothing, but the clothes have yet to arrive.
I hope this answers the hon. member's question.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, having
attended one of the SCONDVA meetings and having heard from
numerous veterans and members of the present military, morale
seems to be a big issue.
These fine men and women go away and serve our country. They
are separated from their families for a very long time. They are
faced with keeping a family together yet they have to do it from
thousands of miles away. These families incur huge phone bills
just to be able to be in touch with their families.
We heard from one lady who spoke about the fact that when they
started speaking by phone the phone bill was hundreds of dollars.
Instead of having quality family time they were fighting about
the high cost of the phone bill and what it would do to their
very limited budget.
What does my hon. colleague see as a solution? What about
possibly looking at some kind of toll free line that military
people could use when they are on extended tours of duty?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. Unfortunately at this point I have to get ahead of
the minister. A lot of that problem has been solved. There have
been some good moves made toward that. General Baril has opened
a line in Bosnia where people can call back every day if they
wish. I see the minister smiling; he is happy.
That is only one point. Look at all the points we could have
gained. There are still some problems to be looked. We had some
problems with the ships in Halifax but they are working on
addressing them right now. A lot of work is being done with
Internet so they can work with e-mail. The problem we did hear
about it is that in many cases these people do not have the funds
to purchase a computer and therefore cannot get e-mail. The
family resources centre has purchased some computers and they
actually have a 24 hour service set up.
That problem is being addressed, but it has taken a long time to
get to that point when the technology has been there for quite a
while.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, during the last
election, our party proposed a special intervention unit, a
special division of 14,000 troops that would form an elite corps
to head our interventions here and abroad.
I would ask my hon. colleague if he thinks this idea could
readily be implemented.
1045
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, the underlying problem here is the
lack of money. A lot of time is invested in training people to
go to Bosnia, for example, where one group is going in June.
They get training and then they come back here afterwards.
There is not enough time between deployments. They do not have
enough time to be properly trained and to set up a proper team.
But the major problem in all of this is always money. They do
not have enough equipment either. This sort of project requires
the latest highly specialized equipment.
It is too bad, because we are always working with big forces,
like those of the Americans and the English, who are well
equipped. We do a very good job with what we have, but we
cannot keep doing it. Things keep deteriorating.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that when you
point a finger at somebody there are three of them pointing back
at you. I think that is particularly appropriate for the
Conservative Party today because there are three fingers pointing
back at them.
Many of the conditions they have talked about today are ones
that were in place when they held the reign of power in this
country. When Brian Mulroney and his Conservative government
were in power we had problems with all of the areas they are
talking about. And that is exactly what they are doing. Talk,
talk, talk. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is this government that in fact is taking action to rectify
these problems. We are providing the leadership that is
necessary to prepare our Canadian forces for the new millennium,
to comply with the requirements of the defence white paper, to
provide the kind of support for our forces personnel and their
families and to help provide for a quality of life for them that
they rightly deserve.
The Conservative defence critic said there had been a 30%
reduction over the last four years. That is quite true. Our
defence department has been cut 30% in its purchasing power and
23% in actual dollars. It has gone from just over $12 billion
down to $9.4 billion. Yes, the defence department and the
Canadian forces, together with every other department and every
other program of the federal government, has had to contribute to
deficit reduction. Why? Because of the big deficit we inherited
from Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government.
They virtually put the economy and the fiscal condition of this
country into ruin. The first priority of this government was to
put the country on a proper fiscal course to be able to provide
the kinds of jobs that our economy is now providing. We have
lower interest rates. Inflation is under control. We have a
balanced budget. Because of what we inherited from that
government we had to absorb a lot of cuts in defence as well as
in other areas.
The hon. member talked about helicopters. They botched that
arrangement as well. They were going out, when the country had a
$42 billion deficit, and buying expensive developmental
helicopters with all the bells and whistles, things that were
relevant to the cold war period which they did not seem to
recognize as being over. They were spending a lot of money for
equipment; money that we did not have at that time because of the
deficit situation they put us into.
We have bought search and rescue helicopters. We will replace
the Sea King with a new maritime helicopter. We will do it at a
cheaper price with off the shelf equipment which is more
appropriate for our needs and cheaper than what they were going
to provide.
1050
When it comes to dealing with the issues that face our forces
personnel and their families, the pay, the living conditions, the
housing conditions and all of the other things, there is nobody
who is more committed than I am in seeing that these problems are
dealt with.
On behalf of this government, because that is what this
government wants to do, I went to the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs. At the very first meeting
I told them “This government wants to deal with these issues”.
I had visited a number of different bases during the summer,
within two or three months of being appointed Minister of
National Defence, and I heard a number of stories. I told the
committee, made up of members of all parties, to go to the
different bases and communities and listen to what our forces
personnel and their families have to say about the challenges
they meet. How are they coping? Are they having difficulties in
terms of pay levels or housing? What about the postings which
result in them frequently being moved from one part of the
country to another? Families face difficulties when they are at
home and forces personnel are overseas, sometimes in some rather
dangerous conditions. All of these things are important to this
government. It is important that we address them.
At the very first meeting of the committee I asked members to
address those matters. I said at the time that I needed to have
a stronger understanding on the part of all members of
parliament, on the part of the government and the Canadian public
as to the challenges our forces personnel and their families are
facing.
What we heard from the member this morning is of course what I
heard previously and what others are now hearing in the standing
committee. The reason those hearings are being held is because
of the leadership of this government and the desire to get to the
bottom of these issues and the desire to take corrective action
to make sure that our forces personnel have a quality of life, a
standard of living, that is befitting of the great service they
provide to this country.
All that we hear today is a regurgitation of what we have heard
from the public. What suggestions do those members have? They
do not have any suggestions at all. They ridicule every other
idea. They even criticized the idea of trying to get sponsorship
for various non-public activities, non-core activities of the
military. They got it all wrong in the course of doing it. We
are not about to put “Drink Coke” on our tanks or on our
armoured personnel carriers, or submarine sandwiches on our
submarines. They know that is the case.
They know that what we are talking about are things like tattoos
or the Snow Birds performances, all of which are not part of the
core activities, but are areas where we do require some
sponsorship, tastefully done I might add. It will not be done
with the kind of advertising logos they are talking about.
This has been going on for several years. There is nothing new
about this. It is an appropriate way of getting sponsorship for
the things that are not part of the core activities of the
Canadian military. Those things that are core, which require
public funding, will continue to be handled out of public funds
in the traditional way.
He got that all wrong. The other thing he was wrong about was
our allies. They all do it. When the United States sends
entertainers abroad they get sponsorship. They are all doing the
same kind of thing, but it is those additional things that also
help, whether it is the Snow Birds or a tattoo, to give the
public a better understanding and appreciation of the skills and
the talents that our forces personnel have.
As tragic as the events of the Saguenay, the Red River and the
ice storm have been, they have also given the Canadian public a
better understanding and appreciation of what our forces
personnel are all about and the kind of professionalism they
bring. In concert with that professionalism, this government is
providing leadership to make sure those forces are ready for the
next century.
We are bringing about institutional changes. We have agreed
with more than 80% of the Somalia commission report. We
appointed a new chief of defence staff and overhauled many of the
senior positions within the Canadian defence upper echelons.
1055
We have brought into the House the most extensive amendments to
the defence act since its creation 50 years ago. They did not
bring any amendments to the defence act. We are overhauling the
military justice system to make sure we have an appropriate
system for the new millennium. We have had reports on our
reserves and we are implementing those reports.
In many cases we are not even waiting for the reports. We are
taking action now. The 9% increase in pay is an example of
something we are doing now. The retirement allowance for the
reserve forces is also something we are doing now.
Institutional changes and reforms are being carried out and
monitored by a former Speaker of the House, the hon. John Fraser.
The purchase of the helicopters, the submarines and the armoured
personnel carriers are all decisions that came out of the white
paper. The things they did not do and did not do properly we are
carrying out.
We have also improved communications, as I think even the hon.
member has admitted, both between the forces and the public and
within the forces.
This is just a quick thumbnail sketch of a lot of things that
other speakers I hope will get a chance to talk about further,
but it clearly shows that when they point their finger there are
three pointing back at them for their inadequacies during the
time they were in government. This government is showing solid
leadership.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, every chance he
gets, our colleague, the Minister of National Defence, says the
Conservative Party, always the Conservative Party, is the one
responsible for everything that is wrong.
There are some things that need to be remembered, if one wants
to be objective. For instance, the matter of the debt, which
will take but a few seconds. Let us talk about the period from
1970 to 1984. In 1970, the debt stood at some $15 to $18
billion. The Liberals multiplied it tenfold. By the time we
took office in 1984, the debt had reached $200 billion. Instead
of multiplying it by 11, we doubled it. That is a considerable
slowdown.
At the time, however, we knew the deficit had to be controlled,
so we adopted tax reform measures.
Moreover, free trade, against which you voted, has freed up
considerably more money to reduce the deficit.
I would like to ask the minister, since his choices are
supposedly always the wisest possible, how it happens that,
having suspended the helicopter purchase contract, negotiated at
the time for $33 million, he is now bragging about the same
purchase, but at $40 million plus, without considering that
there was absolutely nothing set aside for R&D;, and nothing for
maintenance.
How can they pay 20% to 25% more for helicopters and try to
convince us that the wait was worthwhile, after spending $600
million? How can he claim that it was worth the wait, and then
try to boast to us about the purchase?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I know the
Conservatives are not very good at figures, given the way they
ran up the deficit, and they seem to have a hard time recognizing
that.
They equally have a very difficult time coming to grips with the
helicopter purchase. They fail to understand that they were
proposing helicopters at a time when we could not afford them.
They were military development helicopters which meant that a lot
more money was going to go into the development stage before they
would fly.
We are buying off the shelf helicopters that are already
commercially certified in search and rescue which do not have all
of the costs associated with them which their proposal had. We
have ended up buying helicopters, and subsequently the maritime
helicopters, at 30% less than what they would have paid. That
was a shame. The taxpayers could not afford that.
I am very pleased about the search and rescue helicopters that
we are buying. Yes, they are a cousin of the helicopter that was
in its developmental stage, but getting it off the shelf and
commercially certified is a lot cheaper. This helicopter will
meet our requirements, which was the most important aspect of
this purchase. It went through a very rigorous test and an
extensive examination to ensure that it was the helicopter to
best meet our operational needs and to do it at a price that was
affordable to the Canadian public.
1100
Even more important is to note that buying it now as we have, we
bought it at a time that we could afford it. We got rid of that
big deficit which we inherited from the Conservative government.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to address the comments of the minister about debt, and also the
Conservative Party, I do not think either one of those parties
can claim to be on the high ground in that area. After all there
is a $600 billion debt. The Conservatives added $250 billion.
The Liberals trashed the taxpayer by adding another $100 billion
since they have come into office. Nobody can claim the high
ground.
In speaking about the military, I just came out of committee on
Bill C-25. It became evident on how undemocratic our process
really is. This bill is coming from the top down. I ask the
minister, in producing a bill and pushing it down to committee,
why does he not give the committee more power to adjust, make
amendments and do what is right for the military through that
process?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the member
goes back to the committee instead of sitting in here he might be
able to get some amendments put on the table. We are certainly
happy to see him discuss the matter at committee.
In terms of the National Defence Act amendments, as I indicated
these are very extensive amendments. They have come through as a
result of two things. A lot of the recommendations in there
should not be new to the hon. member. A lot of them came out of
the Somalia commission report. All of them virtually mirror the
report from former Chief Justice Dickson and his committee on the
military justice system. They are well thought out by people,
including a former chief justice of Canada, as to the kind of
updating that is required in the military justice system to
ensure that it has within it Canadian values and justice
principles that are also acknowledged in the civilian area as
being those that are required.
We are updating and streamlining the operations. If the hon.
member has some amendments, or his party has some amendments,
there has been every opportunity to be heard at the committee. I
look forward to the committee reporting back to this House.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There seems to be a lot of interest, and we are very attentive in
the minister's answers to our questions. I would seek unanimous
consent to prolong the questions and comments so that we can hear
the hon. minister's reply.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the questions and comments time on the minister's speech?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that there is not
unanimous consent.
The time for questions and comments has now expired.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to stand here today, although I have to say I am
somewhat surprised that this motion came forth from the fifth
party, the Conservative Party, from parts of the maritimes and
from parts of Quebec.
An hon. member: Parts of Alberta.
Mr. Art Hanger: There are no Conservatives in Alberta. I
obviously appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue.
To say the least, I cannot begin to stress how disappointed I
have been with the treatment of our Canadian forces and how this
government has impacted on their well-being and their
effectiveness.
Again my surprise is that the motion comes from one of the two
parties that really contributed to the problems we see in our
military today. It was the Tories who continued to gut the forces
during their disastrous tenure in government.
I do not think they have a whole lot to offer in this debate
apart from the fact of making it a debate. I certainly agree
with them on that issue.
1105
Our military exists fundamentally to protect the freedoms of our
country. It is a proud institution which has distinguished
itself in two world wars, the Korean war, the gulf war and a
myriad of other international conflicts. Our peacekeepers have
set the international standard for competence, professionalism
and humanitarianism.
Unfortunately the past 30 or so years have seen an increasing
tendency by the federal government to neglect its
responsibilities to the Canadian forces. Decreased funding,
increased bureaucratization, failing equipment and a decreasing
standard of living have taken an enormous toll on the morale of
the forces. I am going to throw in one other item because I
believe that military justice is a key aspect to morale.
If we see a two tier system as is present with only some
tinkering done with Bill C-25 which the government is introducing
we are not going to see morale improve a whole lot. I find that
rather unsettling. The government has had years to make
corrections to the military justice system and to the defence act
and has failed to do so until now. And when it does so, it is
superficial to say the least.
When I talk about decreased funding, increased
bureaucratization, failing equipment and a decreased standard of
living having taken its toll on morale there is no question that
these evils are also cutting into the forces' operational
capabilities. Members of the forces are now in the uncomfortable
and often unrealistic position of being asked to perform duties
with outdated equipment and with insufficient financial support
for themselves and for their families.
The auditor general's report released about two or three weeks
ago clearly puts the military at a disadvantage when it comes to
their equipment and the way they are being administered.
Touching briefly on those points, first is decreased funding.
For too many years successive governments, and the very
government which ran up higher and higher deficits, cut
mercilessly into the heart of DND, into the military. It seemed
that DND served as the sacrificial lamb whenever governments
wanted to take an overt demonstration of cutbacks. It is easy to
whack somebody who cannot defend themselves.
The inefficiencies of the operation continued behind the scenes.
When it came to showing the public how the government was
balancing the budget, it was balanced on the backs of those who
cannot defend themselves. There are no advocates for the
military on that side of the House. None. When the government
wanted to make this demonstration these cutbacks were always
deemed as belt tightening. Unfortunately at some point belt
tightening became limb amputation.
During the 1993 election, Reform proposed that the military's
budget should be preserved at approximately $11 billion. We
argued that this was already too low for the military to function
effectively but we felt that $11 billion was a realistic figure
which could be justified when compared to other government
obligations. We argued that a strong military is an essential
resource and therefore should be protected along with other
government necessities. In other words cuts should come from
somewhere else.
Since 1993 the DND budget has been cut to just over $9 billion.
Now even the auditor general is warning that equipment is getting
dangerously outdated.
Let us talk about bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a term that the
Liberal side of the House understands to perfection. Perhaps the
greatest mistake the Canadian government ever made with respect
to the forces was folding it into the government bureaucracy and
treating it as though it were just another government department.
This had a number of disastrous effects.
1110
First of all it fostered a sense of careerism which had not
previously existed. Many military leaders that have the military
and the country at heart have made it very clear to this
government that this was going to happen. It refused to listen.
Suddenly, advancement in bureaucracy replaced advancement in the
military chain of command. Kowtowing to bean counting
bureaucrats became essential for career development.
The military is not and should never be just another government
department. The very nature of the military requires that it
exist outside the bureaucracy but is still accountable to
parliament, words that are going to be difficult to swallow on
that side of the House which really does not appreciate many
democratic principles.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Why don't you talk about what the men
and women say?
Mr. Art Hanger: This of course is unsettling to
bureaucrats and to politicians who want to retain control over
all aspects of the government. It is control that this government
really would like to maintain.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to listen to the debate that is happening
here today. My colleague from Calgary Northeast is making some
excellent points but it is very difficult to hear because of the
heckling from the other side. It seems to me that the member
should reserve those comments for debate or questions rather than
the strong heckling.
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is certainly lively and
has been for a good part of the morning. If the hon. member
cannot hear, then he has a valid point. I know it is important
that all members be able to hear the debate. The hon. member for
Calgary Northeast has the floor. I think hon. members might show
the proper deference to the hon. member while he speaks.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. That
would help a lot.
What is essential however if the military is to thrive is to
keep the bureaucrats and the politicians out of the
administration of the military. What do they really know? But
unfortunately we are looking at a government today that is
somewhat dictatorial in its viewpoints and likes that control. I
have to say that the Liberals have only contributed to the
problem.
I would like to talk a little bit about the Somalia inquiry. It
was in many significant ways an extremely important process. It
brought to light the need for several positive changes to the
Canadian Armed Forces.
The recognition of the need for military justice reform and
increased accountability throughout the ranks are positive
results of the inquiry. Without the Somalia inquiry, the top
brass in national defence would never have been exposed to the
glaring light of public accountability. Although restricted again
by this government not wanting to expose everything, it was
exposed as to their accountability and they were found wanting.
Of course the Somalia inquiry also exposed the Liberal
government's gross arrogance. In shutting down the inquiry
prematurely, the Liberals took abuse of power to dangerous new
heights. It was the first time an inquiry was ever shut down.
Never before had a government shut down a public inquiry simply
because it was embarrassing the very government that commissioned
the study.
Unfortunately the whole Somalia affair also did massive damage
to the otherwise stellar reputation of the forces. Just when the
inquiry was starting to get to the root of the defence
department's internal problems, the government ended the process.
I certainly commend the member of the Conservative Party for
bringing forth this motion. The debate is worthy and necessary.
It has to reach heights beyond what it has right now to really
provide a greater input of information to the public. I commend
the member on the motion he has presented to the House.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it somewhat ironic to hear the member bringing forward the
word dictatorial. Just yesterday in this House I heard the
Reform member speaking about how lovely democracy is on such a
controversial debate and how it is working so well in this House
and the very next day he is saying that there is no democracy and
that in fact it is dictatorial.
Maybe they should get their stories straight.
1115
I have a question for the hon. member. I would certainly like
to take this opportunity to make a comment to the minister and to
offer my sincere appreciation on behalf of the men and women in
Canadian Forces Base Borden for the excellent job he has done in
representing their needs, in meeting with them and in trying to
find proactive ways of handling military issues coming into the
next millennium.
As I look across the floor I see a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Members opposite are riding on the backs of men and women in the
military. They sat here in the last parliament and constantly
tore the military apart over the Somalia inquiry, offering no
positive words of encouragement whatsoever. Yet today they stand
here and run off at the mouth about issues that they know very
little about.
With regard to money, I have a question for the hon. member. In
1995 the Reform proposed budget suggested slashing $1 billion
from the armed forces or the defence budget. I am just wondering
how the hon. member feels he could better serve the military by
slashing $1 billion from the men and women in our military.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the member likes to talk
about verbal diarrhoea but there is only diarrhoea coming from
one side of the House. Referring to democratic procedures, they
are sadly amiss over on that side.
The prime example of this very undemocratic process is to watch
the hepatitis C vote. How many members had to kowtow to that
front line and their leader?
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. To suggest that somebody in the House has diarrhoea is
absolutely outlandish. Why can the hon. member not stick to the
issues and answer the questions? Enough of the rhetoric—
The Deputy Speaker: We have a lively debate going on but
I do not believe the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey has a point of
order.
I know that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast will be
judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, that was a very appropriate
ruling. I know members on the other side are very delicate, very
sensitive, when it comes to the process of democracy and the hep
C vote was one example.
I just came out of the defence committee too and it is the same
process. It is a top down process. Here we had a bill trying to
correct the justice system within the military and it was all
dictated up here and down at the committee. They sat there like
a bunch of trained seals, clapping when they were asked to clap,
jumping when they were asked to jump. That is the committee and
that is the committee process that has to change.
To answer the member's question, he says Reform wants to cut $1
billion out of the defence budget. How little he knows about
Reform policy. How little he understands even his own party's
policy when it comes to the military.
The Liberal government wants to chop $2 billion from this
budget, down from $9.2 billion. The Reform, recognizing that
there is a strong need to support our men and women in the
Canadian military, wants to increase this budget to $11 billion.
That will take care of the procurement problems and the rusting
out equipment. That will take care of some of the social
problems and complaints.
The government has had five years to correct the problems. For
five years it let the military suffer. For five years it allowed
housing away below substandard to exist in which to put military
families, five years and there was no consideration of the social
needs of military families. That is where the fault lies and
there is the answer to the member's question.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has now expired. I know hon. members are disappointed.
1120
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to the speeches for some time now and I must say that,
when I was teaching at a college in Quebec, if a student of mine
had behaved like one of the hon. members just behaved in this
debate, I would have gladly thrown him out of the classroom.
This type of situation explains why Canadians judge us so
poorly. But I would like the public to know that most members
behave rationally in this House.
I am pleased today to speak briefly on the motion put forward by
the Progressive Conservative Party.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to
provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian
Forces.
First of all, I would like to point out to my Conservative
colleagues that the members of the Canadian forces are paid by
the Canadian taxpayers and not by Her Majesty, for whom I have
the greatest respect. I think we could simply call them the
“Canadian forces”.
Having said that, let us get to the matter at hand. Providing
political leadership probably starts with managing Canadian tax
dollars effectively.
Now, in his latest report and previous comments, the auditor
general, as you know, repeatedly indicated several flaws in
terms of military spending.
Recently, he stated that two thirds of the $3.3 billion defence
budget, that is $2.2 billion—so it is $2.2 billion out of
$3.3 billion—were spent on goods and equipment that did not
really meet the needs of our troops. Now, $2.2 billion is a lot
of money. It is an incredible amount of money. In fact, it would
eliminate the deficit in the province of Quebec.
That money was spent of military goods that did not meet
our needs. Let me give you some examples.
The Griffon utility tactical transport helicopters: a study
done in August 1992, after the department had decided on the
Griffon, showed that its load capacity was less than that
required to transport a gun or engineer equipment. The long and
short of it is that this is a helicopter that is not capable of
lifting what is put into it, what it has to carry. Its load
capacity for evacuating wounded and for logistical support was
also lower than required. The government bought a helicopter
that was quite simply not up to the job.
Another example is the Leopard thermal weapon sight. The
results of tactical analyses on how to modernize the Leopard do
not justify the decision to improve only the night vision
system. If the government had been willing to spend the money,
what the army needed was for the entire vehicle to be
modernized, including the gun and the armour.
According to the study, that was the minimum that would have
been acceptable. More money badly spent.
Then there was the Lynx replacement project, project Coyote.
The tactical concept used for the Coyote armoured reconnaissance
vehicle was based on a number of studies, including a simulation
study used for the Leopard. This study showed that, without
powerful backup, armoured vehicles similar to the Coyote cannot
withstand the enemy fire they would have to face in mid-intensity
conflict.
What does this mean. It means that the government is buying
armoured vehicles that are not up to the conditions in which
they may find themselves. More money badly spent.
Need I point out that still more money has been thrown away on
second-hand British submarines?
I predict that, a year from now, the auditor general will come
back to this topic and it will not be to congratulate the
federal government but to tell it that, once again, it has
wasted taxpayers' money.
But enough about money. Money is important, but it is not
everything. Now we are going to talk about integrity, and about
the Létourneau commission and what went on in Somalia.
1125
The government showed poor political leadership in categorically
refusing to shed light on the events that took place in Somalia.
Justice Létourneau had a mandate. To properly complete his job,
he would have needed a little more time. We are not dealing with
any old thing here, but issues that are important for
maintaining democracy.
Justice Létourneau requested that his mandate be extended to
December 30, 1997, or a six-month extension. That is all he
needed, but the Liberal government simply denied this extension.
This caused a scandal, of course. I must admit that it is not
clear whether this is only a Liberal scandal or also a
Conservative scandal, as this whole thing started under Prime
Minister Campbell, who ran in the 1993 campaign.
At any rate, the current Liberal government swept this issue
under the carpet by not extending Justice Létourneau's mandate.
Let us face it, for all intents and purposes, the unilateral
decision made by the minister represents nothing less than
direct political interference in a judicial process, which is
contrary to every democratic principle, including the separation
of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.
The list goes on. Fortunately, we have a committee, the defence
committee, that is currently touring military bases.
I would like to briefly comment this tour, first because it is
an important tour and second because I had the pleasure of
sitting on this committee when hearings were held at Canadian
Forces Base Valcartier in February.
As I recall, many senior officers testified at these hearings,
as did many soldiers and members of their families. I can
remember part of what was said. First of all, the lower ranks
are underpaid. They cannot provide their families with a decent
living on their pay. This is not inconsequential.
There are regions in Canada where the cost of living is so
high—take Vancouver for instance—that we have seen Canadian
forces members based in Vancouver go on welfare because they
could not make ends meet with their pay. Is that political
leadership? Let us be serious. The government goofed a long time
ago.
It is wasting our money on equipment that does not work, and it
underpays the most important resource in our armed forces,
namely our troops.
We now come to moves. Military personnel gets transferred from
one base to another. When they move, they must sell their house
if they have one and, more importantly, their spouse must quit
his or her job and try to find another one. It is not easy for
an English speaking spouse to find work near the Valcartier base
because, as you know, things are done in French in Quebec. But
the reverse is also true. It is not easy for a French speaking
spouse to find work in an English province. All this causes
serious disruption to family life.
But there is worse. Take the case of a young francophone whose
parents are transferred to a base with an English environment.
What school is that young francophone going to attend?
How is he or she going to get an education in French? Some
situations are truly deplorable.
I want to move on to the protection afforded to our military, in
the case of an occupational injury. If the injury occurs in a
theatre of operations, they are entitled to generous
compensation, based on the nature of the injury suffered.
However, if the occupational injury occurs here, during training
in Canada, our military do not get any compensation. Worse
still, they are released, because they are no longer able to
fulfil their duties.
No injured worker in Quebec would received such shameful
treatment, as Major General Forand pointed out during the
hearings. Something must be done about this.
There is also the issue of building maintenance. Military
buildings are deteriorating because there is no money to
maintain them.
We will lose a fortune because we cannot afford to do
inexpensive repairs that would keep these buildings in good
shape.
1130
In conclusion, the federal government is mismanaging our money
and the Canadian Armed Forces. I can guarantee you that things
would be different in a sovereign Quebec.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague from Portneuf for summing up what he
saw during a tour of our military bases.I was also on that tour.
Earlier, the minister of defence blamed the Tories for leaving
our armed forces in a really poor state. You know, it is always
easy to blame others. One is never to blame, it is always the
other guy's fault.
There was no deficit in Canada before 1973. The first one to
open the door to a deficit was the current Prime Minister of
Canada, who bragged about being the first finance minister from
Quebec to become prime minister. I do not think it does us great
credit.
Anyway, it is easy to always blame others. I have noticed
several things. Let us use the example of our armed forces.
In Trenton and in Petawawa, some members of our Canadian Forces
told us that they had been waiting eight months for a pair of
boots. Our soldiers in Bosnia buy kevlar equipment from the U.S.
military, because we are unable to provide them with what they
need.
Two years ago, the Auditor General of Canada told us in his
report that the RCMP had 4,000 hats in storage in Ottawa. Some
people have too many hats, others have to do without boots.
There is currently a lack of warm equipment for those who are
posted to Alert. What is the problem? It may lie with our
suppliers who are probably not getting as much as they think
they deserve, because they are not providing us with anything.
Have we come to the point where our soldiers will have to
provide their own rifles and their own bullets to join the army?
We are almost there. Eight months for a pair of boots, does that
make any sense?
Let us move on to housing. Our colleague said he was concerned
about the welfare and health of the members of our armed forces
and their families.
The committee visited military housing. I do not know whether
he would want to let anything live there. There was two feet of
water in the basement and military personnel were told to keep
quiet, they were not renting the basement.
They get a $100 increase and end up with $46 after taxes. The
cost of food is raised from $200 to $425 a month and housing
costs are raised by $125 or $150 a month, and military personnel
are told they should be content with that.
Morale has bottomed out. The military are exhausted. The armed
forces are demoralized. Meanwhile, the minister is spouting
fine rhetoric, saying he did this or that well. The armed
forces, however, are a disaster. Something has to be done to
raise their self-esteem.
Corporal Paquette in Trenton, a francophone, with a quadriplegic
child whose only hope is to one day learn to speak, cannot
obtain the services of a remedial teacher in French to teach his
child to speak. After 17 years of service he is told “If you
are unhappy, why don't you go home to Quebec and leave the
forces?” This is the way our soldiers are being treated.
I see the member for Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead nodding, because
it is true. He was there and heard the testimony with me. When
will all this come to a stop?
Millions of dollars have been wasted. I remember the
cancellation of the privatization of Pearson airport. Doug
Young, the minister at the time, said it would cost us a maximum
of $25 million. Last time I looked, the government was being
sued for some $500 million because of this purely political
decision.
I agree that the purchase of helicopters was not the greatest
decision by the party previously in government, but its
cancellation cost us an arm and a leg. At some point, there is
a need for consistency, for logic.
I would ask my hon. colleague, who does an admirable job in all
areas, but especially in this one, to tell us what he thinks of
the well-being and the morale of the military. Perhaps he would
give us some details.
1135
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Chambly is
too kind, but he is right about the Canadian military being
highly skilled and the Quebec soldiers having great courage. The
problem is not the military or the military hierarchy, but the
political decisions that are made against the best interests of
the general population and the armed forces.
Some soldiers have shown me drinking water that was so dirty I
would not have bathed in it. I would not even have given a dog a
bath in that water. It was unbelievable. That is what was coming
through the water supply system.
I can only hope that this debate will help the government
realize the importance of making decisions that will give our
military the means to do their job, so that we have soldiers who
are proud of what they do, who are well paid and well thought of,
who have decent housing and who are properly dressed and well
equipped, and so on.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the motion by the member for Compton—Stanstead:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide
strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.
I regret to say that I have to agree with the conclusion reached
by this member that the government has indeed failed to provide
strong political leadership to Canadians who are within the
military and also working for the Canadian forces.
In the last 11 months that I have had the privilege of
representing the people in Dartmouth, I have been quite frankly
astounded by the deep malaise I have seen in every sector of the
community involved with the military.
That sector is substantial. In Dartmouth and Halifax there are
10,000 military personnel and over 2,000 civilian personnel
working for the military.
Our citizens have been central to the war effort in both the
first and second world wars. Thousands of sailors and merchant
marines have sailed out of our harbour and thousands have never
returned. Thousands of civilian workers stayed a home during the
wars and fuelled the war effort.
My communities, probably more than any in this country, have
really felt the effects of war. Everyone has a grandmother or an
aunt who can remember the exact place where they were during the
Halifax explosion. That explosion killed thousands of people in
our community, an east coast community right here, during the
war.
I remember something that happened to me when I first arrived in
that community. I went to a church that has now become my
church. I was there on Remembrance Day with my children and a
couple of people in the choir came down from the choir.
They took off their robes and started singing “The Band Played
Waltzing Matilda” which is a very poignant song about a young
Australian soldier going to Gallipoli, fighting in that war and
then returning with his legs blown off. It is an anti-war song.
I looked around me and there was not a dry eye in sight. There
were many military families in that church that day. I thought
these were people who have a whole different view of fighting for
a country and investing a great deal in it from what I ever had.
I think I really changed my mind that day. I began to understand
some new things about what commitment meant.
I am now the MP there. A great percentage of the people who come
through my door or call our office are from the military or
civilian workers.
They are asking for assistance intervention with DND, with DVA.
They need ministerial inquiries into pension issues, unfair
dismissals from the Department of National Defence and simply the
draconian methods of downsizing that have been going on under the
process of alternative service delivery.
In trying to fight for some of these citizens, I have run up
against bureaucracies and a leadership that will not take
responsibility, is not responsible or responsive to the concerns
of these people.
1140
On May 8 and 9, I sat in on the parliamentary committee which is
crisscrossing the country to hear quality of life concerns within
the military. I listened to dozens of soldiers and sailors, some
of them fathers, and their wives speak out about the situations
facing them. I heard from a peacekeeper who had been sandbagging
PCBs in Sarajevo for seven months. He had been exposed to
incredible environmental poisons so that now his health is
completely gone. He was pleading before the committee for a
decent pension level so he could look after his family.
A father named Al Lannon spoke for his son Glen Lannon, a young
man from Truro who was injured during a military exercise at Camp
Shilo. He was trying to receive some sort of pension that would
allow him to take care of his family. A woman named Susan
Rierdon spoke on behalf of her husband Terry Rierdon who returned
gravely ill from his deployment in the gulf in 1990. They are
still fighting for recognition of his illness. They are still
waiting for the government to take some responsibility for the
wounded soldiers and their families.
Mrs. Rierdon had a question for the committee:
Why is it that our country will not stand up with us in our hour
of need? Veterans affairs is a minefield, and as I speak,
Terry's pension is under complete and total review. The outcome
will not be known for one or two months due to misplaced
paperwork. Medical documentation that was misplaced at veterans
affairs.
It's not new to me. Misplaced files, unreturned calls, constant
delays are standard. I am the sole paper fighter for the
military and veterans affairs. As an ex-military wife, I am
ashamed, not only of the way our family has been treated by this
country's agencies, but the treatment of all our ill and
forgotten lost soldiers. I appeal to each one of you to restore
dignity to those brave men and women, they all served us with no
questions asked.
A sailor who now has AIDS and hep C from tainted blood
transfusions done in a military hospital said:
I am in a battle for my life and to make matters even worse I
must now fight a major bureaucratic battle with national defence
and veterans affairs to ensure that when I no longer breathe that
my wife and children will not starve, will not lose the family
home.
All these submissions paint a picture of an oppressive,
vindictive leadership, a bungling, secretive bureaucracy. All
expressed fears of reprisal for coming forward and all are
waiting for such things as pensions. They are in line-ups for
operations. They are waiting for diagnoses from military doctors
whom they have lost faith in.
The civilian military workers await the next round of cuts which
will see their jobs diminish. Jobs that used to bring $12.50 an
hour, family supporting jobs, are now privatized and restored at
$7.50 an hour. I do not blame them for their feelings of anger
and betrayal. Their years of service have been met by the
prevailing government attitude of privatizing everything that
moves, of shifting responsibility to the private sector so it
does not show up on the government books, so the Minister of
Finance can gloat and bray about his surplus, while communities
such as mine become weaker and more anxious by the day about
their futures.
These people did not become part of the military effort to fight
for those values. They did not fight for the values that now
pervade the leadership of the military and the government. They
committed their lives because they had an ideal of a country and
a community they wanted to live in and were willing to fight for.
That ideal involved the concepts of justice, fairness, equality
and protection of the weak.
We now have parliamentary committee crisscrossing the country to
hear quality of life issues from military personnel and their
families. Each night we see on the news the horror stories of
the families that have no money and are going to food banks. We
hear the horror stories I have just put forward.
I am glad to hear that the country is waking up, that our own
citizens are waking up and changing some of the stereotypes and
mythologies they carry about the military.
1145
This has to go further than that. In the fall there will be
probably a very large report released by the committee. There
will be lots of trees cut down in the interests of this weighty
document. However the document will mean absolutely nothing
unless there are ears to hear and unless there is a strong
political leadership within the government to back up the
recommendations of the report.
That leadership must herald the return to the values for which
these young men and women have fought and put down their lives:
justice, co-operation, care for the wounded, the vulnerable and
the ill. If it does not happen we will in the not too distant
future have no one left willing to stand up to fight for a way of
life: democracy, fair play and justice. All we will have is
generals who will be by themselves rattling their sabres. We
will have our ministers flaunting their reports. However the
battle for the way of life we believe is valuable will be lost.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, so much
for the 1994 defence white paper that the minister of defence
claims the government is still committed to.
The white paper has been turned into a word of fiction. The
government has ignored the white paper, its own defence policy.
We saw a news release that was sent out today by the minister of
defence saying that he welcomes the auditor general's report.
The auditor general's report also condemns the Department of
National Defence and what it has been doing. I wonder if he will
look at the recommendations in the auditor general's report and
really implement them. He certainly has not implemented the
white paper.
The government has ignored the white paper, its defence policy,
and failed to implement many of its very necessary
recommendations. These recommendations include replacements for
the Sea King, new multi-role support vessels for the navy, 3,000
extra soldiers, new armoured personnel carriers for the Canadian
army and upgraded weapons.
I refer to chapter 7 of the national defence white paper for
those on the other side who may want to read up on their
government's official policy. The unofficial policy and the one
most often put into practice has been neglected. How can we in
Canada in good conscience continue with alliances such as NATO
and the UN when we do not give our armed forces the resources to
meet our obligations?
In fact we have been embarrassed. All Canadians are embarrassed
now as are the members of our armed forces. We cannot continue
to expect the respect that has been shown in the past for the
many Canadians who have given their lives in conflicts all over
the globe when we do not give our armed forces the ability to do
the job we are asking them to do.
I cannot believe that we are saying to Subway that it can put an
ad on our submarines. That is what we are to do. We will serve
Subways to the men who serve on the submarines. I cannot believe
that we are to put Rocket 88s on our rockets. I cannot believe
that we are to sell ads to raise money and to put those ads on
our vehicles and on all of our equipment. That is the way we are
to raise money. I have never seen this done in Canada. It is an
embarrassment around the world.
The government has cut the defence budget by 30% in the last
five years. That has affected equipment and training. Recent
news reports have highlighted the effect it has had on the
quality of life of the soldiers. It is a disgrace.
As most of us in the House are aware, a second lieutenant at CFB
Moose Jaw told the defence committee how he moonlights as a
security guard for $5.75 an hour so that he can feed his family.
A sailor aboard the HMCS Calgary canvasses for the United
Way. There is a gentleman in Moncton, New Brunswick, Mr.
Soueracher, who when he was in the armed forces had a blood
transfusion. He now has AIDS and he contracted hepatitis C. Our
people will not even look at the man because they kept absolutely
no record of the blood transfusion.
His wife was there during that operation. There is still on the
bottom of his foot a spot where they put the transfusion, but
they will not give him his medical records. He offered to fly
here and talk with the Minister of Veterans Affairs or with his
staff, and no one will meet with him. I cannot believe this is
happening.
1150
The auditor general noted last month that defence spending often
does not match the goals and the policies of the department. He
pointed out that while Canadian soldiers were expected to fight
alongside the best and against the best there was not sufficient
capital to equip and modernize our forces. The auditor general
also noted that despite a commitment to ensure that the
experiences of the 1970s were not repeated when equipment was
rusting out rapidly, the long term capital plans and the defence
services program currently forecast a decline in equipment
spending over the next five to fifteen years.
Can we imagine? We will have decline for the next 15 years. We
just will not have a Department of National Defence.
Our minister of defence is saying that he will listen to the
auditor general. He never listened to the white paper and he did
not adopt it, and he will not listen to the auditor general
either.
What about our veterans that made great sacrifices to uphold our
values in international law and security? What do they get in
return? The government has made deep cuts to veterans programs.
It has slashed veterans affairs operating budget over a three
year period by $182 million.
I have wives of veterans coming to me. They cannot afford to
bury their husbands. The merchant navy will be here on the Hill,
on the steps of the Parliament Buildings, to protest. One
merchant navy veteran said to me “I would rather sit there
because they would have to bury me in the end. They will not
give my wife enough to bury me so I will sit there on a hunger
strike. When we die on the steps of the Parliament Buildings
they will have to do something with our bodies”.
I cannot believe it. We should reinstate the means test back to
$24,000 for the last post fund. It should be a priority. It was
reduced in 1996 to $12,000 and very few veterans now qualify for
burial benefits. That is $12,000 between husband and wife, not
just for the veteran. Various legion branches have passed
resolutions calling for reinstatement of the last post fund to
$24,000.
By the end of World War II the Canadian merchant marines grew to
180 ships and 12,000 mariners. Sixty-seven ships were lost with
11,046 mariners killed and 198 taken prisoner. Despite being
referred to as the fourth arm of the fighting services during the
war, merchant navy veterans were denied veteran status and many
of the benefits offered to veterans. In particular, they were
offered very limited career training opportunities.
We as a country have recognized the injustices against our
merchant navy seamen and women. Why have we not compensated them
adequately? Some of the measures the merchant navy is seeking
include a payment of a tax free $20,000 to each merchant navy war
veteran or surviving spouse as compensation for their exclusion
from many of the benefits offered to military veterans after the
war and for the job and career opportunities merchant seamen were
denied.
There should be an extension of the same benefits available to
allied military veterans to veterans of allied merchant navies,
provided the latter meet standards applicable to military
veterans. We need to look after our veterans.
I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Quebec. I
want to close by saying that we need to look after our veterans.
Not only do we need to look after our veterans. We need to look
after our military right now. We need to look after the man from
Moncton and all those others who have not been treated in a
manner in which they deserve. We will continue to fight for each
and every one of them until this is corrected.
1155
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party this morning in connection with
the motion before us.
I cannot help but think that the hon. member is painting an
extraordinarily bleak picture of the Canadian Armed Forces at
this point in time. None of us on this side of the House would
suggest for a moment that there are not some problems within the
military, but the picture painted by the hon. member goes a
little too far with respect to reflecting the reality of the
situation.
I have two questions for the hon. member. One of them relates
to the whole issue of the white paper. As a member of the
national defence committee I just returned from the committee
hearings in Halifax and the maritimes. We talked to quite a
number of people. I had the opportunity to speak to Rear Admiral
Dusty Miller who is in charge of the maritime Atlantic command. I
asked him about the whole equipment issue, whether or not we
could do the job that has been mandated to us in the white paper
and in connection with the Department of National Defence mission
statement.
Rear Admiral Miller was very clear in terms of his comments. He
said that when Canada gets the Upholder submarines we will have
one of the most modern navies in the world, some of the best
equipment available in the world and some of the most highly
trained people in the world.
If we look at the reality of the situation, I think it is
reflected in the commitment the government has made to the navy
over the last number of years: 12 brand new frigates in the
Canadian navy, absolute state of the art in terms of weapons
systems, radar, communications systems and computer systems. It
is the very best technology we could possibly offer our men and
women in uniform on those frigates.
The maritime coastal defence vessels is another example: 12
brand new maritime coastal defence vessels, and we have the
Upholder submarines as well.
I ask the hon. member to respond to that aspect of the equipment
and whether or not she is prepared to admit that perhaps she
painted a little too bleak a picture.
The other issue she raised was on the personnel support
programs. We are seeing commanders in the case of the maritime
Atlantic command who are taking the initiative. I spoke to one
service person who showed me a card produced by maritime—
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are on questions and comments. The hon. member has been
giving a speech. I believe there are other members who would like
to ask questions. We only have a certain amount of time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This period is called
question and comments so a member is quite free to comment rather
than to ask a question.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, all I want is enough
time for me to reply to his question. It does not leave a lot of
time for me.
Mr. David Pratt: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the last
comment by the hon. member for Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have the answer if I have the time to
answer.
Mr. David Pratt: Madam Speaker, the other question I have
is in connection with personnel support programs. It relates to
some innovative thinking that is occurring within the Canadian
forces right now.
What is wrong with companies providing support to members of the
Canadian forces. What is wrong with that? What difficulty does
the hon. member have with that? It shows some real leadership
and innovation.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, when it comes to the
submarines, they have bought used submarines from Britain and
unlike nuclear subs they cannot stay submerge indefinitely and
therefore do not allow for Arctic patrolling.
The auditor general takes note of a very limited capability to
assert national will in the very demanding environment of
Canada's Arctic. He has stated this is not good.
Furthermore, when it comes to the Sea Kings he did not mention
that because some of our people lost their lives. In our area
they lost their lives and their parents are writing to us and the
Sea Kings are still there. Every one that goes up in the air has
to have 70 hours of maintenance afterwards. It is an absolute
disgrace. Why do I not want McDonald's and Subway and everybody
on the side of our vehicles for national defence? Ask around the
world. It is embarrassing when we reach rock bottom like that.
For our defence people that is embarrassing.
1200
So I say to him work to put back the respect that should be
there. Some of our people now in the forces there are going to
food banks. He wants me to be proud of that. No, I will fight
tooth and nail to give them their respect.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I want to
thank my leader for sharing her time with me. She is totally
committed to defending the interests of both our veterans and
all active members of our armed forces who are experiencing very
serious problems at the moment.
We have put forward this motion because we are aware that the
present government has brought our armed forces back to the
sixties
and seventies. They are close to not being operational. This is
strange because we expect a lot from our soldiers and their
families.
It seems to me that it is the duty of the House of Commons to
care about what is going on within our armed forces.
Everybody is pretty much aware of this reality that is
devastating our armed forces. It does not affect 10,000 or
50,000 people, but hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Our
soldiers are directly affected by this devastating reality.
Are their immediate families and their extended families.
Practically all Canadians are affected by what is going on right
now, by what we have been learning about life within the armed
forces.
As the member of the Progressive Conservative Party for
Chicoutimi, Quebec, I must say that there are soldiers in that
region who worked extremely hard during the national disasters
that hit our country in recent months and recent years.
Members of our armed forces have been and continue to be our
national heroes. However, this fact must be recognized in a
tangible way; the government must act responsibly.
As this issue affects hundreds of thousands of people, indeed
all Canadians, we think the time has come for a ministerial
statement, either by the Minister of National Defence or the
Prime Minister, to show all Canadians that we are committed to
modernizing our Canadian forces and making them effective again.
We expect a lot from these people and I am positive they do not
feel their services are considered essential. They are called
upon for every activity, for every national disaster we go
through.
They are also called upon to travel to other countries, to give
up being with their families for months at a time, with
absolutely no recognition.
The government in power is waiting on the recommendations in
committee reports. It does not need to wait; at the very least,
it could start by immediately improving its management of
equipment replacement. It costs about $1.5 billion a year just
to replace and modernize our equipment.
There has been talk about many purchases that have been made
without regard for the priorities that any soldier would be able
to set. The supply department itself is extremely inadequate.
These are things that could be done very quickly. Normally,
recommendations in the auditor general's report can be acted on
within the year. But instead the government is waiting on the
standing committee's report.
1205
Before the committee's final report is in, there are extremely
progressive measures I think the defence minister and the
government could take.
Canadian soldiers have been serving abroad for four years now,
as well as at home. And who is Canadian soldiers' worst enemy?
It is the budget slashing Liberal government.
Everyone agrees that there has to be rationalization, but the
government has gone into the banking business. It has set aside
$20 billion in a special fund at a time when our soldiers are
underpaid and lack modern equipment. They are the laughing-stock
of other countries.
With completely obsolete equipment, they are the best soldiers
in the world. That is what the government should do something
about and pronto.
It all began with a purely political move, the cancellation of
the helicopter contract, which had been carefully worked out.
This contract cost hundreds of millions of dollars in delay,
compensation and the whole business of renegotiating a new
contract that is costing several millions more than the 1992-93
deal.
In addition, there are serious shortcomings with respect to
activities such as training, that have not been taken into
account. Also not taken into account were the cost of
replacement parts and maintenance, as well as the $960 million
because of postponing replacement of the old and now unreliable
Labradors and Sea Kings.
And it goes on. I prefer not to speak about R&D.; The contract
was scrapped, a term the government understands. It promised us
it was going to scrap free trade, even though it has been
responsible for raising our export figures from $90 billion to
$215 billion. It also promised to scrap the GST, another thing
it has not done.
What it did scrap, however, was the helicopter contract.
Renegotiating a poorly negotiated contract cost hundreds of
millions of dollars.
The former national defence chief of staff has admitted that the
Canadian army was ill equipped to fight a true armed conflict.
Really now. According to the Globe and Mail, in 1996, the chief
of defence staff said that the Canadian army is not equipped to
wage a serious war, and the rank and file are justifiably
dubious about the competency of the high command. We are not
talking about 1939, before the second world war, but about 1996.
In the 1996 auditor general's report, it was pointed out that
certain well-known deficiencies in their tanks made it impossible
to keep the risk of missions on which the armed forces were sent
to an acceptable minimum. This means that the Canadian
generals—and this merits careful reading because there is a
considerable responsibility here—sent thousands of soldiers to
combat zones in Bosnia and Somalia, knowing that their safety
was compromised because of serious deficiencies in their
armoured vehicles. The auditor general said that even
machine-gun bullets could go through them. And our military
personnel were riding in these, an instance of unacceptable
irresponsibility.
This is why our party has decided to make this an official
motion today in the House of Commons, in order to try to bring
about some rapid improvement if possible and, of course, to also
continue to work, as our colleague is, within the standing
committee in order to have an official report ready very soon.
As for troop morale, one need only look at the reports from the
standing committee currently travelling across the country to
see how devastating this situation is to our armed forces.
1210
A senior officer based, not in Washington, at the Pentagon or in
Silicon Valley, but in Bagotville, in my riding—no one will
challenge me on reporting what was said there, I am sure—told
me that the situation was “just this side of a crisis”. This
means that the government should not wait for the standing
committee's official report. There are plenty of reports
available. There are reports by the auditor general, who
recommended that our military be better equipped both in terms
of personnel and of operational equipment. That much the
government can do, and it should do it quickly.
Members of the armed forces sometimes come across instances of
shameless squandering on purchases of various equipment, on
which they do not dare blow the whistle for fear of what would
happen to them if they were found out.
This is not Russia, or the former Soviet Union. This is not
right. I hope the government will take into account the
recommendations made by both the auditor—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member's time has
unfortunately expired.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker, I thank
my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi. The government
complained today that we show only the bad side and do not make
any practical suggestions.
I thought I had made one this morning, and I would like to hear
the hon. member for Chicoutimi on this. The problem is that
proper training is not provided. Individuals who leave the armed
forces after a 20 year military career have no training. There
should be an education system. Perhaps we could share the costs:
we take a little off their pay and the government could chip in.
This way the costs would be shared.
When their service engagement is over, they could go back to
university, college or training school. I know this is an area
my colleague knows well. Perhaps he could comment on this.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comment.
Indeed, after my defeat in 1993, I had the opportunity to work
with base authorities in certain areas of training. It was one
of the positive sides of my defeat, since it allowed me to get
closer to businesses and to work somewhat like in the private
sector.
Another proposed measure is the creation of a well trained rapid
reaction corps. I want to go back to this. It is also
recommended that an ombudsman be put in place, because our
military are afraid to speak up. We need an ombudsman in the
Canadian Armed Forces. It would allow us to improve military
operations on a day to day basis.
An hon. member: It is necessary.
Mr. André Harvey: Based on all that information, we think the
government has no choice. It must make a statement on the state
of our armed forces and their ability to fulfil their mandate.
This is precisely what the auditor general asked of this
government. Over the last five years, in addition to scrapping
the helicopter deal, the government has been scrapping the whole
of the Canadian Armed Forces, both in terms of their equipment
and in terms of the pride that our military used to have. These
people feel that the authorities, and particularly the
government, never listen to them.
This is why we must set up a rapid reaction corps and have an
ombudsman who will listen to our military on a daily basis
because, as I said, they are afraid to speak freely. They were
very pleased to appear before the committee, but afterwards the
issue will be completely forgotten.
We must have effective means of protecting the lives of our
military, and this affects not just tens of thousands of
citizens, but hundreds of thousands of them. I am convinced that
we could then implement all the recommendations made by the
standing committee on national defence.
I agree that the work being done by the committee members from
all the political parties is positive and effective. But the
government must act immediately, because our military are
leaving the forces. This is unprecedented. They are leaving. It
is unbelievable. I see it in my region, on the base in
Bagotville. Our best specialists, our best pilots and our best
technicians are leaving the military, because they do not feel
that they are considered as valuable individuals in Canada.
This is why we want to take action. Today is Armed Forces Day in
Canada, and it is an opportunity to show greater respect for our
military.
1215
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Chicoutimi spoke very
eloquently. He mentioned the helicopters. We heard from the
minister of defence this morning. He talked about how this was
actually a good deal for Canadians. Somehow he expects Canadians
to accept that receiving half the helicopters at a loss of over
half a billion dollars, a helicopter that has only half the
capacity of the one we would have purchased under the previous
government, is a good deal.
I wonder if my friend might respond to that.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Chicoutimi has 15 seconds to answer the question.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I will use my 15 seconds to
thank our colleague, who is on the standing committee, for the
very positive work the committee has done for all of Canada.
The matter of the helicopters is another scandal of the present
government. They wanted to win. They won by promising
Canadians that they would scrap the matter, knowing full well
that financially and technically the matter—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I apologize to the hon.
member, but his time is up.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
It is a pleasure to speak to this motion because the examples of
leadership this government has shown with respect to the Canadian
forces are demonstrated day in and day out by the very pride we
have for the dedication, the skill and the professionalism of
Canada's soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.
Pride in the Canadian military has very deep roots and today's
Canadian forces draw inspiration from the courage, commitment and
accomplishments of the hundreds of thousands of their countrymen
and women who served before them for this country in war and in
peace.
This government has proudly demonstrated the great honour of
being the custodian of the distinguished military heritage we
have. I believe the need to maintain Canadians' pride in their
military tradition is a responsibility which we must and do take
very seriously.
I know that the men and women of the forces also take that
tradition very seriously. They are currently experiencing a
period of intense operational activity and they continue to
perform every mission with great skill and courage.
The mission of the Canadian forces is to defend Canada and
Canadian interests and values while contributing to
international peace and security.
As we all know, the world is in the midst of incredibly dramatic
changes. One example is that NATO will expand to include former
members of the Warsaw Pact. We are full, active partners in
collective security organizations like NATO and NORAD because
Canadians believe their security is indivisible from that of our
allies, old and new. We continue to contribute to UN
peacekeeping missions and other multilateral operations because
Canadians believe they have a duty to promote stability and
alleviate the suffering which is often caused by armed conflict.
Canada has participated in virtually every peacekeeping mission
ever organized, with more than 100,000 women and men posted all
over the world during the last half century.
Peacekeeping also requires patience and discipline, as well as
innovation and courage. We have made some mistakes on our
peacekeeping missions, and some serious ones, but we have also
achieved some remarkable successes and, on balance, we have as a
nation done a great job.
The Canadian forces in the former Yugoslavia helped to prevent
fighting from spreading to other parts of the region. They saved
countless lives by assisting in the delivery of humanitarian
supplies and preventing more massive assaults on civilian
populations.
Peacekeeping and peacemaking are proud and dangerous
undertakings to which the army, navy and air force all
contribute.
The responsibilities of the Canadian forces also include the
surveillance and control of Canadian territory, air space and
maritime areas of jurisdiction.
They include the securing of borders against illegal activities,
fisheries and environmental protection, the protection of
Canadians from all manner of disaster and, when required, aid of
the civil power.
1220
There is no way of knowing what the 21st century holds for
Canada, nor what the challenges and tasks will be for the
Canadian forces. The totally unforeseen changes that have
occurred on the international stage in the past 10 years are a
guarantee of that.
The question is: How will the Canadian forces prepare for the
challenges of the 21st century?
In the government's view the choice is clear. We must retain
multipurpose, combat-capable forces to carry out the essential
mission of defending Canada and contributing to international
peace and security.
If the Canadian forces are to meet the challenges of the 21st
century and carry out the roles provided by the government, roles
which Canadians support, they must be flexible, well equipped,
thoroughly trained and able to fight if necessary.
Throughout the 20th century our allies have depended on Canada
as a reliable contributing partner to the preservation of
international peace and security. The courage and the commitment
of the men and women, along with our equipment, our training and
our skills, have enabled Canada to participate with the most
modern and professional armed forces in the world.
We have made a choice to maintain Canada's historic role and
stature as a nation in NORAD and NATO. To do this we must
continue to provide the Canadian forces with the tools to do the
job.
The government has announced over $1 billion in equipment
purchases. We have an obligation to spend the taxpayers' money
wisely. That is why, wherever possible, we are choosing to buy
off the shelf commercial technology to upgrade the equipment now
in our inventory, or in some cases to consider purchasing used
equipment.
The government is also restructuring the forces, downsizing
headquarters, reducing infrastructure and improving management
practices to enhance operational efficiency and to provide
Canadians the best value for their defence dollars.
Numerous initiatives are under way and we are seeing excellent
progress. In 1994 we had 52 bases and stations, far too many for
the size of today's military. Today the number has been reduced
by more than half to 24.
In my childhood I lived in PMQs in Zweibrucken, Germany;
Centralia, Ontario; Bagotville, Quebec; and Trenton, Ontario. My
father was a proud member of the RCAF and I am very proud of him
and others who serve.
The Canadian forces need our support and they need our
understanding. They must be given missions that are clear,
realistic and achievable. They deserve our respect and our
gratitude. No matter what challenges we face, no matter what
choices we make, we must ensure that we do what is best for our
men and women of the Canadian forces and for Canada. That is why
the government has embarked on an examination of quality of life
issues which face our military personnel and their families.
We have asked the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs to undertake an extensive comprehensive
examination of the people issues so important to a modern
military. This committee has been travelling across Canada and
has visited our troops serving abroad. They are hearing
firsthand what we need to hear, the very concerns of the Canadian
people serving us.
The committee is planning to present the report in the fall and
the government will at that time again demonstrate the leadership
necessary by taking concrete action as required and I am
confident it will do so.
Our vision of the future is that of a revitalized Canadian
military made up of multipurpose, combat-capable troops, both
regular and reserve, ready and able to carry out any of the
operations entrusted to them.
In my city of London, Ontario we are extremely proud of the 1st
Hussars, a most decorated reserve unit with a sterling and long
history. In the last month I had the very real honour of being
able to inspect the quarter guard. That was a very proud and
memorable moment.
Also within the last month I was pleased to address the men and
women graduates of our Canadian military colleges who reside in
southwestern Ontario. I know that these leaders are willing to
accept their mantle of leadership. They understand that service
is before self.
The Canadian forces of tomorrow will continue to be a
streamlined command and control structure that will be capable of
producing the best possible combat forces in the most efficient
and cost effective manner possible. We will be proud of them.
1225
Our defence policy is founded upon our hopes for and
understanding of a changing world and the values Canadians wish
to protect, promote and perpetuate. At its heart is the example
set by these thousands of men and women who for over 130 years
have provided loyal and courageous service to Canada and the
world.
It is very important to thank them as we stand in this Chamber
today and on those occasions when we deliver ourselves in service
to our country. I would like to thank them on the basis of my
knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the commitments of
the men and women who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was very
interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member opposite.
Unfortunately, I have not reviewed the guard of honor. I guess
he was accompanying the Prime Minister or some minister. I was
more involved with the lower ranks, with enlisted personnel,
with the people we never see but who live in a submarine in a
room the size of a toilet. I listened to these people. I
certainly did not inspect the boots of the military standing at
attention on Parliament Hill or anywhere else.
But I can tell you that I saw the terrible things that partisan
politics, no doubt—it cannot be from anything else—prevents
the hon. member from criticizing, like the member for
Nepean—Carleton, who sits on the same committee as I do.
Earlier, I mentioned a francophone in Trenton who has a young
quadriplegic child. The child is three and a half years old and
does not speak yet. The name of the person is Denis Paquette.
He is at the Trenton base. All he wants is a transfer back to
Quebec so his child may be taught to speak. This is all the
child will be able to do.
I contacted Corporal Paquette in Trenton, as the hon. member was
starting her speech. He said he is getting nothing but
reprisals for complaining to the committee when it visited
Trenton and is being told that he might be encouraged to leave.
He has been told that, if he is transferred to Quebec City, it
will be for compassionate reasons, but they will not pay to move
him or his family. That is the member's wonderful Canadian
armed forces.
It is time a look was taken at the army's human resources. I
could almost believe that the soldier who wrote Une armée en
déroute was right. Our soldiers are poorly paid and poorly
outfitted. They travel in style, on lovely big vessels, leaving
the Sea Kings aside, but they do have new equipment. Everything
has been spent on equipment and very little on human resources
and soldiers' well-being.
I do not think that the member would agree to live in the
so-called PMQs, the houses soldiers are provided with that are
not fit for a modern family, where the stoves do not even have
hoods to vent cooking odours. Is this what the member thinks
makes our army so wonderful right now and contributes to the
well-being of soldiers? I think not.
I call on members to have a bit of compassion and to listen to
soldiers' complaints, such as that of Denis Paquette, about the
insurmountable human problems they are up against. And to think
that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has just
been told that the army is wonderful, that there are no problems
and that she is making it out to be worse than it really is.
We spent three weeks on the ground. Some of the committee
sessions lasted from 1.00 or 1.30 p.m. until midnight. Like the
member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, we heard soldiers tell us
that they were not even allowed to see their own medical file.
The excuse given was national security. This is wonderful?
It is time that members examined their conscience, that for once
they set aside partisan politics, that they set the record
straight and admitted that our soldiers are badly paid and badly
outfitted. A soldier came to tell us that he had been waiting
six months for boots and nobody believed him until his colonel
came to tell us it was true. He had no boots. For six months,
the man had been wearing the boots of another soldier who had
retired last year. What does she have to say to the soldiers in
Bosnia who buy kevlar suits from the Americans? How are we
going to send them over? Wearing loincloths, like the Indian
tribes of old?
1230
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
stand here and correct the hon. member. I did not travel with
any minister. I was not with the Prime Minister. I was doing
the work as an everyday member of parliament in my riding.
Whenever I had the opportunity over the last five years I
talked to the men and women who serve with the reserve units.
In my unit I have talked to people who have served in Somalia. I
have talked to people who have served in Bosnia. In my city we
are going to send people in the 1st Hussars to Bosnia again this
June.
When this speaker makes derogatory comments not founded in fact,
I must correct him because it is far from the truth. It is the
men and women. Maybe this—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to address this motion on the
government's leadership with respect to the Canadian forces. I
believe the government has shown tremendous leadership in this
area. I am pleased to report that the residents of my riding of
Waterloo—Wellington also believe the government has shown
outstanding leadership in this area.
The examples of leadership this government has shown with
respect to the Canadian forces are demonstrated day in and day
out by the very pride we all have in this House, and all
Canadians, for the dedication, skill and professionalism of
Canada's soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen. That pride is
demonstrated by people in my riding and all Canadians support our
military.
Pride in the Canadian military has very deep roots. Today's
Canadian forces draw inspiration from the courage, commitment and
accomplishments of the hundreds of thousands of their countrymen
who served before them in both war and peace. This government has
proudly demonstrated the great honour of being the custodian of a
distinguished military heritage, something we as Canadians can be
proud of. The need to maintain Canada's pride therefore in
military tradition is a responsibility we as government take very
seriously, and rightfully so.
Canada has participated in virtually every peacekeeping mission
every organized. That is a great feat and certainly reflects
well on this country, with more that 100,000 men and women posted
all over the world during the last half century.
If the Canadian forces are to meet the challenges of the 21st
century and carry out the roles both in peace and in war provided
by the government, roles that Canadians support, they must be
flexible, well equipped and thoroughly trained and be able to
fight if and when necessary. I reiterate the government's record
in preparing the Canadian forces for the 21st century speaks for
itself. The government has taken action. This is what leadership
is all about.
I will highlight some of the actions the government has taken in
this very important area. Immediately following coming into
office, the government fulfilled its commitment to cancel the
EH-101 helicopters ordered by the Conservative government. They
were simply too expensive for what was needed. Also the
government made a commitment to significantly enhance the role of
parliament in stimulating informed public debate on defence
issues. The parliamentary committees reviewing Canada's defence
and foreign policies conducted extensive and unprecedented
numbers of public consultations in 1994. The government has also
held a number of parliamentary debates on major foreign policy
and defence issues, including Canada's role in multilateral peace
operations in Haiti and most recently in the Arabian gulf and the
Balkans.
Canada's defence policy as introduced by this government charts
a new course for the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian forces. Priorities were set out and some tough
decisions have been and will continue to be made in this regard.
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces have
fundamentally changed the way they do business. A program of
extensive institutional renewal was introduced and is currently
being implemented across the entire defence organization. That
is important to note.
1235
The process of reform is ongoing. In March 1997 the report of
the Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister on the
leadership and management of Canadian forces and the progress
outlined in the commitment to change document released last
October demonstrates that much has already been achieved in terms
of improving training, education, morale and leadership.
The Minister of National Defence has established a monitoring
committee on change to monitor change initiatives and their
effectiveness. An independent ombudsman to enhance fairness
within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces
is in the process of being established.
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces are
committed to gender integration and the Canadian forces are world
leaders in terms of the proportion of women in the military in
the number of areas in which they can serve. That too is a
source of pride for residents in my riding and across Canada.
The government remains committed to maintaining multipurpose
combat capable forces to carry out a range operations both at
home and abroad in the fulfilment of its commitment to
multinational institutions such as the UN and NATO. Resources
are focused on maintaining the core capabilities of the Canadian
forces.
The government is also committed to ensuring that the Canadian
forces have the tools they need to do their job. This is a
priority, and rightfully so. Over the last year there has been
significant progress on important capital acquisitions, including
the purchase of 15 new search and rescue helicopters, four
Upholder class diesel-electric submarines, armoured personnel
carriers, maritime coastal defence vessels and the tactical
command control and communications system. All these are
important acquisitions that we need to have in place for the
Canadian forces.
The government has introduced amendments to the National Defence
Act to modernize and strengthen the military justice system and
to more closely align it with Canadian values and legal
standards. This is an important move and one that underscores the
commitment of the government in terms of this important period.
The government is also committed to improving the quality of
life of the members of the Canadian forces and their families.
The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
is currently examining the social and economic needs of Canadian
forces personnel. The government looks forward to its report and
recommendations. We will certainly await that report and the
importance it will carry.
The government is committed to informing Canadians about the
good news in the Canadian forces. Steps have been taken to
improve communications both within the department and with the
Canadian public. It seems we should always say thanks for the
tremendous work the Canadian forces do on our behalf. It is
important that we do so in order to show them our ongoing
gratitude for the tremendous work they do on our behalf.
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces have
accomplished much over the last number of years. The government
has provided the necessary leadership. It has made the right
decisions and followed through on its commitments.
Through the government's leadership, the Canadian forces are
prepared for today's challenges and especially for those of
tomorrow. It is important to underscore and ensure that all
Canadians understand we are preparing for the 21st century.
The government has shown outstanding leadership and commitment
when it comes to the Canadian armed forces. It has demonstrated
the leadership required and the ongoing commitment necessary to
ensure the Canadian Armed Forces are considered to be one of the
best in the world.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from the Conservative Party
for putting forth this motion. It is very deserving at this
time. The House would do well to listen to what the opposition
has to say concerning our military.
The major problem in this decade, particularly since 1993, has
been that this government has chosen to run the military like it
runs one of its departments.
It has chosen to run the military with the same secrecy. If it
wanted to look at one of Canada's success stories, it is when the
military looked after itself and the politicians stayed out of
it. But the government has not done that.
1240
As a case in point recently, within the least year, the military
had a conference in Winnipeg. The theme of the conference was
efficiency and accountability. Now the auditors are being asked
to look into this $2 million conference which lasted only four
days. It was attended by Canada's top military officers and their
guests. If that does not sound like a department of this
government, nothing does. That is exactly what it is.
According to military documents obtained by my colleague, the
hon. member for Lakeland, food and alcoholic drinks for the
conference cost $74,000. It sounds like a department to me.
Furthermore, this conference included $8,000 in tips to the
staff. It sounds like a department to me. The defence minister
has now confirmed that the auditors are going to examine this
four day conference.
The success of any country's military and particularly that of
Canada and the glorious past to which the government has been
referring took place when the military ran the military. If we
tried to run the RCMP like this government is trying to run the
military we would have no national police force.
The Liberals since coming to office in 1993 have done nothing
but tear the guts out of the military. While they talk about all
the purchases, they have chopped the military budget by $3
billion.
I have talked to some of these people in the military. I
congratulate my colleague from the Conservative Party who said do
we ever need an ombudsman. In the military today as with this
government there are a minister, deputy ministers, political
hacks and all the rest of it and then at the bottom we have the
real troops. That is what has been wrong with our military. The
soldiers, the people in the front corps, are telling this
government on every trip they make that is the problem with the
military.
I do not know whether these people have read the auditor
general's report, but he says the military is rusted out. It is
like VIA Rail, it cannot replenish its stock. Only recently have
the Liberals moved to do something about that.
I hope the committee travelling across Canada right now looking
at the quality of life in the military stopped at the base in
Moose Jaw. I hope the members of the committee talked to some of
the people I talked to. I hope they were as shocked about the
conditions in which the military families were living as I was. I
hope they saw the squalor of some of the houses. I guess as long
as we are going to have a department with a military being run as
a political organization, that is exactly what we can expect to
achieve.
On the search and rescue helicopters it took four years to end
up with the same EH-101 Cormorant that the Liberals had scrapped
in 1993 at a big price. It took four years for the Liberals to
sign a deal with the British to buy four used submarines. It
sounds like a department to me. It does not sound like the
military.
We still do not have the maritime ship borne helicopters. We
are told we are going to buy them.
I would like to say this as a positive note and offer a
suggestion to this House. Everything I have said has been
positive but it will be received by members opposite as being
negative. That is the problem. I just spoke the truth. I
realize members opposite do not like that.
1245
The opinion in this country of Canada's military is not
negative. It is the government's handling of the military that
is looked on negatively. We could do a poll on the Somalia
inquiry should no one believe me. That would tell us what is
thought of politics and government.
Right now we could do a lot to improve the image of the
military. In the area where I live it is impossible for young
people to become part of the militia because they are not
encouraged and they would have too far to travel as there is no
military establishment nearby. Many of the young people whose
grandfathers served in the famous South Saskatchewan Regiment
have to drive all the way to Regina to become part of the
military.
I would encourage the Minister of National Defence to go out and
sell a program with the cadets of the three branches. I truly
believe that if we could sell the cadet program in our schools
and in organizations within our communities, not only would that
help children with a number of problems and give them something
to do but it would also be a real source of recruitment into the
military when the time is right. If someone enters and stays in
the cadet program until they have completed high school, it may
well be that they will want a career in the military. This is a
program we should give serious attention to.
I hope this country is never again disgraced with the
government's closing down of the Somalia inquiry. When this
inquiry was going on and then was cut off it reminded me of a cat
making a deposit on the pavement and trying to cover it up. You
just cannot cover it up. You cannot cover up the Somalia
inquiry.
The government should take some real steps, and I hope it will
during this tour, to bring Canadians' image of our military up to
where it once was. Our military image has really gone down. It
has really fallen in the last 10 to 12 years. That is what my
hon. colleague's motion is all about and that is what every
member of this House and myself want to see.
My parting words are to get the military out of the politicians'
back pockets and let it run as a true military force.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member opposite and his
reference to the secrecy in terms of what the government and the
military are doing. I could not believe I was actually hearing
what he was saying. It is incredible to think he would make that
kind of statement.
Surely my hon. colleague should know, and in fact I hope he
does, that the defence committee has been listening very
carefully to what the military has to say. In fact the committee
has taken soundings in terms of what is being said at various
places across Canada. Might I remind the hon. member that the
committee has done so in Yellowknife, Vancouver, Comox, Edmonton,
Cold Lake, Esquimalt, Valcartier, Bagotville, Kingston, Petawawa,
North Bay, Trenton, Gagetown, Goose Bay and Halifax. In fact I do
not think he realized that hearings were held in Moose Jaw as
well.
I would remind the member that this is a government intent on
listening very carefully and very closely to what the armed
forces personnel and people in this area have to say. I think it
is very important that we go on record to note that is in fact
the case.
My question is really simple. Why would the hon. member
downplay the tremendous hearings that are being held across
Canada in order to get the kind of feedback, in order to open up
the process that we need and think is appropriate? Why would he
downplay that? I think that is really appalling.
1250
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon.
member was not listening. I was not condemning the present fact
finding tour.
The hon. member knows very well that I talked about the secrecy
shrouded around the Somalia inquiry and the shredding of
documents, that is what Canadians thought of the military. I am
not condemning talking to people, listening to the rank and file
and not just the officers and the politicians. You got it wrong.
I did not say that and you know I did not say it.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member means to
address the Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first of all
allow me to thank my colleague from the Reform Party, who
supported this morning my motion to create in the armed forces a
position similar to that of the auditor general and commonly
called ombudsman.
I think that this would indeed provide an answer to all the
serious problems our military personnel and their families are
confronted to.
I wonder if our colleague could share with us two or three of
the most pressing recommendations this government and its
defence minister should implement immediately instead of waiting
for the report on which the standing committee on defence is
working on, to at least show all our troops that we listened to
what the auditor general has been saying for the past two, three
or four years. I would like to hear my colleague on this.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question.
Absolutely, there should be the same procedure in place within
the military which I know exists within the RCMP and police
forces. Even the lowest recruit has a right to issue a
complaint. In doing so they know full well that the complaint
will reach its proper source and they will not be penalized for
putting their reasoning forward. We found out in the Somalia
inquiry that when they got to the touchy political part that is
when the problem started.
The member is right and it is a good question. We should get the
politics out of this and let the military run it and reach
solutions without the politicians getting into it.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the Tories for their motion today.
It is entirely right to condemn the government for what it is
not doing with the military. It is condemned for its failure to
provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian
forces. Political leadership. Nobody is asking the government to
provide leadership in the field. We expect from this House that
it will provide strong leadership to the military, to the forces
in total.
What do the military do for us and what have they been doing in
the past? They fought alongside the armed forces of a lot of
other countries in many wars over the years.
In World War I they fought in the trenches. They fought
heroically. They fought with self sacrifice. They were
completely selfless. Some of the worst things that could happen
to a soldier happened to soldiers in World War I. They did
everything that could be done to help win that war. They fought
in trenches. They had a fledgling air force. They fought at
Vimy Ridge. They fought at Maple Copse, the Battle of the
Somme. Those are the words that define the heroic history of
Canada in World War I.
In World War II there was Dieppe, the Normandy landings on
D-Day. I am proud that my wife's father was at Normandy on D-Day.
My mother-in-law, a war bride, did everything she could to help
in the defence of Britain during the war that encompassed that
land.
1255
There were the London air raids, the battle of Britain and the
battle of the Atlantic. That was only the European theatre. Our
people fought everywhere on this globe in the second world war.
There is probably not a member in this House whose family was not
affected by the wars.
We had the Korean war. I have known and employed veterans of
the Korean war. They suffered. They suffered not without
meaning. They suffered because they believed in what Canada
stands for, democracy.
These people should be looked after in the way we would expect
someone who has sacrificed for us would be looked after. They
should not be left lying on the sidelines somewhere. We have
picked them up off the battlefields but have we looked after them
once they have returned home? They have trouble getting pensions
and any number of things.
It is not only in declared wars that our people have fought.
They have been there for peacekeeping missions around the world.
They work in disaster relief in Canada, just recently during the
Winnipeg flood and the Quebec ice storm. Our soldiers were there
as volunteers, not because somebody picked them up. They went of
their own accord.
In the past our military have been shot at, gassed, bombed,
shelled, sunk in ships and crashed in planes. They have been
made prisoners of war, taken hostage and more. They have served
in temperature extremes. They have practised in the Arctic and
have served in the deserts. One would think with all of that it
would be enough suffering. Is it? Not according to the Liberal
majority government.
The pay is ridiculously low for what I just listed as the things
they do. We have seen on television and committee members have
heard the military give testimony on the dismal housing
conditions. And the equipment. I know a man in the navy who
served on a wooden ship. It is almost the year 2000. What kind
of things are we handing these guys to defend our country?
These people are responsible for our national defence. They
help out in times of national disaster. They keep peace around
the world. We would think that they would be accountable to
parliament and the Minister of National Defence. But we also
think that the Minister of National Defence, this parliament and
this country is responsible for their well-being. The way they
have been treated is unacceptable.
In reading “Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia
Affair” we find that with respect to peacekeeping they have been
at it for 40 years. In 1992 what did they find? There was no
comprehensive training policy based on changing requirements.
There was an absence of doctrines, standards and performance
evaluation mechanisms. That does not speak to a government that
is responsible for looking after the military.
The Department of National Defence military activities are
ineffective in respect of parliamentary oversight. I am just
reading a little bit again from “Dishonoured Legacy: The
Lessons of the Somalia Affair”. A 1994 examination by a joint
committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was unanimously
in support of the view that there is a need to strengthen the
role of parliament in defence matters. That would increase the
morale of our people. They obviously do not envision parliament
having a day to day role in things but they say it needs to be
effective in promoting accountability when it receives, examines
and publicizes reports. That is when parliament is most
effective.
Leadership in matters of accountability and an accountability
ethic have been found seriously wanting in three areas, the upper
military, bureaucratic, and what we are discussing today,
political echelons.
There was material tabled by the Minister of National Defence in
1997 which has only been some meagre talk about changes on
accountability and the desirability of it.
In 1994 the Liberals had a white paper calling for a combat
capable defence force, multipurpose. What do we have? We have
had years to get helicopters which were cancelled as a political
ploy. What have we got now? The same helicopters.
1300
Does that make sense? It does not make sense to me, not to
Canadians, not to other members of the House. What are they
spending nowadays? It is $9 billion. What was it in 1993 when
the Liberals took over? It was $12 billion. Let us not discount
the effect of inflation on those types of things.
Our military has not been looked after. We have used
submarines, but it only took forever to get them. West Edmonton
Mall had more submarines than the Canadian navy for goodness'
sake and probably better ones than the navy has had up to date.
It just is not right.
We do not think that is what the government should be about. It
needs to have a purpose. We need to decide what it is to do. We
expect the armed forces to support our political, economic and
environmental sovereignty. We think that should be happening
over Canada's territory.
We want to continue to participate in NATO, NORAD and any other
defence organization that may be developed in the future. It is
still an issue as recent events show worldwide that things can
quickly fall apart which we thought were together.
We need fast response. We do not need to send our people
overseas and expect them to wait around in the mid-Atlantic while
we decide whether or not they are suitably outfitted to go into a
war theatre or a peacekeeping operation. That is outrageous. We
need to provide these things now. We definitely need to have our
military prepared for any event. We need them to be prepared on
a variety of facets.
I am in complete agreement with the motion to condemn the
government for the way it treats our military personnel. I trust
that as a result of the motion before the House it will review
what it is doing and will make the decision to do the right
thing.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this weekend I had a marvellous opportunity in my riding. We had
inspection of our cadet corps of young people. It was lovely to
watch. I was at an air cadet inspection on Friday and an army
cadet inspection on Saturday. I watched the pride. I watched
the skills. I watched the talent that was brought forth in these
young people in my community. I found it pretty amazing.
The reserves are working with these young people and providing a
fabulous opportunity in each of our communities for them to
participate and to see firsthand the value that military training
can bring to them.
I found it remarkable to see young people who when they became
involved were not nearly as focused as they might have been
otherwise. They developed pride, skills, excellence and moved
forward. This is something our military people are supplying in
every community across the country. Our military people are
there when they are asked to be.
It does not matter if we are talking about the flood in Manitoba
and the tremendous work the military did there. We can talk
about the ice storm in eastern Canada, Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick, and the service it provided and the praise people
gave. We can talk about the recent fire in Alberta. Our military
went there.
We have a very proud, a very strong, a very viable military that
is doing a job of which we all have to be very proud. We need to
thank the military for everything it is offering our communities.
Quite frankly I find that year after year the condemnation of
the military and its plans and movements is wrong. It does not
take very long to think who was in power from 1984 to 1988 and on
to 1993.
It seems to me it was a Tory government.
1305
I do not remember the Tories bringing forward the issues they
are bringing forward today. I do not remember them dealing with
the problems in the military. I remember them as a very
different group: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. Three
blind mice could probably have given a better scenario of what
was happening than the people who sat there and did nothing to
enhance our military bases during the nine years they ran
government not very many years ago.
In 1997 we commemorated the 80th anniversary of the Canadian
victory at Vimy Ridge, one of the greatest allied victories of
World War I. Superb leadership, meticulous planning, and the
courage, determination and spirit of the Canadian soldier won the
day. The qualities that led to a stunning victory at Vimy Ridge
have characterized the efforts of Canadians in uniform for more
than 100 years. The Canadian military ethos is the heart of a
proud traditional service and the heart of great sacrifice.
Through two world wars, Korea and 50 years of peacekeeping it is
what we define as excellence in the Canadian forces. That
distinguishes our forces as a great institution.
This military ethos is based on strong, principled and effective
leadership. Leadership is a good word to define the action taken
by the government with respect to the Canadian forces.
One example of leadership is the government's proposed
amendments to the National Defence Act, Bill C-25. Discipline is
the lifeblood of any military organization. Whether in peace or
war it spells the difference between military success and
failure. It promotes effective and efficient qualities. Its
foundations are respected for leadership, appropriate training
and a military justice system where equity and fairness are
unquestionably clear at all times.
However, in recent years the capacity of the military justice
system to promote discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice
has been called into question by a number of incidents. The
government looked closely at these events and acted decisively.
The government has taken leadership. It responded to the report
of the Somalia commission of inquiry very aptly titled “A
Commitment to Change”. We are implementing about 83% of the
recommendations in the commission's report.
In December 1996 the government commissioned a special advisory
group under the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, former Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Canada, to assess the military justice
system and military police investigative services. It reported
on time and under budget. The minister of the day supported its
recommendations in his report of March 25, 1997 on the leadership
and management of the Canadian forces. The Prime Minister
endorsed early action on recommendations and work began
immediately to pursue the implementation.
The special advisory group on military justice and military
police investigative services was also asked to examine the
quasi-judicial role of the minister of the military justice
system. Chief Justice Dickson's recommendations are now being
implemented.
When the government saw that the military justice system was one
of the key areas in which change was needed, it took action and
demonstrated leadership. The government sought advice within the
military and from the public at large, from distinguished
Canadians who specialized in the knowledge of the military.
1310
The amendments contained in Bill C-25 are a product of that
process. The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 are the most
comprehensive in the history of the act. Bill C-25 addresses a
broad range of provisions in the National Defence Act. It will
modernize the provisions with respect to the board of inquiry. It
will clarify the legislative authority for the performance of
public service duties by Canadian forces members such as the
actions during the ice storm of which I spoke earlier.
However Bill C-25 is primarily about the modernization of the
military justice system and has four principal thrusts.
First, it will establish in the National Defence Act for the
first time the roles and responsibilities of key figures in the
military justice system and will set clear standards of
institutional separation for investigation, prosecution, defence
and judicial functions.
Second, it will enhance transparency and provide greater
structure to the exercise of individual discretion, investigation
and charging processes.
Third, it will modernize the powers and procedures of service
tribunals including eliminating the death penalty under military
law.
Fourth, it will strengthen oversight and review of the
administration of military justice.
These changes are made because it is absolutely essential for a
military justice system to be rigorous, transparent and fair. The
system of military justice is designed to meet operational
requirements particular to the armed forces. It is intended to
promote discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice in the
armed forces.
On two occasions the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed the
need for a parallel and distinctive system of courts to meet the
special requirements of military discipline. Indeed our armed
forces must have portable courts which, by using procedures that
are both speedy and fair, are capable of operating in conflict or
in peace.
To better understand the special needs of the Canadian forces in
respect of justice and discipline, one need only consider a
variety of tasks they perform in such a professional manner. From
the Golan Heights to Bosnia, from the floods in the Saguenay and
in Manitoba to the recent catastrophic ice storm that occurred in
Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, to the actions that I
mentioned in Alberta they perform very direct services to all
people throughout the world as well as to Canadians.
There is no question that they perform very specific functions
and need to have opportunity to carry out those functions, but
the justice system must be in place to help as well.
Bill C-25 will make it possible to modernize the code of service
discipline so that it will meet the particular needs of the armed
forces while reflecting the values and expectations of Canadians.
It will make the system of military justice, to the extent that
military requirements permit, more in keeping with legal
standards that currently exist in Canada.
These measures will greatly enhance accountability and
transparency, increase confidence in the military justice system
and certainly give everyone a better understanding of our system.
They will provide a more modern, effective statutory framework
for operations of the department and the forces. They will
enhance transparency and accountability. They will increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Canadian forces and enable
men and women of the forces to do so much to make the country a
better place.
These changes to the National Defence Act demonstrate strong
political leadership on the part of the Canadian government. The
Canadian forces will benefit from the movements with which we are
going forward.
1315
I mentioned when I first started where my colleagues in the
Progressive Conservative Party had been. They were here some
eight or nine years in order to bring forward plans and changes
in the military. It seems to me that during the election
campaign the Tories admitted that the strength of the military
was critical to our sovereignty. Yet the heart of their election
plan was to weaken Canada by slashing an additional $2.6 billion
from the national defence budget over four years. This
government's restructuring and downsizing of DND has already
produced a leaner military. Do they actually expect us to
believe that they can find $650 million in savings by privatizing
private property management and food services? Some of the
suggestions they made are very questionable and certainly not
well studied.
At the same time I have heard some different viewpoints from the
Reform Party. From what I have seen from the Reform Party over
the last few years I have some questions. The Reform Party
claims to strongly support a well equipped Canadian force. Its
fresh start election platform made no mention of any plans to
improve national defence or international security. The only
time the words “national defence” were ever mentioned in its
election platform was in the list of government areas that would
be targeted for cuts and spending reductions. That is what I
heard from the Reform Party during the election. That is what I
have heard from the leader of the Reform Party. That is what
most Canadians have heard from the Reform Party day after day.
The Reform Party has consistently called for major cuts in
defence spending. In 1993 its zero in three plan would have cut
$1.8 billion from the defence department's budget. In 1994 it
wanted an additional $1 billion cut from national defence on top
of a 15% cut across the board that it was planning for all
departments.
During the Somalia affair the Reform Party stood and criticized
day after day the fact that the military was not performing the
Reform Party goals and objectives. Yet today it comes in here
and suggests that it is supportive of military actions.
All Canadians remember the stinging attacks, the budget cuts,
the crunches that it was suggesting. Now it has changed its mind
on most of the policy that I see coming forward. I ask members
of this House how many times they have heard the Reform Party
talk about cuts. It is always more money here, more money there.
It has totally turned its whole position around. To me it is
very ludicrous.
I do not think that we should be playing politics as much as we
do with these issues. It is clear that we need to be decisive.
We need to put in place decisive measures. We need to move the
agenda forward. We certainly need to show the respect that the
Canadian military has and should have. We need to make certain
that this process is in place so that we will have a service that
defends this country not only at home but abroad. We have to
make sure that we can move in a direction that is consistent with
our allies. We have to move in a direction with the pride which
these forces show.
It is clear, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of most
Canadians that our military is a very proud institution, one that
has served this country extremely well and one that continues to
serve this country well. We have to look at the experts and
suggestions that are coming forward. To stand and condemn day
after day is a pretty bad role that our opposition has taken
toward military, toward government and toward what is going on in
this country.
1320
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will touch on one point that the hon. member mentioned. He
started off by speaking about cadets. I will speak about air
cadets in my riding.
I was a member of the air cadets several years back. In the
last two years they have had to close down. Granted, the cadet
system is a non-profit organization, but it does work usually
under reservists who help out.
That brings up the other point of what has happened to the
reserve over the last four years. They have cut the hours out of
the reserve. They only have 32 days a year to train.
This government talks about making the reservists a good, solid
force, yet it is cutting the feet out from under them. It is
taking equipment away from them. It is cutting their hours.
How can they possibly work with 32 days a year? Besides that,
now they say no more summer exercises. They are all being
cut out. This is where we get our young people involved. They
get out in the summertime, get jobs with the reserves and get to
do summer exercises. Maybe the member could comment on that.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the air
cadets, on Friday night I saw the most exquisite drill team that
I have seen in years. As a matter of fact, they were among the
leading drill teams across Ontario.
There is no question that the reserves are working in my area.
They are doing the job with young people that really needs to be
done.
There is no question that these young folks are looking forward
to all kinds of other opportunities as they go from the base
level of training up through the air cadet level to experimental
flying preparation and that type of thing. The army cadets are
in a very well structured program.
I believe it could well be that in the hon. member's area that
may not be happening. However, it is not the same scenario
across Canada. In my area there is a well functioning group that
is carrying on these activities with young people.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take hon. members back to about 1955 or
1960 to see the wonderful armed forces we had at that time.
I have sat here today and listened to these comments about being
the great supporters of the armed forces, about being the ones
taking care of armed forces personnel around the world and in
Canada. What have I heard? It is the Reform Party that does not
have all the big plans that should be written down.
I say to this House that this Liberal government is responsible
for low morale, underpaid personnel and more generals and
servicemen than our allies.
Reform at least has a chance in the future to write a page of
history that will make the armed forces much better. What we see
from the Conservatives and the Liberals in this House is a
history of destruction of our armed forces, particularly with
respect to unification, underfunding and the low morale that we
see today.
What does the member have to say about that Liberal record which
is really disgusting?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that very
clearly, week after week after week during the last election, I
heard nothing but cut, cut, cut.
When we came to this House the Somalia affair was going on. I
heard nothing from the members opposite outside of how bad a job
the Canadian military was doing.
I talked to a lot of people in the military and they felt
demoralized. They felt that the actions of the opposition were
tearing down the institution in this country. Without question
it is not just the financial aspects, it is also the attitudes
which strip any group of pride and greatness.
1325
Quite frankly, I believe this Liberal government is moving that
issue forward. It is making certain that we restore pride in the
military. It is making certain we have good directions. Without
question I believe that we have taken actions in order to move
that agenda in a very positive way.
I would be very frightened if it were the Reform Party which
took the reins of the military some four years ago. Would we
have been able to react in Alberta to the fires that started last
week? Would we have been able to react to the ice storm? To me
the Reform Party has very little to give positive direction. It
has been totally critical all the way. That is unfortunate. I
do not hear positives, I hear criticisms. That is not good.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Armed Forces may well be demoralized after comments
such as I have heard coming from the government representative
this morning.
The hon. member refers to pride, talent and excellence. At least
I believe that is what the hon. member said.
[English]
He spoke about the flood in Manitoba and he spoke about the ice
storm. I was there. During the ice storm I saw the military. I
saw what they did. Believe me, I thank them. What the hon.
member is doing is certainly not thanking them. He is
embarrassing them.
The member keeps saying “The Tories were there before”. This
is playing politics with the issue. The problems are here today.
The government must demonstrate leadership and it is not doing
that. What is it going to do for the problems that the military
is facing today?
We could say that Trudeau was there before us. But what is that
going to do to rectify the problems of today?
I ask the member if he thinks the military is living below
Canadian standards. I heard this morning for the first time that
injured soldiers are not getting proper care. We also see that
the military is living below Canadian standards. Or are there
Canadian standards? We see that members of the Canadian military
are getting out of the forces and do not have the proper
education to find a post-military job.
Does the member think there should be standards in place for
military personnel so that when they leave the military they will
be able to get a permanent job? We should have an education
system in place to protect these people. I would like the hon.
member to comment on that.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a short
memory here. If my memory serves me correctly, $6 billion was
the position of the hon. member's party on the Cadillac,
submarine-fighting helicopters. The military had requested at
that time to buy helmets and flak jackets, but they were turned
down. They were turned down on helmets and flak jackets at the
same time as that party was asking for $6 billion for
submarine-fighting helicopters.
The heart of its election campaign was a $2.6 billion cut in
national defence.
Now the hon. member is telling me that we should be spending
more money, but his party's campaign rhetoric was that it wanted
these huge cuts. I cannot equate the two. I do not believe
Canadians can look at that and say they are consistent.
Now that they are in opposition and looking at the positive
directions in which we are trying to move, they do not see it the
same way as they did during the election campaign. They do not
see it the same way as they did during their nine years in
government. They seem to be missing the point. Everything does
not happen overnight. We have to move the agenda forward, but
their whole rhetoric was wrong.
1330
Their whole rhetoric, in very many respects, was demoralizing to
the whole military process: tear down, cut dollars, do something
different. I question how they can come back today and give that
same type of sermon. They missed the boat when they were there
and they are still missing the boat today.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
listened to my hon. colleague across the way, it seems that he
spent most of his time simply criticizing a party that has never
held power in this House. It never had the power to do one thing
either good or bad as far as the military is concerned and yet he
spent all his time criticizing that party.
We should be looking ahead as to what we could be doing, which
is what I think this debate is for. The hon. member from the
Liberal side had the opportunity to place before the House and
the people of Canada their vision and their goal for the role our
military should be playing but we did not hear anything from that
member. Why?
We can only assume it is because they have no vision, certainly
not a vision they want to share with the House or with the
Canadian people. We saw what happened. We saw their actions. We
can judge what their vision is, as secretive as it might be, and
their goal for the military.
We saw what happened in the Somalia inquiry when something very
bad occurred that reached into the upper echelons of our military
command. After less than two years they shut it down. We will
never know the full truth. We can only speculate at the truth.
Justice was never done.
I spend much of my time thinking about and working in justice.
In order for justice to occur we must have the truth. Upon truth
is built justice and from a sense of justice that we have in the
minds and hearts of all of us there is a peace of mind that
flows. From that peace flows the prosperity that we all seek in
our lives and in our nation.
When we deny the truth, turn it aside, hide it or shut down
inquiries set up to find and reveal the truth so that justice can
be done, so that a sense of justice prevails across our land in
the minds and hearts of our people, what is left? Is it justice
based on half truths or no truths? What did they do in the
Somalia inquiry to our country and to the morale of those members
who worked so diligently during the ice storm and the Manitoba
flood and who stand ready today to respond to any emergency that
they will be called on? They see that justice has not been done
because the truth has been withheld.
We heard from the government side that this had gone on long
enough and enough money was spent. Yet we have had inquiries
that have lasted four and five years. We spent as high as $50
million on some inquiries.
The Liberal Party now has the opportunity because it has the
power to express and put into action its vision for the military.
What do we see is happening? We see the hon. member stand there
minute after minute and not reveal his vision for the future and
not tell the men and women in the military what is in store for
them. He attacks a party that has never held the reins of power
but does have a vision for the military, a vision for the unity
of this country and a vision for the people of our land.
1335
That hon. member spent almost 90% of his time simply attacking
the Reform Party of Canada that has that vision. So what do we
say about the military? What is our vision for the military?
The role of our military should be clearly defined. What should
the role of the military be? We are saying that parliament
should define that and then equip it to perform those duties thus
defined. If it is peacekeeping or peacemaking or simply the
defence of the sovereign nature of our country, if it is simply
to fulfil those roles, let us decide as a nation and equip our
military to do that job.
That is just the beginning of the vision we hold for the
military based on the truth, based on fact, based on consultation
with not only the military commanders but their grassroots as
well as the Canadian public. That is our vision.
Our vision for this place is to allow our elected
representatives to be a conduit for the thoughts and feelings and
concerns of the people we are supposed to be representing and not
have a form of government that will squash the rights of
individual backbenchers to stand up and represent the people of
their constituencies, whether it has to do with the hepatitis C
issue or the military or what other issue placed before the
elected representatives of the people who are supposed to have a
vision of this country for all of us.
That is the vision of the Reform Party and that is what is being
attacked here today. Why? They do not have anything they wish
to share with the Canadian people, with the members of the House
of Commons or with the members of the military. They do not have
anything to share. I listened intently, waiting for that vision
to be revealed and it is not forthcoming.
Why is it not forthcoming? They have no vision and they stumble
from pillar to post, from one emergency to another.
When war raised its ugly head again with the Middle East
situation and we had to send our people, as our duty and
responsibility, into that potential conflict, what did we hear?
We heard that the military had to go around scraping up
equipment, clothing, helmets to send our people into a potential
conflict. That is the vision, or lack of it, the Liberal Party
legacy has left the military, this House and the people of
Canada.
It is amazing to me that government members do not grasp this
opportunity put forward by our Tory colleagues to tell the people
of Canada what vision they have and what they see in the future
for the military. What is it? Why would they not take that
opportunity? It is there for us all to express what we believe
should be done.
We have not heard that but we certainly have heard an awful lot
of abuse and criticism of a different vision put forward in this
country for the past 10 years at least in terms of the steps that
should be taken to put our military on a proper footing.
If we are going to have a military we should know what we want
it to do. Does that not make common sense? Once we decide what
we want our military to do, let us equip it to do the job.
It is that simple.
1340
We did not hear any expression at all of consulting with people,
the military or members of parliament as to really what the role
of the military ought to be and then equipping our people to get
on with the job. We have had the debacle of ordering helicopters
and then cancelling helicopters, ordering submarines, cancelling
submarines and then ordering submarines again.
The people of Canada would like to know if we are going to equip
our people what do we want them to do? Should that not flow from
determining what we want to do with the helicopters and the
submarines and what we want to do by reducing the strength of our
military? What is the purpose of that? Or if we want to
increase it, why? What is the role we want our military to play?
Depending on every action that the government takes that touches
on our military we have not heard a thing.
The hon. member who just spoke left me with feelings of shame
because we honour and respect one another in the House,
particularly their thoughts and ideas. We may oppose them but
all we heard was a response to a very important subject attacking
a party that puts forward a vision and plans. They criticize and
attempt to lay blame for what has happened to our military on a
party that has never had the levers of power. One day I promise
we will have the power because there is no vision on that side.
There is a vision on this side, certainly within this caucus.
I commend the Tories for this supply day motion because it is an
important subject and it is time for an accounting. It is time
to say to the government what do you have in mind, why did you do
this, what are you planning to do to correct it, what do you have
in mind for our young men and women in the military living below
the poverty line, how can you justify this.
We are asking for an explanation and all we get is the kind of
rhetoric we heard. It fills time and space on the agenda but it
certainly does not answer any question for any Canadian tuning in
to this debate. It certainly does not inform them.
To be informed about what is in store for our military you
cannot go to the opposition. You have to go to the government.
Why the member was attempting to focus the responsibility on the
Reform Party and put the blame for all the things that have gone
wrong is beyond me and I think beyond the common sense of anyone
watching the debate.
We need a military. The military should be trained. It should
have the best possible leadership we have, those who have
volunteered to serve in this manner. It should be properly
equipped and above all it should know exactly what its duty is.
I would like to hear that from my hon. colleagues in the Liberal
Party who have formed the government for this term and who have
the sole power, control and responsibility to do those things.
Let us hear something constructive from the government side
rather than the belly aching we have heard and the blame laying
that has occurred particularly against the party that has never
hurt the military, never had the opportunity to help, never had
the opportunity to place in position our vision of what our
military ought to be doing.
1345
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after having listened
to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party, I think it would be
appropriate at this time to put some Reform facts about military
vision on the record.
The Reform Party has consistently called for major cuts to
defence spending. In 1993 its zero in three plan would have cut
$1.8 billion from the defence department's budget. In 1994
Reform wanted an additional $1 billion cut from national defence
on top of the 15% across the board cuts it was demanding from all
departments. The Reform Party's taxpayer budget released in 1995
also called for $1 billion to be slashed from the national
defence budget.
I know the vision Reform espoused called for “professional,
well equipped and sufficiently strong armed forces”. The Reform
Party claims that it wants this.
In last year's election platform, I looked for what the Reform
Party's plans were to improve for instance national defence or
international security. In its fresh start election platform
campaign the only time that the term national defence was
mentioned was when it was listed as one of the areas of
government that the Reform Party would target with cuts and
spending reductions.
Reform cannot have it both ways. It talks only cuts and it does
not talk about what it would do. It is a good thing for the
defence department in this country that the hon. member is not in
government and the responsible side of this House knows how to
make cuts but also manage a progression into the future. This
government does take care of international security and does move
forward to listen to our armed forces and work toward a path that
will help them do their jobs professionally as well as help their
families.
I ask the member where was his vision? Where was his party's
vision? Where was his leader's vision on defence?
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had an
opportunity again to present her vision and the government's
vision for the future of the military. What did she do with that
opportunity? She attacked the bits and pieces of the overall
plan the Reform Party has put forward.
It is clear the member is not concerned about the fact that many
armed forces personnel have to use food banks in order to
survive, that the lowest income of the military is at or below
the poverty line in this country, as well as the fact that they
are not properly equipped. As I referred to earlier, members of
our military had to scramble to gather up clothing and helmets
used or unused from hither and yon from other parts of the
military at a time when we were sending them into a possible
conflict area.
Let us hear what the government has in store for the military
instead of trying to defend it simply by attacking and using only
bits and pieces of the plans of our party or any other party. Let
us hear what her plans are. She has not told us what her plans
are. Why can we not hear what her plans are?
The people of Canada and members of this House are looking
squarely at the vision of the Liberal Party of Canada, the party
in power. This is the member's opportunity during this supply
day motion to indicate how her party is going to equip our
military and how they are going to give our military people a
decent standard of living. How is she going to do it?
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, allow me to
congratulate my colleague from the Reform Party for his speech,
which has shown us how widespread the problem related to the
armed forces is.
In fact, what he is calling for is what all Canadians are
waiting for. I believe no one in Canada would fault the
government for making an official announcement, by either the
Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence, on measures
that can be taken immediately to improve the situation of all
our military personnel, as well as measures for the medium term.
This could, obviously, mean they would end up with a budget
spread out over at least five years, for better equipment
management
1350
I ask my colleague whether what he is referring to is what the
auditor general found, the total absence of a strategic plan for
the Canadian Armed Forces, a plan which would enable it to
define priorities for the short, medium and long terms for the
navy, army and air force, through measures that could be
implemented immediately, tomorrow morning, in fact.
The parliamentary secretary has referred to rationalization.
Everyone agrees with this, but there are some measures in place
at the present time that need to be corrected. I would like to
know whether this is what my hon. colleague was referring to.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague for his question because he puts his finger right on
the whole issue. The auditor general is saying the government
has no vision for the future, there is no plan, there is no
strategy.
The first thing we should do is decide what role we want the
military to play. How do we decide that? Let us ask the people
of this country. Should we be peacekeepers or peacemakers? There
is an enormous difference. Let us ask our people whether we want
to send our military into conflict areas, not to maintain peace
but in an attempt to establish peace through armed conflict. Is
that what we want?
We should know what the people of Canada want us to do. Let us
consult with our military advisers. Let us consult with members
of parliament. Above all, let us consult with the people of
Canada whose sons and daughters we are going to send to face
these crises, whether it is in this country through a natural
crisis or through armed conflict in another country. Let us
decide. Let us not have another report from the auditor general
that says there is no plan, there is no strategy and there is no
vision.
That is what this government so far has been offering. Again
the Tory party today has offered the Government of Canada an
opportunity to place its vision for the future of the military
before the people of this House, the elected representatives of
the people of Canada, as well as the people themselves. Where is
the vision? Where is the strategy? Where is the plan that the
auditor general called for? Where is it?
This is the opportunity now for perhaps the minister or someone
else who knows to stand and express that vision. Where is it?
Are we going to go to another auditor general's report and have
him report the same thing, that there is no strategy, no plan and
no vision?
The government has an opportunity. I am asking members, rather
than just attack the opposition parties, please let us hear the
plan, let us hear the strategy. The auditor general is crying out
for it. Of course the opposition members are calling out for it
and the people of Canada are calling out for it. But above all,
the people in the military are calling out for some kind of
leadership from this government.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
put a question to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. Among
the problems affecting our armed forces, I wonder if he does not
see anything wrong with our military personnel.
According to the statistics to be found in part III of the
latest estimates, in the volume about National Defence, the
three branches of the armed forces, Air, Land and Sea, include
81,000 individuals, 20,000 civilians and 61,000 military
personnel. Of these 61,000 military personnel, only 6,500 are
privates. All the others are officers of the air, land or sea
forces. For instance, there are 28,000 corporals for 6,000
privates. There are 6,000 sergeants. Higher up, above warrant
officers and chief warrant officers, there are 1,487
lieutenants. There are 6,333 captains to supervise these 1,487
lieutenants.
There are 2,938 majors and 66 generals.
This morning, the Minister of National Defence stated that
morale was low in the armed forces. This may be one of the
reasons. I can understand that the 6,500 privates must have no
hope of a promotion because, out of 61,000 members, there are
55,000 people above them.
1355
We have highly competent officers who have 6,500 privates
working for them. Does that make sense? I would like to find out
what my Reform colleague thinks of this whole situation.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question. He certainly came to this debate well informed
with statistics. They say that if you are well prepared, you
shall not fear. If that is how we can view our military, as well
prepared and well armed, then Canada need not fear.
To address the crux of my hon. colleague's question, our
military is overweight at the top end. There are a lot of
unaccountable people shuffling papers, playing golf, looking at
one another and wondering what the poor people are doing. We
should closely look at our military to determine whether or not
there is a proper balance in terms of funding and leadership.
Leadership is so important at the grassroots level. It
determines the morale of the members, the direction we will take
and the execution of plans. It is very important. There is no
question that there are more generals in the army today than we
had during the second world war in the Canadian military. Is that
needed? Is that wise? How did it get there and why? The big
question is, is that what we want? Is that the role we want? Or
do we want the kind of military that is top heavy with leaders,
certainly generals?
We have to look at those questions. This is a good opportunity
for my hon. colleague and the rest of us in the House to debate
this issue and ask the government, which is in control and has
the power to do these things, whether or not it has any answers
to these questions. Now is the time. Today is the day these
questions can be answered by the government.
The Speaker: As the time has expired, we will take up the
debate after. We will now go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NAVIGATING A NATION
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Sault Ste. Marie canal is being honoured in
“Navigating a Nation”, a set of 10 stamps that pay tribute to
Canada's inland waterways. The Sault canal is the final link in
an all-Canadian water route that extends from the Atlantic Ocean
to the head of Lake Superior. It was the first inland waterway
in the world to have an electrically powered lock.
Saultites recognize the importance of the canal to their city
and to Great Lakes shipping. It is certainly welcome news in my
riding that Canada Post has chosen to immortalize this world
famous waterway in a beautifully designed stamp. The issue of
these stamps could not come at a better time. The Sault canal
lock which has been closed since 1987 is expected to reopen to
recreational boat traffic early this summer.
Hats off to Canada Post for acknowledging the importance of our
inland waterways and to Parks Canada for making possible the
reopening of the Sault canal lock.
* * *
ABORTION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been 29 years since abortion was legalized in this country.
In those days abortion was used only where a mother's life or
health was endangered. But today I think it has gone too far,
especially when we see taxpayer funded abortions on demand,
increased diagnoses of post-abortion trauma, indication of
medical linkages to breast cancer, minors given abortion without
parental consent and approximately $50 million spent annually on
abortion.
Not everybody in the Reform caucus or across the country agrees
with me. That is why the Reform Party's responsible position is
to identify abortion as an issue of personal conscience and
supports informed debate and giving people a voice through a
national referendum. Canadians should be allowed to examine the
facts on all sides of the issue.
In my opinion, women have a right to know about the risks of
abortion and taxpayers should know the cost. For me, if it is
about choice, let us give women better choices.
* * *
1400
THE PAROLYN FAMILY
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to pay tribute to Cindy Parolyn and her children Melissa and
David.
In the autumn of 1996, Cindy and three of her children began a
horseback camping vacation in B.C. Shortly after their trip
began a cougar attacked Cindy's six year old son Steven. Without
regard for her personal welfare, Cindy left the safety of her
horse and rushed to Steven's defence. Despite the poor odds
Cindy saved her son by diverting the cat's attention to herself.
During the scramble Cindy instructed her other children to carry
Steven over two kilometres to the closest source of help.
Despite the dozens of stitches that he required Steven survived.
However Cindy was not so lucky. Only hours after the ordeal
began Cindy succumbed to the wounds that she sustained during the
assault.
Cindy's life and death were dedicated to helping others. Last
year the Cindy Parolyn safe homes program opened in Princeton,
B.C., and was dedicated in her name. Tomorrow Cindy will be
posthumously awarded with the Star of Courage by the governor
general. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in
recognizing their gallant deeds.
* * *
THEATRE ONTARIO FESTIVAL
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the Owen Sound Little Theatre is hosting the Theatre
Ontario Festival where excellent community theatre groups will
perform plays acclaimed throughout Ontario.
Community theatre is an important part of Canadian culture.
Plays relate stories about Canadian life, represent our values
and entertain us. While professional plays can provide culture
as well, community based theatre is often accessible where
professional troupes never go.
In the past few years the creation and performance of Canadian
plays have been revived by community theatre. Our amateur
theatre groups need new plays and local talent, as well as the
support of those who appreciate a story brought to life on stage.
I congratulate the Owen Sound Little Theatre and all groups
attending the festival this week. I applaud them.
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is
celebrating its 125th anniversary.
[English]
In the beginning the RCMP served Canada and its people by
establishing order in the frontier regions of the country. As
the nation grew in population and diversity and its communities
became established, the mounted police adapted ensuring the peace
and security of citizens across our land.
The RCMP also shares its expertise abroad by participating in
United Nations missions. The purpose of these missions, such as
the one that will be leaving for Bosnia next week, is to
transform local police forces from instruments of potential
intimidation into guarantors of public security and to ensure
civil rights in those countries.
The 125 years of achievement by the RCMP are our proud heritage.
[Translation]
Congratulations to the men and women who continue to make us
very proud.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
quite frankly, we are disappointed with the Quebec government's
decision to end discussions on the millennium scholarships
between its representatives and those of the federal government,
discussions that had been initiated in a climate of cooperation.
The Quebec government should be proud to participate in a
wonderful initiative that will mark Canada's entry into the new
millennium.
The Canadian government's objective remains the same. For a
period of 10 years, the Canadian Millennium Scholarship
Foundation will give exceptional support to the provinces so
that all young Canadians can have better access to teaching and
training institutions throughout the country.
The Quebec government should rethink its strategy in the
interest of all young Quebeckers who want to pursue their
education. After all, it is their future that is at stake.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one wage earner families in the country have looked for a long
time for a tax break from government. The recent budget of the
government gave no indication of any help.
In fact by offering more relief only to those families that
avail themselves of day care, the finance minister has once again
discriminated against stay at home moms and dads. In so doing he
perpetuates an economic system with high taxes and high
unemployment that forces many Canadian parents to both go to
work.
The result is that during the formative years of children's
lives they spend most of their time with people who are not their
parents. This is at a time when research continues to prove the
critical importance of the parent-child bond in long term social
development. Many of these children grow up with role models who
do not reflect their parents' values and beliefs.
Reformers and Canadian everywhere call for the finance minister
and the government to look at Reform's family friendly tax
proposals that would serve to keep families together instead of
tearing them apart.
* * *
1405
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 11
to 17 is National Nursing Week. I take this opportunity to
acknowledge the valuable contribution of Canada's nurses.
This year's theme “Nursing is the Key” could not be more
appropriate. We need nurses and nursing. Nurses are key cost
effective providers of health care. Almost everywhere health
services are received nurses are there. In hospitals, doctors'
offices, seniors' residences and private homes, a nurse is always
found providing high quality care.
I congratulate nurses and nursing for their forward thinking.
Nurses are helping on the frontline, finding solutions to some of
the complex problems in health care today. If an hon. member
knows a nurse or receives services from a nurse, take a moment
and thank them.
I have often said that a hospital without nurses would just be a
hotel. We need our nurses. We must respect and honour their
noble profession, not only this week but every day of every week
of every year.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada, not content with having
drafted domestic firearms policies based on prejudice,
disinformation and hysteria, has decided to cast a wider net and
has agreed to have gun control on the agenda of the G-8 summit
meeting.
Will the representatives of the world's richest societies be
able to disarm the downtrodden, the marginalized and the
dispossessed of the earth by issuing a sugar-coated communique?
Somehow I doubt it. What they will probably do is create another
excuse to further harass and constrain their own citizens by
blaming each other for providing the stimulus.
The strategy is as transparent and as old as politics itself:
“When a huge minority of your citizens is angry, direct their
rage outside of your own borders and take some of the pressure
off”.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that both the official
opposition and the fourth party have a limited understanding of
international trade.
The Leader of the Opposition says that he cannot think of a
single example when the Prime Minister's foreign travel has
produced results for Canadians. The leader of the fourth party
said that the Prime Minister should stay in Canada. Both leaders
fail to comprehend the importance of building critical
international relationships for Canadian business.
Team Canada missions led by the Prime Minister have created
valuable trade relations with many countries, leading to $24
billion in economic benefits for all sectors of Canadian
business.
It is a fact that international trade leads to economic growth,
jobs and prosperity in Canada.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we are waiting and hoping today for the federal,
provincial and territorial health ministers to do the right
thing, to decide today to compensate all victims of hepatitis C.
It has been a long, hard struggle for the victims of this failure
of the blood system.
We must do everything in our power to ensure that such a tragedy
does not recur by implementing the recommendations of the Krever
report. The report cited a lack of resources at the health
protection branch, a lack of clear authority and delays in
responding to potential problems.
Justice Krever talked about the need for Canadian
self-sufficiency for blood, the need to retain control of our own
standards and decision making in the course of harmonization with
other countries, and to retain strong federal regulatory
authority. These lessons can be applied to many areas in the
whole health protection area.
As we wait to hear the outcome of the federal-provincial
ministers' meeting, let us recommit ourselves to co-operative
federalism. Let us show solidarity for the victims of the
tainted blood tragedy. Let us learn those lessons in order to
prevent future tragedy.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is for the benefit of the member for Calgary
East. I rise today to reflect on the Leader of the Opposition's
comments concerning the Prime Minister's team Canada missions.
The trip to Latin America included representatives from more
than 180 Canadian companies, 80% of them small and medium size
businesses generating more than 300 deals worth $1.7 billion.
That is some photo op.
The Summit of the Americas marked the launch of negotiations for
a free trade area involving 34 countries, a market of 800 million
people and about $10 trillion. That is some photo op.
1410
Many members of the opposition could be called frequent flyers.
However their travel ends in no op as in no opportunity for
Canadians.
Team Canada missions led by the Prime Minister have secured
deals worth close to $24 billion. That is the photo op as in
opportunities for Canadians and Canadian business—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Quebec.
* * *
[Translation]
LES VIOLONS DU ROY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Les Violons du
Roy, the chamber orchestra, is continuing its incredible rise to
success both at the national and international levels.
The orchestra was founded in my riding of Quebec in 1984 and
includes about fifteen highly talented musicians.
Their recent appearance in Los Angeles got rave reviews. The Los
Angeles Times talked about a gripping and flawless performance.
Congratulations to the Violons du Roy and their artistic
director, Bernard Labadie.
You are true ambassadors of our city. We are proud of your
success and greatly appreciate your talent.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
seven years ago James Mills was murdered while in Renous prison
in New Brunswick. Yesterday in question period I asked the
solicitor general if he would press charges in this case and he
quite correctly answered he could not. I understand that.
I hope the solicitor general understands the frustration of the
Mills family and myself. It has been seven years since this
murder took place and nothing has ever happened.
We have used the House in question period. We have met with
Corrections Canada. We have met with the RCMP. We have met with
the minister. We have used access to information.
I was even working on this when I was a member of parliament in
1992. I was defeated. I am back now. I am working on it again.
I am still frustrated.
I say to the solicitor general that seven years is too long for
the Mills family to wait. The government owes the Mills family
an explanation. It owes them justice or at least an apology.
* * *
[Translation]
VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was my
intent this week to rise in this House to congratulate the
Tokamak project, in Varennes, for receiving the 1998 Award for
Excellence from the Canadian Nuclear Association for its
exceptional contribution to the development of fusion science
and technology.
Unfortunately, the Tokamak project, in Varennes, came to an
abrupt end, last Tuesday, because of the total lack of vision
and foresight of the Liberal government. Its penny pinching, by
completely cutting its modest $7.2 million annual contribution,
led to the Tokamak project being shut down.
But it is much more than $7.2 million in annual investment from
the federal government that the province of Quebec will lose.
It will lose the fruit of 20 years of labour, tens of millions
of dollars in investments, first class research infrastructures,
significant technological benefits, a promising renewable energy
project, world renowned and experienced researchers and an
enviable international reputation in the area of nuclear fusion.
Quebec comes off the loser, how else would one put it?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wanuskewin.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
lot of loving reasonable Canadian parents spank their children on
occasion. The minister of heritage wants them thrown in prison,
and that will happen when section 43 of the Criminal Code is
removed.
The minister of heritage has signed an agreement that renews
funding for the federal court challenges program which hands $3
million to her Liberal friends so that they can engage in social
engineering through the courts. She has no right to grant some
citizen groups easy access to the courts while shutting out
others who represent the values of the majority of Canadians.
What gives the minister of heritage the right to create this
uneven playing field, removing justice from the justice system?
Why is the government using public money to support a systematic
program of legal warfare against its very own citizens, in this
case reasonable and responsible parents?
* * *
NATIONAL MINING WEEK
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is recognized as a global leader in the sustainable
production of minerals and metals. It ranks among the world's
top five producers for some 16 major mineral commodities.
[Translation]
This world class industry has led to a rise in the demand for
workers and highly skilled professionals and created growth in
the mining-related manufacturing sector, including the
environmental technology and services area.
[English]
Mining related jobs are an important source of high paying
employment for many rural and remote communities across Canada.
National Mining Week celebrates the great contribution mining
makes to our country. It takes place from May 11 to May 17. The
theme of the 1998 National Mining Week is “Mining makes it
happen”.
I call on all members of the House to join with me in saluting
the men and women who have helped to make the Canadian mining
industry a world leader.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today at the hepatitis C conference the victims blew the lid off
the health minister's excuses.
The head of the Canadian Hemophilia Society told the conference
that the number of victims infected before 1986 who are sick
enough to need compensation is probably only 5,000 to 8,000. That
is a far cry from the 60,000 people the health minister's
propaganda suggests.
Is the government prepared to pay all those victims who are sick
enough to help, yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would appear the organizations of victims had a very
useful dialogue with the provincial health ministers and the
federal health minister. Now the ministers are carrying on a
discussion and we are very anxious to see what consensus will
emerge on the part of the provincial ministers so that we can
take appropriate action.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that in these discussions the federal health minister
has sat in stony silence. Nobody knows what the federal
government's position is.
The highest responsibility lies with the federal government
because it is the regulator of the blood system. This government
is trying to blame the provinces and say it is their fault.
Will this government accept its responsibility and compensate
all these victims, yes or no?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has
always acted responsibly. I remind the member that when Justice
Krever published his first interim report the Government of
Canada acted immediately on all recommendations that had
relevance under federal authority.
Under that same federal authority, the federal minister brought
his colleagues together and together they fashioned out packages
that served the short term, medium term and long term interests
of both hepatitis C victims and those who need a health care
system that addresses need when it occurs.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on the contrary, the provinces were the ones that called for this
get together. It certainly was not the federal health minister
who called for it.
David Page of the Canadian Hemophilia Society said this today
when he came out of the meeting: “Three provinces, Ontario,
Quebec and B.C., are willing to move forward. What is missing is
federal money here. With federal money we think the rest of the
provinces would be on side”.
Again, will the government commit to leading the way in giving
compensation to all victims who need government help, yes or no?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has
always and continues to believe in addressing the needs of
Canadians as they occur. It also believes in working together
with all the deliverers of the health care system and they are
the provincial and territorial authorities.
What we have done and continue to do is address the interests of
all Canadians in a collaborative effort in order to be efficient
and effective.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, listen to
the government's excuses for not compensating these victims.
First off, its numbers. It said 60,000 to 80,000 victims. The
victims say it is 23,000. It then goes on to the issue of fault.
The victims say they will sign no fault. It then said the whole
thing would break the system. These are all excuses.
Why is the government continuing to try to get this conference
to fail?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member himself in the House said that
compensation should be based on fault. Now he has changed his
position from what he originally said. So much for his
credibility.
We do not want this conference to fail. We want it to succeed
in the interests of victims. We are actively taking part in the
conference and trying to treat the matter very seriously.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me make
my position clear again: compensation for every victim. This is
quite different from the Deputy Prime Minister.
This is the headline the health minister hopes to take out of
this meeting: “Oh, we couldn't reach a consensus. The provinces
are at fault”.
If this federal government had taken a powerful position into
these meetings, if it had gone in there as leaders, we would have
a solution to this.
Why has this federal government been followers instead of
leaders?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine the member
opposite has ever thought that his theatrics might be clouding
his judgment.
The fact that we have a conference attended by ministers at all
three levels sitting together trying to fashion out a package
that will address all the needs of all the victims and all
sufferers is an indication of leadership.
If he objects to leadership that involves the federal authority
bringing together partners at the provincial and territorial
level, he has a different—
1420
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
DAVID LEVINE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hiring of David Levine as director of the hospital centre in
Ottawa has caused a real uproar in the region.
In this respect, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
stated “I hope that Canada will be more unified than ever and
that full use will be made of available talents”.
Does the minister realize that in making this statement he is
clearly saying that, as far as he is concerned, it is perfectly
all right not to make full use of talents available across
Canada if these are sovereignist talents as long as the national
issue has not been resolved?
The Speaker: The way the question was put, it seems to me this
is something that might be better dealt with outside this House.
I will allow the question since reference was made to a
statement supposedly made by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
So, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has the floor
if he wishes to respond.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in this highly decentralized federation of ours, a
minister of the federal crown does not have the power to decide
who should be hired by a hospital.
This does not mean we cannot deplore the fact that this
federation, this country of ours, is not unified enough for such
a problem not to arise.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot see how this would be a problem in Quebec. However, I can
see how it is a problem elsewhere, and particularly in the
national capital.
Let me quote the minister again. He said “As long as there is a
threat of separation, this kind of problem is to be expected”.
Does the minister recognize that, by the irresponsible remarks
he made and keeps making, he is condoning and justifying the
unacceptable behaviour of those who wish to take this position
away from Mr. Levine simply because he once ran in an election
under the sovereignist banner?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
ought to be pleased to see the leader of the Bloc suggest that
the federal government interfere in an area wholly under
provincial jurisdiction.
What position will the Bloc take next in this House in support
of the federal position? Are they turning totally against Quebec
separating from the rest of Canada?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister is missing the point.
We are not asking the federal government to interfere. We are
simply asking the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who
made some unfortunate statements, to give us an explanation.
Will the minister not admit that his ministerial responsibility
is not to add fuel to the fire on an issue such as this one, but
rather to strongly condemn those who want to prevent someone
from getting a job because of his political beliefs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said. The unity problem
in Canada creates this kind of difficulty.
It is fortunate this is happening in Canada, because in all the
other democracies I know, this kind of difficulty would be even
more acute with the threat of separation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize what he just said?
Does he not understand that he just sent the message to all
sovereignists in Quebec that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedom, which prohibits discrimination based on political
beliefs, does not apply to them? That is what he just said.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is one thing in which I strongly believe, it
is freedom of conscience. I strongly believe that politics
should have no influence whatsoever on the public service. I
would never ask anybody to take an oath of allegiance.
But in light of the threat of separation, we are lucky that this
kind of problem is not as severe in Canada as it would be in
other democracies.
* * *
1425
[English]
NUCLEAR TESTING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, India's
recent nuclear testing could trigger a serious arms race in south
Asia. Pakistan is now threatening to test its own nuclear
devices in response to India and the situation demands urgent
action.
Will the Canadian government instruct the foreign affairs
minister to leave the G-8 and go directly to Islamabad to
dissuade Pakistan from further escalating regional tension by
testing its own nuclear devices?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our high commissioner in Islamabad has already told the
Pakistani government that Canada is asking it not to take any
provocative stance and not to carry out any nuclear tests. We
have also called in the Pakistani high commissioner to Canada and
given him the same message.
Our message is very clear. If there are tests by Pakistan, the
measures already taken against India and those we are
contemplating taking further against India will be applied to
Pakistan.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people
want to see the foreign minister take a message directly there.
Canada's hands are not clean in this fiasco. Canada has sold
nuclear materials and technology to nations that refuse to sign
the non-proliferation treaty. Canada is hiding under the nuclear
umbrella of the U.S. and NATO. Canada has failed to aggressively
push for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Canada must
end its own ambiguity and complicity.
When will Canada show real leadership in the fight to eliminate
nuclear weapons?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been showing leadership. We will continue to do
so with respect to Pakistan. We cancelled our nuclear program
with that country at the same time we cancelled our program with
India almost 25 years ago.
As I have said, we have already sent a firm message to Pakistan
that it should not take a provocative stance, that it should not
carry out tests. Certainly it is a signal that the action we
have taken against Indian we are ready to take against Pakistan.
We hope it will not be necessary. With respect to the measures
we are already looking at taking against India, we are
considering applying, if necessary, the same further steps
against Pakistan. That is firm action and I think it speaks for
itself.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, can the
Minister of National Defence inform this House what steps he has
taken to redress the case of Rudy Saueracker of Moncton, New
Brunswick, a corporal who contracted hepatitis and HIV from a
tainted blood transfusion in a military hospital?
The Speaker: As a general rule, those are very specific
cases and I do not know that we can always expect the government
to respond to them. However, if the hon. minister would like to
address himself to that question, I will give him the floor.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we are concerned
about the health and welfare of all our Canadian forces
personnel. I do not know of the specific case the hon. member
mentions but I would be happy to look into it.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad the minister is going to look into it because it has
been several years since that this man has been working with the
government to try to get his compensation.
Representatives of hepatitis C victims said today that the
number of victims infected between 1986 and 1990 is much lower
than estimated in the Krever report. The health minister has
argued that treating all hepatitis C victims equally would
bankrupt the health care system.
How can the minister make such a claim and continue to refuse
compensation when he has not put in place a mechanism to identify
the total number of people infected?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the functions of today's
meeting is essentially to hear the submissions like the one the
member is addressing right now. It would be instructive as well
to keep in mind that the numbers Krever accepted were those that
had come after exhaustive investigation on his part.
Judge Krever accepted the numbers provided to him by Health
Canada and other institutions. After analysing and evaluating
each one, he came up with the numbers he gave in his final
report.
This House through members on both sides has been asking that
his report—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
* * *
NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister shrugged off Canada's nuclear sales to India.
He simply said it broke its word. That might be business as
usual in Liberal circles but Canadians find that irresponsible.
1430
Canada's unique heavy water technology is still at the heart of
India's nuclear arsenal. Is the government not just hiding the
fact that it was Paul Martin Sr. who was involved in the deal in
the first place?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it really is remarkable the depths to which the
opposition will stoop to try to score what appears in their eyes
to be a point.
When Canada discovered in 1974 that India had made a nuclear
test, we immediately suspended all our nuclear activity with
them. We toughened and strengthened the safeguards. We invited
India to sign the new safeguards. India declined and we
terminated all our nuclear activity with them more than 20 years
ago.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
answer, I am sure, really makes Canadians feel reassured. A real
leader would bring China, Pakistan and India together in forging
a new Asian security agreement. A real leader would take action
to stop a new arms race and a new cold war. Canadians wonder why
does the Prime Minister not act like a real leader?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly want to encourage dialogue among the Asian
countries in question to reach a security agreement. We have
been encouraging that.
We have been showing leadership in our contacts with Asian
countries. We are showing leadership in taking firm action with
respect to the unacceptable Indian nuclear tests. We are showing
leadership. Beyond that all we have from the Reform Party is
talk, not leadership, in contrast to the words, action and future
action of our Prime Minister.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to the intimations of the Minister of Justice, who is
planning to amend the Young Offenders Act, there has been no
increase in violent crime in Canada in the past 20 years. In
addition, Quebec, where the act is intelligently applied, has
the lowest recidivism rate in Canada.
Why did the Minister of Justice base her proposed reform on
demagoguery as the editorial page of La Presse pointed out this
morning, rather than on facts and statistics, which speak for
themselves.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me comment upon the hon.
member's use of statistics.
The level of youth crime in this country has remained relatively
stable but for unfortunately one category which is violent crime.
We have seen a slight increase in the commission of violent
crimes by young offenders.
Let me say that I believe the government response to the
standing committee report deals with that and other issues. Our
response is an integrated strategy that speaks to prevention,
meaningful consequences and rehabilitation. I believe that
represents fundamental core values that are shared by all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday on the Téléjournal, her parliamentary secretary
acknowledged that the statistics I have just mentioned were
correct, but she said that the minister nevertheless wanted to
legislate solely to calm public opinion and to look good.
Will the minister acknowledge that, as criminologist Jean
Trépanier has pointed out, drafting legislation on prejudice
rather than fact is neither acceptable nor responsible?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that I
believe our government response to the renewal of the youth
justice system speaks to fundamental Canadian values.
Canadians whether they live in Quebec, Alberta or British
Columbia want us to prevent youth crime before it happens. They
want us to have meaningful consequences when it happens. They
want us to rehabilitate those who have committed an offence
against society. Nothing more than this response represents core
Canadian values.
* * *
1435
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, picture
this: $75,000 spent on a fly-past; $67,000 on the use of a flight
simulator; $75,000 on food and drink charged to the Crowne Plaza
Hotel; a total of over $2 million spent on a
conference-retirement party for General DeQuetteville. All this
when privates and corporals are looking for decent clothing and
respectable housing and are having to go to a food bank to feed
their families.
Who is the genius who approved this spending? Was it the
minister? He got an invite.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member and his party
have got things all wrong.
First it was not a retirement party for General DeQuetteville.
There were people of all ranks there to discuss and learn about
the future of the air force, particularly after 20 years of air
force reduction. It did not cost $2 million. The incremental
cost was $330,000. It was for a valid conference. The internal
auditor will soon be reporting on the matter.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1993 Mohamad Sharif Karimzada, a junior level Afghan diplomat,
was granted refugee status in Canada. He has since been ordered
deported.
High ranking UN officials and U.S. officials have spoken on his
behalf. Even former president Jimmy Carter has talked to the
minister about this case. The minister has a signed a waiver in
her possession saying she can speak freely about this case.
Why is the minister willing to send Mr. Karimzada back to a
certain death in Afghanistan?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the final decision in this
case has not been taken yet. I do not have the intention to
discuss this case publicly.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the government is doggedly ramming
through its bill on millennium scholarships, negotiations
between Quebec City and Ottawa to find common ground on the
issue have just broken off.
Will the Acting Prime Minister admit that neither the Minister
of Human Resources Development nor his negotiators were mandated
to amend the bill in order to accommodate Quebec's concerns and
that, as a result, federal negotiators were just going through
the motions in order to stall for time?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the provincial education minister, Mrs.
Marois, said “I asked Mr. Pettigrew if he was prepared to
implement the proposal made by the Liberal opposition in Quebec
City”.
I wish to give the House two pieces of good news: the first is
that, after examining the proposal made by the official
opposition in the National Assembly, the Government of Canada
concluded that it was interesting, very interesting; the second
is that it will not be necessary to amend the bill in order to
give effect to the proposal.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition itself, in its
proposal, called for the bill to be amended.
What else can we call federal intransigence on this issue but
flagrant bad faith?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Education should be urged to return to
the table with the Minister of Human Resources Development,
since we have just said that the proposal by the official
opposition in the National Assembly was very interesting, very
promising.
What is most important, after all, is that governments think
about helping students.
* * *
[English]
MILLENNIUM BUG
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions.
The year 2000 millennium bug is a potential time bomb for the
Canadian economy. The chief economist for Deutsche Morgan
Grenfell has indicated that a global recession is likely to
result from the millennium bug to about a 60% probability.
I do not believe that either the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions or the Minister of Finance has a plan to
protect the Canadian economy. If he does, will the Secretary of
State for Financial Institutions or the Minister of Finance—
1440
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has been somewhat
preoccupied with this issue. A report that deals with the issue
has come from the standing committee.
All government departments are working on their own plans. The
plan I am responsible for at the Department of Transport is well
under way. I can assure Canadians we will have very safe skies
in the year 2000. The hon. member should realize that the
government has the matter well in hand.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
lot of world leaders are preoccupied but they have a plan for
this situation. The Toronto Stock Exchange is requiring that
businesses be year 2000 compatible in order to be listed. World
leaders know this is a serious problem. Experts are saying that
without work on this issue the Asian financial sector may
collapse.
Canadians are wondering why the finance minister is hiding from
this issue, why his head is in the sand. Why is he leaving
Canadians vulnerable? Where is the Canadian plan?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the question in the first reply.
The government has been seized with this issue for the past
couple of years. Interdepartmental committees have been working
on it, as have committees with the private sector and various
industries. We have been looking at this. We consider it to be
a priority of this government to work with all sectors of the
Canadian economy to make sure there is no disruption in any
industry when the year 2000 turns.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On May 7, the minister announced the creation of an Internet
site that is merely a collection of existing programs, plus
three round tables, as part of the 1998 Multimedia and
Info-highway International Market, which is currently under way
in Montreal.
When will the government finally follow up on the report tabled
by the Information Highway Advisory Council and set up a $50
million fund for the production, distribution and marketing of
Quebec and Canadian multimedia products?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for her question.
We really care about the multimedia issue because it is really
important for us, in Canada, to have good content in both
official languages. This is why we will proceed very soon with
other initiatives.
Second, it would be nice for those who are asking for French
language content that Quebec start by authorizing Télévision
française de l'Ontario to broadcast in Quebec, since it provides
a French language multimedia content across Canada.
* * *
[English]
ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
forest fires are raging in Alberta, forcing people to flee their
homes and businesses. We know how valuable the Canadian Armed
Forces were to the flood victims in the Red River and the
Saguenay, and to those in eastern Canada affected by the recent
ice storm. Can the minister of defence tell this House how the
armed forces are helping the people of Alberta?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Canadian Armed Forces are
coming to the aid of fellow Canadians. Some 56 troops including
17 reservists are now taking trucks into the forest fire area to
transport firefighters. There are some 600 firefighters and some
24 forest fires in that area of Alberta. They are helping in that
effort. They will continue to help in that effort as long as
those fires are burning. We want to help fellow Canadians and
the people of Alberta.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
On Tuesday in answer to my question concerning a Vancouver
immigration consultant who faces 18 criminal charges, the
minister said that she had mechanisms in the Immigration Act to
deal with this individual. Will the minister immediately seek an
injunction to stop this evil man from the further counselling of
unsuspecting would be immigrants via the Internet? Will the
minister immediately bring in legislation to license all
immigration consultants?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two completely
different issues here. First, there is the case of the
individual involved. As you know, I never publicly discuss the
details of an individual's case.
The second issue concerns immigration consultants. As you know,
this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However, we are
working with the provinces to try to find a solution.
1445
We are also looking at the recommendation made in an independent
report to find a solution to the issue of regulating immigration
consultants.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism jetted 20
British Columbians off to China at a cost of $300,000. Why? So
they could learn Mandarin Chinese. This is yet another example
of wasteful spending.
Does the secretary of state not feel that one can learn this
language by taking a course in Vancouver which, after all, is
home to over 250,000 people of Chinese heritage?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that these
questions have such little depth and breadth of the understanding
of the issues.
First and foremost, these are students who are going to work in
the tourism industry. The values of understanding a proper
tourism industry are not just linguistic. There is a need to
understand the culture of the places from which the people come
and the needs of the people who travel. The only way they can
learn that is to go to work in the hotels in those countries so
they can understand how to best supply what is needed for a
proper tourism industry.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister last April signed an MOU with the Government of
B.C. promising full consultation on the B.C. salmon fishery.
Today a group of B.C. fishers stripped and performed the full
Mifflin, accusing the minister of stripping the shirts off their
backs.
Why is this minister showing contempt for the Government of B.C.
and B.C. fishers by failing to consult with them as he promised
to do in the MOU on the proposed salmon licence buy-back?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the demonstration in front of my office
was certainly more revealing than many.
I point out to the hon. member from the NDP that we do have an
MOU with the province of British Columbia. It is working well.
All information that should be exchanged is being exchanged, at
least from the federal government to the provincial government.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the B.C. government has said that it is not getting
anything on the buy-back.
British Columbians learned from a leaked federal document this
week that Liberal negotiators are prepared to surrender to the
U.S. and sell out Canadian interests at the Portland salmon
treaty talks.
If we are to avoid desperate fishers once again blocking ships
this year, will the minister finally show some guts, denounce
this document and stand for B.C. before we see a repeat of the
desperate situation on the east coast cod fishery?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly unaware that
we have a Canadian delegation which includes people from the
Canadian government, the British Columbia government, industry,
aboriginal fishers and other sports and recreation people.
The document in question has not been seen by me or my
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is an internal
assessment of American attitudes within the delegation. It is as
much a document of the province of British Columbia as it is a
document of the federal government. In fact, it is neither. It
is an internal delegation of a Canadian team Canada approach.
The suggestion that somehow or other it is part of some federal
change of position is totally false and untrue.
* * *
THE YEAR 2000
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, many experts
consider Canada to be a leader in the year 2000 problem from a
global perspective. This problem is immediate, urgent,
underestimated and spread worldwide. Currently every company and
government is going at it on their own.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. At the upcoming
G-8 meetings will the Canadian government propose to take the
lead and set up a global Y2K battle plan?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as my hon. colleague mentions, this is a problem that is
worldwide. It is a problem that the Canadian government has been
looking at carefully.
We have a program for the various institutions that depend on
the Canadian government. Internationally we have been discussing
this at the G-8. An international group will be put together to
look at the various questions coming from the Y2K problem. We
are presently working with international organizations, such as
the World Bank, to deal with the problem.
1450
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today's Y2K
report states that Canada's major trading partners, specifically
the Asian market, are falling far behind in the year 2000
implementation. The Prime Minister should also be aware that in
the last two days the Canadian dollar dropped by more than half a
cent largely due to the problems in Asian markets.
Will this government push in the G-8 meetings that all
countries, regardless of economic or commercial interest, focus
on making the Asian market aware of and comply with this
immediate deadline?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the industry committee's
report today and thank all members for having brought forward
this unanimous report.
[Translation]
It is much appreciated by all.
[English]
I want everyone to know that the government has indeed shown
leadership. The Prime Minister has alerted all of his ministers,
the private sector and his colleagues internationally. We are
working together.
It is very important that we recognize that this is simply not a
Government of Canada challenge. It is a challenge for all levels
of government, the private sector and, indeed, all of us. We
have a common objective with a common goal and we must work
together to achieve it.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week's massive mudslides devastated the region
of Sarno, Italy. As a result, 143 are dead, 136 are missing and
1,500 people are homeless.
My question is to the minister of defence. What is this
government going to do to help those individuals and those
communities who are trying to keep their lives together?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received a request from the
Italian government to provide earth-moving and excavating
equipment, specifically 10 Bobcats. In fact, we are going to
send these over to Italy together with Canadian forces personnel
to operate them. They will be arriving with three Hercules
aircraft, taking both the people and the Bobcats, plus a backhoe
and four CF personnel to operate it.
We will be arriving in Italy this Sunday.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is fine for the minister to stand up and make jokes about what
is revealing. He just told the member for Burnaby—Douglas that
he is unaware of documents that department officials are talking
about with respect to the treaty with the U.S.
This minister is unaware of the extinction of our fish stocks in
Atlantic Canada. He is unaware of what is going on in B.C. with
our fish stocks out there that are facing extinction.
Is the minister going to stand and fight for B.C. or is he going
to watch our fishermen and fish stocks out there become extinct
as well?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the hon. member is
clearly unaware of is my reply to the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas.
What I indicated to him was that the document referred to is not
a Canadian government document. It is not a document of the
Government of British Columbia. It is not a document of the
various other participants on the Canadian team in the
negotiations with the Americans. It is an internal document of
the delegation analysing the strategy and opinions of the
American position.
Therefore it should not be described this way by either the
Reform Party or the NDP because to do so damages the Canadian
position in these—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
* * *
[Translation]
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is trying
her level best to save the Middle East peace process, by
receiving the Israeli Prime Minister at the last minute, a
demonstration to commemorate the Nakba deteriorated into a
confrontation between the Palestinians and the Israeli army.
Given the real difficulties in ensuring that the Oslo agreements
are complied with, what steps does the Government of Canada
intend to take to ensure that Israel meets its obligations under
the Oslo agreements?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the
process of negotiation is delicate, that it is ongoing and at
this stage we best proceed by quiet diplomacy. We do wish to
ensure that all members of the United Nations respect and obey
security council resolutions.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture will know that there is a very dry spring
under way on the western prairies that is beginning to look
increasingly like a drought. The timing could not be worse with
an already sharp drop in farm income forecast and the sharp cuts
in the department of agriculture.
1455
Would the minister of agriculture please inform the House what
contingency plans will be available in the event that this dry
spring turns into a full-fledged drought?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that they could certainly
use more rain in much of western Canada, as they could in other
areas in Canada, and we hope that comes in the very near future.
We do have a very complete safety net system in place, crop
insurance as well as NISA, the net income stabilization program
for Canadian farmers. They will have the opportunity to draw
upon the programs provided by the government and the ones they
fund themselves, along with the provincial government and the
federal government, if the need arises.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on the one hand
we have the Minister of Immigration telling us that birth in
Canada does not necessarily make a child a Canadian citizen, and
on the other we have the Minister of Canadian Heritage telling
us Canadian citizenship must be awarded to any person who is
born in Canada.
May we know the real policy of this government with respect to
immigration, regardless of the confusion that reigns within
cabinet?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is not a
matter of immigration but of citizenship. That is a totally
different act and one that has not been re-assessed or reviewed
by this Parliament in the past 20 years.
Some time ago, we received a report from a parliamentary
committee of this House which made some proposals. We also have
an independent report from three consultants with some
suggestions. Based on these, analyses will be carried out
within the department, and within months we shall be seeing a
bill tabled in this Parliament.
* * *
CHIAPAS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa.
Will the Government of Canada be imposing economic sanctions in
response to the work of the parliamentary delegation returning
from Chiapas?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Señor presidente, I thank the hon. member for
Parkdale—High Park for her question.
I very much doubt that the government will have to impose
economic sanctions.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our
colleagues who took part in this very important mission. I
wonder why the official opposition did not participate.
An hon. member: A good question.
Hon. David Kilgour: The Minister of Foreign Affairs wishes to
meet with these people as quickly as possible and I believe that
the chair of our Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade also wishes to meet with those who took part
in this mission.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Minister for International Trade what the
government is going to do about the unfair hockey subsidies of
the United States.
Is this government going to request a chapter 20 dispute panel
under the NAFTA or is it going to force struggling Canadian teams
like the Senators and the Oilers to fight these unfair subsidies
on their own?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of
answering that question yesterday and I will repeat the answer
today. I extend congratulations to the Reform Party for finally
waking up and realizing that hockey is important to Canadians.
I would also point out to my hon. friend that a committee is
holding hearings at the present time. We expect its report in
the fall and we will look at absolutely every submission with due
diligence.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
As part of its new aboriginal affairs policy, the Government of
Quebec will be setting up a five-year economic development fund.
Quebec will put in $125 million and hopes that the federal
government will match this amount.
Given that this development fund, which has been received
positively by aboriginal groups, emphasizes aboriginal
entrepreneurship, and is consistent with federal policy in this
area, will the minister undertake to put in the $125 million
requested by Quebec?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for Saint-Jean for his question.
I would simply like to say that the amount to be invested by the
province of Quebec with respect to the First Nations falls
exactly in line with the strategy put forward following the
response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People: let us
share and work together.
1500
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will
definitely be working with the province of Quebec to promote the
First Nations economy.
* * *
[English]
CRTC
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Baton
Broadcasting announced 334 layoffs across the country yesterday.
Forty-one of those jobs were lost in the maritimes.
Baton bought CTV and made a commitment to the CRTC to serve the
needs of local communities. It seems its promise was not worth
the licence it was written on.
It is the CRTC's job to enforce regulations to ensure companies
like Baton live up to their commitments. If the CRTC will not do
it, it should be scrapped.
Will the minister of heritage tell us what she will do to make
the CRTC protect local news and programming across the country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House will join with me
in sending certainly our sympathies to those families whose jobs
have been lost as a result of this decision by a private
broadcaster.
If the member has reason to believe that the licensing
requirements are not being met, I suggest she forward that
information to me. I will immediately ask the CRTC to review the
licensing procedures that have flown from its original licence.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to my legislative calendar we have about 20 days left
for business in the House.
I would like to ask the government House leader if he could
confirm that we have 20 days left to work in the House before the
summer recess, and the nature of the business of the House for
the remainder of this week and for the next sitting week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is almost as good
as last week's question.
Tomorrow will be the day for consideration of third reading of
Bill C-19, the labour code amendments, pursuant to a previous
order of the House.
Next week is a constituency office week. When the House
returns, it will be for the final sprint to the summer
adjournment. The government's intention is to work very hard. We
will continue to be concerned with a number of report stages and
third readings.
During the week of May 25 we shall consider Bill C-36, the
budget bill, at both report stage and third reading, and Bill
C-29, the parks agency bill.
Tuesday, May 26 shall be an allotted day.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FORCES
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
1505
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to take part in this debate. I noticed that the motion
deals with the failure of this government to provide political
leadership. I am very surprised to see that given the track
record of this government. Clearly their definition of political
leadership and ours is different.
I am going to be splitting my time with the member for
Nepean—Carleton.
I want to highlight a couple of issues and specifically talk
about the reserves. Since this government took office in 1994 it
has restored public confidence and pride in the Canadian
military. We have given the forces a clear mandate to change the
way we do business and get a bigger bang for the buck.
In 1994 we produced the defence white paper. We cut the
bureaucracy and reduced the number of top military brass. There
was procurement reform and 3,000 more soldiers were added to the
army. We increased the number of reservists to 30,000. We have
re-equipped the forces. This is clearly leadership, not failure.
I am surprised that the hon. member across the way would put
such a motion forth. I am not going to dwell on the record of
the Conservative Party or the comments we heard during the
election from the Reform Party. I want to talk about positive
things.
We hear a lot of negatives in the House so I want to talk about
the positive things this government has been doing, in particular
the leadership we have shown with regard to the armed forces and
in dealing with the issue of the reserves and the total force
concept outlined in the 1994 white paper on defence.
Beginning with the first principle, reserves are value added
because they are so deeply embedded in Canadian society and our
Canadian traditions. The militia idea goes back to the earliest
days of New France. Citizen soldiers fought off attacks on their
country in the 1770s and again in the War of 1812. They were the
backbone of national defence after the establishment of the
modern Canadian state in 1867. They kept their skills alive at a
time when Canadians wanted to think about anything but war.
We have a proud military tradition in this country. One just
has to look back to the first world war, Vimy Ridge; the second
world war, D-Day and the battle of the Atlantic; recently the
Persian gulf. Canada has participated in over 40 peacekeeping
operations. This is a record we can be proud of as Canadians.
Canadians fought and died in Korea between 1950 and 1953. They
have shown bravery. They were the shock troops of Europe in the
first and second world wars.
The reserves in particular are a bridge between the regular
forces and the Canadian public. They are made up of the Canadian
public all across this country. Most important of all, the
reserves are a vital and relevant defence resource implicit in
the message of the total force. The reserves are not a frill or
some out moded luxury. They are a necessity, an integral part of
the Canadian forces. They are able and expected to augment and
sustain regular units or, in some cases, execute specific tasks
not generally carried out by the regular forces.
The militia has since the 19th century provided individuals and
entire units for the whole range of army imperatives. Naval
reservists have major responsibility for coastal and harbour
defence and naval control of shipping. The air reserve is
creating a national pool of trained personnel to supply air force
deployments at home and away.
The communication reserve has been a leader in the
implementation of the total force. The Canadian Rangers provide
a military profile in our vast north and other isolated areas of
this country.
During operation recuperation when we met the storm of the
century with the largest peacetime deployment of the Canadian
forces in our history, the reserves were there. The reserves
supplied fully one-quarter of the more than 16,000 military
complement which carried out essential tasks in Ontario, Quebec
and New Brunswick.
The availability of these reservists demonstrates the value added
effect of this service because we could not afford an additional
4,000 regulars to be available on such short notice for such
emergencies. I know my hon. friend across the way would agree
with that.
1510
I am proud of what the reservists did during the ice storm of
1998 and what they did during the floods in Manitoba and in the
Saguenay. I know hon. members feel the same delight as I feel
that our men and women are cheered on the streets across this
country for what they did.
As the chief of defence staff likes to remind us, the ice storm
highlighted one of the Canadian forces' most essential roles,
protecting the lives and possessions of Canadians in times of
crisis.
I would be less than frank if I did not think and say that these
recent operations in Canada have helped with restoring the
contract of trust between Canadians and the forces. Reservists
are every bit as important a part of this process as our regular
forces.
When the government took office it very quickly made it a high
priority to reform, modernize and upgrade the reserves as part of
the program to improve the overall capacity and operational
effectiveness of the entire force.
We need well trained and well equipped reservists, organized and
cohesive and logical military structures which use resources more
effectively than in the past.
I know it is easier to criticize than it is to provide
solutions. The government has been providing solutions since
1994 on this issue. But again we will hear all the negatives. We
will not hear the positives because of course that is not the job
or the role of the opposition.
We have put a great deal of study into the restructuring of the
reserves, including the convening of a special commission. The
most complicated aspect of a restructuring program concerns the
militia. We have decided to reorder the geographically based
districts into brigade groups, organized along functional lines,
again showing leadership.
The government is engaged in an evaluation program based on
carefully thought out criteria and extensive consultation with
the reserve constituency, notably honorary colonels of the
reserve 2000 committee. The final decision will not be easy but
I know that every effort will be made to make it fair and to make
it equitable.
While the complex labour goes on the government has not stood
still on other fronts. We have improved equipment available to
reservists. The soldier project, Griffon helicopters for the 400
squadron at Borden and the 438 squadron at Saint-Hubert, and the
delivery of maritime coastal defence vessels are some examples.
Over the past year we have introduced an improved pay and
benefit package for reservists which, combined with the reserve
force retirement gratuity, demonstrates the commitment to
recognize and to compensate our citizen soldiers for their
sacrifices.
With the assistance of the House of Commons Standing Committee
on National Defence and Veterans Affairs we are also examining in
a comprehensive way the needs of people in the military. We must
ensure we provide an appropriate level of support to the men and
women of the forces and their families and that includes
reservists. I know my friends and colleagues on the other side
would agree with that.
The Canadian forces liaison council is making great strides in
protecting civilian jobs and benefits of reservists. There are
over 4,500 employees in the databank. Over 3,000 of them have
stated their support of the reserves, while 1,800 have agreed to
grant military leave to reserve employees.
Clearly we can be very proud of the work our reservists do.
Concerning underrating and underutilizing reserves in the past,
we are taking care of that. We find them indispensable and they
have shown their commitment to their country.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Oak Ridges for his comments. I am always
quite interested in the reserves, being a reserve member for six
years many years back.
I find the member's comments, where he is talking about what we
have done for the reserves, going in the wrong direction. Yes,
we have added numbers to the reserves but we have cut down their
hours. We have cut them to less than half and also we have cut
out all the exercises they do. So what we are doing is cutting
out their training. We are not giving them a chance to train
properly. So instead of getting higher quality reserves, we are
lowering the quality of our reserves and they do not deserve
that, particularly since we are using reserves an awful lot these
days overseas.
It is important that they get good basic training at the reserve
level so they can continue on at the regular level.
1515
He was also talking about preparation and equipment and I
thought I would mention at this point our submarines. He
mentioned the 1994 white paper. The white paper was quite clear
that we needed those submarines and it was a good deal. That was
four years ago. We finally ordered the submarines, but it will
take a couple of years for them to get here.
In the meantime this month we have another submarine that is
being decommissioned and another one will be in September. That
will leave us with one submarine. That is our total fleet. We
will go for a couple of years with one submarine. It is not very
logical. That submarine will not be out too much.
Maybe the member would care to comment on that.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
for his comments. As far as the reserves are concerned we are
going through a process. We have made improvements, as I said
earlier in the House, whether it be in terms of pay and benefits
or whether it be in terms of equipment.
Clearly the process is not finished. We obviously want to have
the best equipped, the best trained reserves and armed forces
generally. Rome was not built in a day and clearly we are
improving. As far as submarines are concerned, we did not buy
the nuclear submarines to which the previous government had
committed itself, but we have an agreement now in terms of the
four new submarines from England. It is excellent value for the
Canadian taxpayer.
Obviously we do not want to be in a position as we were in
preparing for the first and the second world wars when we did not
have the necessary equipment. We want to make sure that if we
are to send our forces overseas on peacekeeping missions or
involve them in activities in this country we have the right
personnel with the right equipment.
We even heard in the House today that the Government of Italy
requested that Canada provide assistance. Again we have
personnel who are recognized for their professionalism around the
world.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, we on this
side of the House are trying today to bring forth the concerns
and the situation in the military.
I keep listening to the other side of the House which is
pointing the finger at past governments. I do not know how far
back they will go to past governments. I am expecting that soon
they will be talking of Sir John A. Macdonald and blaming him for
some of these problems.
Some of the concerns my colleagues and I have been addressing
today are related to dollars. Others are related to how people
are treated. Those are concerns that I believe most of my
colleagues on both sides and I have. That is what we want to
debate today. We are discussing these issues so people,
parliamentarians and Canadians know there are concerns out there.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned past
governments other than my comment on nuclear submarines. I am
quite frankly not interested in what the previous government did
because I am interested in what we are doing.
The member asked about whether we had failed in political
leadership. I demonstrated at the very beginning all the things
the government has done. The gentlemen over there should listen
up. If they ask questions they had better be prepared to listen
to the answers. Otherwise they should not ask questions.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to be participating in the debate today on
the opposition day motion. Just to get the motion on the record,
it states:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide
strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.
It is sponsored by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. I
have had the pleasure of working with the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead over the last number of months.
The two of us are on the national defence and veterans affairs
committee. I must say that he is a very diligent worker and that
he brings a lot to the table in terms of discussion. He has done
a good job that way. The hon. member would probably agree as
well that in framing the motion as he did he very much overstated
the case with respect to the current situation in the armed
forces.
1520
Let me take the opportunity to put this matter into some
perspective. Certainly the world has changed greatly over the
1990s. The challenges we have faced in the 1990s and the
rapidity of change we have experienced as a society and indeed
right across the globe have been tremendous. Governments have
tried to respond to that as best they could, and our government
is no different.
When we faced the prospect of forming a government in 1993
clearly we were concerned about security issues. All Canadians
are concerned about security issues. One of the foremost
security issues we had to face in 1993 was our financial
security. As a result some decisions had to be made. When we
had a $42 billion deficit to deal with, some decisions had to be
taken with respect to restoring financial security to Canadians.
As a result cutbacks had to be made in government. It was not
just the Department of National Defence that experienced those
cutbacks. There were many other departments. It is safe to say,
and most members would agree, that there has been a significant
cutback in government activity.
At the same time, in the post-deficit situation we face right
now there is a realization and a recognition that some of the
departments of government used to perform a lot more activities
than they do now. There has to be some action taken to address
the problems that have occurred in those departments, and the
Department of National Defence is certainly one of them.
Its budget has been reduced, as has already been mentioned, from
$12 billion in 1993-94 to its current situation of $9.38 billion
in 1998-99. This process has not been easy. I have to salute
the Minister of National Defence for his actions since he took
the post. He has done what no other minister of national defence
was prepared to do, which was to have the national defence
committee go across the country to talk with individual soldiers,
sailors, airmen and women to find out what concerned them, what
was on their mind, what were the issues they had to deal with on
a day to day basis.
That took a lot of political courage. When we start a process
like that one we really have no idea where the whole process will
end up. From that standpoint the minister is to be
congratulated. Having had the opportunity to discuss this issue
with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, he would generally
agree with the observation that it took some political courage to
do what the Minister of National Defence has done.
As I mentioned earlier, we have had the opportunity to go to
many bases. Just to give an example, the committee touched down
and held hearings in Yellowknife, Esquimalt, Comox, Edmonton,
Cold Lake, Moose Jaw, Val Cartier, Bagotville, Kingston,
Petawawa, North Bay, Trenton, Gagetown, Goose Bay and Halifax.
For anyone who was counting that was 15 different locations to
date. I have had the pleasure of speaking to Canadian forces
members in all but two of those locations.
We have heard a great deal from members of the Canadian forces.
We have heard about the issue of salary. There is no doubt that
the issue of salary is one that is very important to members of
the Canadian forces, especially younger members of the forces
that occupy the junior ranks, the privates and corporals of the
Canadian forces.
I frankly do not know how some of them are able to do it on the
salary they are making right now. Their starting salary is
$17,000 and $18,000. The salary rises as the spend more time and
are eligible for pay increments, but members of the national
defence committee would agree that base salary has to rise.
1525
The government has already taken steps to improve the salaries
of members of the Canadian forces. I hope that in the not too
distant future we will be able to see further improvements in
that way.
The issue of housing has been mentioned. That is certainly one
of the more important issues for members of the forces who have
families and are living in the PMQs. We have seen some very poor
accommodation for members of the forces in many locations across
the country.
It is very old stock and it needs to be replaced. How we do
that in today's financial environment will take a lot of
innovation and creativity on behalf of employees of the
Department of National Defence in the Canadian forces housing
agency who are charged with that responsibility. I hope they are
up to the task because our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women
certainly deserve better than what they have right now.
We have heard about other issues including the care of the
wounded and the injured. There should be better ways of dealing
with the problem of unemployed spouses on Canadian bases. It
continues to be a problem.
Many families take two incomes for granted, but that is not
often the case at a Canadian forces base. A spouse has
difficulty getting employment with private businesses outside the
base. Many employers refuse to hire them when they know they will
be posted somewhere else in a few years. They are not prepared
to make investments in terms of training and skills. We have
also heard about the problem of post traumatic stress syndrome.
Those are just a few of the problems we have heard about in the
course of our hearings across the country. The hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead would agree that at the same time there is a
tremendous esprit de corps in the forces. Some people say that
the overall morale in the Canadian forces could probably be
improved quite significantly but that the unit morale is very
strong. There is a strong esprit de corps or a strong connection
between people working in a platoon, a company or as part of a
ship's crew or air crew. They feel proud to wear Canada's
uniform. They feel proud of the record of our Canadian forces men
and women abroad.
The issue of equipment is important. The forces are in the
process of enhancing or improving the equipment available to
them. As I mentioned in earlier comments today, our navy is
among the most modern in the world in terms of the technology it
has available. The same can be said of our air forces with the
CF-18s and their precision guided weapons which are among the
most modern in the world. The army definitely needs more
equipment. The government is in the process of equipping it with
new armoured personnel carriers and other equipment it needs in
terms of clothe the soldier program and others.
Rather than condemning the government, the opposition should be
congratulating it for having the political courage to go out
there to speak to the men and women of the Canadian forces to
learn what is on their minds. I congratulate the Minister of
National Defence and the government for their courage in that
regard.
Ultimately the matter rests with the government. As far as the
men and women of the Canadian forces are concerned I am confident
the government will do the right thing.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just spoken. This has
been perhaps the most open and honest approach we have heard from
that side all day. I commend him for that. At least he alluded
to the problems we face. I assure him that this side of the
House and the committee to which he referred will be looking
forward to his report.
I have read in newspapers and magazines about the problem of the
Department of National Defence in relation to NCOs and
commissioned officers.
1530
I come from a part of Canada which has the RCMP as the
provincial police force. I have been in the same area for a long
time. The highest ranking officer that has ever been in our
detachment, albeit this is the RCMP, is a corporal. Imagine
having three sergeants and one constable.
If I heard correctly today, and this is part of the problem that
the government should be addressing, we have something like 65
generals in the Canadian army.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will have to
interrupt the hon. member, because we have another question to
go. The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton can form a response to
that question.
Mr. David Pratt: I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker. Were
there too many generals at one time in the Canadian forces? I
think the answer is yes. The number has been brought down from
approximately 130 to about 70.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Sixty-five.
Mr. David Pratt: There you go. Are there too many? We
are working toward 60,000 regular members at this point in the
Canadian forces. Are 60 some generals too many? I am not sure
it is.
There is one comment that I did receive which I think the hon.
member would be interested in. I was speaking to a
non-commissioned officer in Halifax. He mentioned to me
something which I thought was very interesting which was that
only nine members of the Canadian forces earn over $100,000 per
year. That is for an organization that, as I mentioned earlier,
takes from the federal budget $9.3 billion and has a complement
of 60,000.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite mentioned that there was good esprit de corps in
the armed services. I would like to quote from an April edition
of Maclean's magazine:
“To make any unit run, you have to have esprit de corps,” said
Warrant Officer George Parrott of Edmonton, who served in
Croatia, Bosnia, Germany and Quebec during January's ice storm.
“When I joined in '83 they made you feel good about working as
hard as you possibly could to achieve the highest level you
could. Right now, there is not that feeling of being proud of
who you are and what you represent”.
This is by a member of the armed services speaking about the
assault on morale. How does the member reconcile his remarks
with these comments from an enlisted person?
Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I
have had the opportunity to visit about 13 of the 15 bases where
the committee has held hearings. I can say this quite honestly.
I have talked to hundreds of members of the Canadian forces. I
am giving my general observations. Certainly there are going to
be people in an organization as large as the Canadian Armed
Forces who are going to have different views on that.
The general observation I have had from people is that within
their own unit when they are tasked to go to Bosnia, or
participate with the army, or if they are on board one of our
frigates, whether it is the HMCS Toronto, the
Vancouver or the Ville de Québec, the ship's crew,
the companies, the battalions, are very proud of what they do.
They are very concerned about some issues obviously in terms of
pay and benefits and those sorts of things. In terms of
discharging their work, they are very professional. They are
very proud people and very happy to wear the uniform of the
Canadian forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
honored to speak to this motion, which reads:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to
provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian
Forces.
[English]
In speaking on this motion, it is very important to note the
words “provide strong political leadership”.
Note that the motion does not simply say provide leadership, but
political leadership. This puts the emphasis on the elected
representatives which is where I believe it firmly belongs.
1535
Also, when we speak of the Canadian forces we are speaking about
the civilian and the military components, a fact which often
escapes the public. Sometimes when the public think about the
Canadian forces, they think solely about those men and women in
uniform. We must remember that there is also an important
contingent of men and women working side by side those men and
women in uniform. They are the civilian workers who team up to
provide Canada with an excellent, proud and professional service.
Also when we think about the Canadian forces, we have to
remember that the people working for the Canadian forces
sometimes find themselves in a category of occupation which is
often overlooked by the public except in times of emergencies,
such as policemen, firefighters and emergency workers. These are
people with jobs we would not normally want to do ourselves but
we are certainly happy to have them there when the occasion and
the need arises. Perhaps politicians fall in that category as
well.
I am talking about the category of workers who sometimes find
themselves in a thankless job. People are their friends as long
as they are doing exactly what they want them to do but the
minute that is not the case they seem to forget about them. We
have to remember that sometimes the public do not give as much
recognition and as much honour as they should to the people in
our Canadian forces. Because of the nature of this occupation it
is very important that we have good leadership, not only
leadership within the services, but also good political
leadership.
The other thing the public sometimes fail to remember is that a
job in the military today, even though we talk about
peacekeeping, is still very dangerous. It is not a job to be
taken lightly. In an article in Maclean's magazine
Sergeant Dale Lyne in speaking about his work in Bosnia talked
about the fact that his engineer regiment dodged booby traps to
defuse land mines. They survived having guns held to their heads
by the local combatants. They retrieved body parts of soldiers
blown up by mines. This is certainly not a job a lot of us would
aspire to. Because of the nature of this job, we feel it is
important that there be adequate political leadership.
What makes us feel that today there is not that quality of
leadership? Already the member opposite has mentioned many of
the problems that would support the fact that there is need for
good strong political leadership.
We have heard about low morale because of frozen pay levels and
lack of promotions. There are a lot of problems around family
life and inadequate housing. Many spouses find themselves unable
to meet their daily expenses and struggle while their spouses are
away. We hear stories about soldiers having to buy their own
boots to serve in Bosnia. There are many instances which we read
about or hear about which lead us to feel that there is just
cause for the low morale which exists within the military.
I think of military members who have families. We are told that
the long absences can be devastating for those who are left
behind. I read in a magazine article about Andrea Grant who has
two children and is married to a leading seaman at CFB Halifax.
She lives in a cramped apartment in the city's north end. She
said that she sometimes cries herself to sleep when her husband
is at sea. Not too many of us can relate to the feeling of having
to cry oneself to sleep because their loved one is away.
I personally can empathize to a certain point with the aspect of
someone being away that you care about. My father worked on the
railway.
He was away from home at least three or four days each week. As
a young boy growing up I can well remember how much we missed his
presence in the home and how happy we were when we would hear the
doorbell ring when he returned home from his trip on the train.
He had a special ring on the doorbell and we automatically knew
it was him. Even the family dog recognized that ring of the
doorbell and would jump up and run to the door before any of us.
1540
My father was not in any danger when he was away. He was working
on the train and unless there was a train accident he was quite
safe. But our armed services personnel are quite often away in a
foreign land in a different culture. They are faced with unknown
things that may occur, for example land mines. We can therefore
understand why someone like Andrea would cry herself to sleep
while her loved one was away. These are some of the things which
our armed services personnel are faced with.
Then we read stories, one as recently as in today's paper,
reportedly, and I say reportedly because all the facts are not in
yet, but reportedly about a $2 million party for the top brass in
the military. When we look at this kind of expense, whether it
be $2 million or $300,000 as the minister said today in question
period, it is still a fairly major expense for a celebration when
people are faced with an inadequate amount of money perhaps to
buy medicine for their children.
There is another story along those lines. Quoting from a
magazine, we are told the story of Kathy Couture who had never
broken the law in her life until one night in October 1996. She
walked into a pharmacy in Victoria, slipped a bottle of
children's Tylenol into her pocket and walked back out. She said
“I was terrified. I shook for hours when I got home”.
Couture's six year old daughter Natasha had a raging fever. It
was five days until her husband, sailor Mario Couture, would be
paid and the family did not have the $5 to pay for the medicine.
They had moved to Victoria from Halifax only weeks before and
they knew no one they could ask for the money. “My husband was
shocked. I was shocked”, said Couture. “I still cannot
believe I did that. But I had to”.
The conclusion of this story talks about the parliamentary
committee that travelled to Victoria in January. Her husband
chose not to speak. He was afraid he might be too honest and
would offend some people, but Kathy did speak out. She did speak
out because she had hurt so much. She said it is her friends and
neighbours in the military subdivision that kept her going while
Mario was at sea. “It is very hard on your self-esteem. I
think to myself I am worth more than this”. Kathy can only hope
the politicians hear her testimony and agree.
I would say today it is important that we as politicians hear
these stories, understand and show some empathy. When we are
making decisions concerning our armed forces we should not look
at the bottom line as being the dollar but rather look with a
compassionate heart to see what we can do to help our military.
The Minister of National Defence said today in question period
when he was talking about the forest fires in Alberta that once
again the armed forces were coming to the aid of fellow
Canadians. I would ask today, who is coming to the aid of our
Canadian forces?
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the member if he feels that the initiative that
was undertaken by the minister was a worthwhile one, in terms of
having the national defence committee go from base to base asking
members of the forces about the problems regarding salary, living
conditions and working conditions.
Would the hon. member not concede in his franker moments that
was an act of political leadership relating to the forces, it was
something that was absolutely necessary? It is a difficult
process and one that certainly has not been easy for the
government in terms of hearing the various stories that have come
up. It is a difficult process and one which was absolutely
necessary under the circumstances.
1545
The second question I would ask concerns the Canadian public as
a whole. The hon. member may or may not be aware that I have a
motion on the order paper to declare June 15 as Canadian forces
day and to celebrate the achievements of the Canadian forces.
Is that something the member and his party could support?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those two
very interesting questions. Certainly it is very important for
the standing committee to hear stories directly from members of
the Canadian forces about what they are experiencing. Even more
important than hearing them would be for the government to show
strong political leadership to follow up on the concerns in a
meaningful way to address the issues.
With respect to declaring a given day as Canadian armed forces
day, we always have to be careful that when we declare any given
day as a special day we do not lose sight of the fact that every
day of our lives should be special for those issues. We cannot
weaken our obligation in that way by just having a special day
where we highlight certain things. It is important to
concentrate each day of our lives upon the concerns of our
Canadian forces.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
find it rather interesting that the NDP member is talking from
the heart about this issue. As we travelled to different bases I
was very disappointed to see that members of the NDP were not
that involved. They did not show up at a lot of the places
except if it happened to be in one of their ridings.
They are self-professed as being very strong in the ASD file. We
really did not hear a lot from them. Maybe the member could
answer as to why they did not show up at those meetings.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, rather than answering why
we did or why we did not I would like to emphasize some of the
things we in fact did.
One of our members travelled to Goose Bay, Labrador, to see
firsthand the situation involving the downsizing of services
there. Many members of our party have been involved directly
with military personnel and with civilian personnel and hearing
their concerns firsthand.
We may not have been in the same places as the hon. member but
we have been there. We have always been there and we will
continue to be there.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the
NDP had chosen to help the military by voting against the
purchase of EH-101 helicopters.
I am wondering why today we hear complaints from members of the
NDP who say that the government should be supporting things of
this nature.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I always find questions a
bit amusing when people point to something in the past and try to
justify exactly what is happening today. The hon. member can
look to his own party. He can look to positions that were taken
at one point in time and then subsequently changed for whatever
reason.
We are concerned about the present situation with respect to our
Canadian forces. We are supportive of the concerns they brought
forward. We want to work in the best interest of resolving those
issues. I do not want to dwell upon past history which has no
meaning to what we are concerned about today.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon.
As someone who served for a brief period on the defence
committee and to elaborate on the last question asked about why
we were not more visible at those public hearings, I remember
that the first swing the committee took was in late January. Our
caucus had a meeting and a subsequent meeting the following
weekend so I was only able to get to one of them.
I must respond to the question of the hon. member for
Nepean—Carleton regarding whether it demonstrates great
political leadership and wisdom to convene the committee to hear
frankly from military men and women about pay and rations.
1550
Calling a committee meeting probably demonstrates the absence of
political leadership. The easiest thing anybody can do is to
have a committee to discuss an issue. As I said in committee,
and I feel very comfortable standing in my place and saying it
here today, a lot of this was about busy work. It was to keep
the defence committee travelling around. It was also demeaning
to hear people admit that they used food banks.
In the meeting I attended in Moose Jaw in late January, Mr. Cory
Robinson, a second lieutenant at CFB Moose Jaw, indicated he had
to go to the local town and country mall to moonlight there for
$5.75 an hour to properly feed, house and clothe his family. It
must have been extremely difficult for Cory Robinson and hundreds
of other people who attended those meetings. They all came out
because they are concerned but I am sure it was not easy for
them.
I remember saying at a committee meeting last fall that I did
not run for parliament to determine what was an appropriate pay
and ration for men and women who serve in the military forces. I
am aware that there are professional people who do this on a
permanent basis.
There are standards. There are groups that are at the lower end
of the pay scale and others at the upper end that are doing
relatively the same kind of work such as police officers and
firefighters. If we look to the United States, the United
Kingdom or other appropriate countries we can find their levels
of pay and benefits for military men and women.
I do not accept that it is showing great political leadership to
have directed the defence and veterans affairs committee to
travel around the country to meet with people to discuss this
issue.
It was probably a way of keeping the defence committee from
looking at other things that would be more relevant. Obviously
we do need an effective well paid military, but if we wanted to
look at the helicopter issue or submarine issue in a more in
depth basis we could not do it because we were travelling to look
at pay and benefits. I do not accept at all the premise I have
heard earlier this afternoon.
My colleague from Halifax West also talked about alternate
service delivery. That has been a major concern in the Palliser
riding which has 15 Wing Moose Jaw. I will read into the record
a recent letter from Mervin Ernest who said:
My co-workers and myself have been in limbo awaiting decisions on
contract finalization and most of all, job offers
from—Bombardier—.This whole privatization process has dragged
on far too long. This has been an extremely stressful time for
all the employees and their families. I have seen many
manifestations in my co-workers including stress illnesses and
all the personal problems it can cause.
It's very clear that with everyday that passes, current
Departure Incentives, Alteration and Relocation options that have
been available to us will very soon cease to exist—.
As an employee of DND, I have only two burning questions. Do we
have a job or not and if not, will there be financial assistance
(Early Departure Incentive—) for those being terminated?
In bold face he wrote:
Please, we just want to get on with our lives!
That is the kind of lack of esprit de corps that the committee
has seen and heard about over recent months at both the military
and the non-military levels.
1555
At this point in time the Canadian government has not decided
what it is that the department of defence could and should be. It
is trying to be all things to all people. It has not decided
whether its primary role is to be a peacekeeping role or whether
it is to be a full military role.
Because it has been unable to decide that, it is stretched very
thin. Its equipment, as we all know, is relatively seriously
outdated. It is stretching badly the pay, rations and benefits
of the men and women who serve in the armed forces or the
civilians working in the armed forces.
Until the government demonstrates the leadership to determine
what in effect it will be when it grows up, these problems will
continue to be there with the poor quality of housing and the
lack of other amenities which come with that territory.
I have not seen any lack of leadership. I would agree
wholeheartedly with the recommendation before us:
That the House condemn the government for its failure to provide
strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.
I hope we put an end to this charade of travelling around and
forcing people to demean themselves by telling their personal
stories, of their trips to the food bank and their moonlighting
jobs at a minimum wage, and get on with the job of paying our
Canadian men and women who work in the armed services a decent
and fair salary.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since my name was mentioned by the last member I feel compelled
to stand once again. You are damned if you do and damned if you
don't as far as the NDP is concerned.
If the minister had said they were to talk to a few generals to
straighten out the problem with morale, quality of life and
living conditions in the forces, the NDP would have been the
first party to say that was another top down solution and that
the government was ignoring the rank and file. However, when the
minister takes the initiative to have the defence committee go
out to various bases in a true bottom-up solution, to solicit the
views and concerns of members of the forces, the NDP goes on the
attack once again.
It is unfortunate because it is a very historic effort on the
part of the defence committee. It has never happened before in
Canadian history. It has never gone to members of the Canadian
forces, who are trained in terms of their discipline not to speak
up, not to be political, to receive their comments. The minister
is to be congratulated.
I have another comment to make before I sit down. The NDP does
not seem to understand either the white paper and what the white
paper is all about. The white paper provides for a multipurpose
combat ready force serving Canada. That is exactly what we have.
There is no confusion there. If the member read the white paper
I am sure he would appreciate the details of what are the
responsibilities of the Canadian forces.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, again I simply do not
agree that there was any leadership demonstrated in this whole
area.
If they did not want professionals to look at the situation and
resolve it, why would they not simply let the Canadian military
have the right to join a union as some other countries do and
negotiate pay and rations with the government? Why not sit down
and do it that way?
Mr. David Pratt: They do not want to do it.
Mr. Dick Proctor: How is that known? Has there been a
vote?
Mr. David Pratt: I have been to 13 bases and the
consensus is absolutely no way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Please do not leave
the Chair and the rest of members out of this debate.
1600
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Nepean—Carleton says that he has asked people. There are votes,
there are secret votes, there are hand ballots, there is hand
raising and the whole thing. If the government was serious about
this it would consider this option.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Peterborough.
I am very pleased this afternoon to address this motion on the
government's leadership with respect to the Canadian forces. I
believe that the government has indeed shown tremendous
leadership.
Last year the then Minister of National Defence published his
report to the Prime Minister. That report, along with Chief
Justice Dickson's report on military justice, contained 100
recommendations on how the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian forces should move forward to change, to improve and to
restore the pride and sense of purpose of the forces.
These reports recommended that action be taken in areas such as
military discipline, value and ethics, leadership, the command
and rank structure, operational missions, terms and conditions of
service, the national headquarters and relations with the
Canadian public.
The very comprehensive nature of these changes reflects the
extent of the challenges we were facing. At that time the
Department of National Defence and the forces were emerging from
turbulent years. There were challenges to respond to successive
budget cuts, personnel reductions and a very active slate of
operations both at home and abroad.
Intense public scrutiny was taking its toll and resulted in the
leadership, discipline, command and management, and even the
honour of the Canadian forces being called into question. But
since that time the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian forces have been very busy implementing these
recommendations and putting in place many other initiatives.
Before I describe those initiatives I would like to briefly
mention some of the many initiatives the government took during
its first mandate.
In 1994 the government established the special joint committee
on Canada's defence policy of which I was a member. In response
to that valuable report the government wrote the 1994 white paper
on Canada's defence policy.
In 1995 it was this government that established the commission
on restructuring the reserves. I am proud to say that I was
chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs when we reviewed that commission's report.
Since then the government has made numerous achievements in
implementing necessary changes.
Closer to home, I wish to commend the minister for his
commitment to Prince Edward Islanders when he announced the
construction of a new naval reserve base in my riding of
Hillsborough. This new base is now up and running and is
recognition of the islanders' unwavering support for the Canadian
forces.
I might just say that in 1939, the day war was declared, every
one of the members of the HMCS Queen Charlotte volunteered
for active duty.
Before I get carried away with the countless past initiatives, I
should revert to the most recent examples of how the government
has shown excellent leadership. To begin with, there is almost
entirely a new leadership team. Solid leadership is essential to
implementing reforms, and every one of these leaders has
expressed their commitment to moving the agenda forward.
Another example of these changes is the NATO flying training in
Canada program. Under this initiative, which was announced last
November, industry partners will carry out most of the functions
that are now handled by the defence organization. This project
will significantly reduce the cost of training military pilots.
It will also mean almost $1 billion in direct industrial benefits
for this country.
These are just two types of changes, but there are other major
areas of reform that show leadership. For example, the Minister
of National Defence responded last October to the report of the
Somalia commission of inquiry in a report very aptly entitled “A
Commitment to Change”. This report addressed each of the
commission's recommendations and indicated agreement with some
83% of them. Of the 28 recommendations that were not accepted,
most of the underlying concerns have been or will be addressed in
a different way than the commission members specified. But they
will be addressed.
In many cases the commission's recommendations were already
implemented and others have specific target dates for
implementation.
1605
The commission of inquiry requested that the minister report to
parliament on the department's implementation of the commission's
recommendations. In addition to this report, the minister has
asked prominent Canadians to participate in the minister's
monitoring committee on change, which will report semi-annually
to him on the department's progress.
Another important initiative is amending the National Defence
Act to allow for comprehensive change to the military justice
system. These amendments, which were referred to the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, will help to
renew the Canadian forces by enhancing the transparency, fairness
and effectiveness of the military justice system.
In fact, following this morning's very productive meeting, I
expect a favourable report to the House to be forthcoming.
These amendments, the most comprehensive ever since the
enactment of the NDA in 1950, clarify the roles and
responsibilities of key figures in the military justice system
and establish a clear separation between investigative,
prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions. The amendments
improve accountability and transparency by creating two oversight
bodies, namely, the Military Police Complaints Commission and the
Canadian Forces Grievance Board, both of whose reports will be
tabled in parliament by the minister.
Implementing these reforms is all about being able to maintain
multipurpose, combat-capable forces that are able to defend
Canadian interests and contribute to international peace and
security. Moreover, these reforms are also about ensuring the
trust, respect and confidence of Canadians as the forces carry
out these tasks.
Because the government believes this policy stands firm, it has
also taken steps in the past year on certain white paper issues,
such as equipping the forces. For example, among the various
capital investments made under our leadership, the government is
acquiring four Upholder class, diesel-electric submarines from the
United Kingdom.
The government has also decided to purchase 15 search and rescue
helicopters for the Canadian forces. The Cormorants have the
power, speed and endurance to cope with the extreme weather
conditions and vast distances that characterize Canada's unique
and challenging search and rescue environment.
Of course, since last year there has been a very busy slate of
operations, both at home and abroad.
I do not need to remind members about the natural disasters
Canadians faced over the last year and that the Canadian forces
took part in all of them. We have recently sent 50 Canadian
forces personnel, including 16 reservists and some equipment, to
help fight the terrible forest fires in Alberta.
At the same time as undertaking these domestic operations there
have also been changes in the forces' international activities.
For example, just yesterday the minister announced that we are
sending 20 to 30 personnel and 10 specialized front-end loaders
to Italy to assist in the clean-up of the devastating mudslides
in the area of Sarno, Italy.
Last December members of the forces returned from serving with
the United Nations mission in Haiti, where they assisted in
sustaining a secure and stable environment.
Recently Canada agreed to participate in two new missions. In
February the government announced that Canada would send the
patrol frigate HMCS Toronto and two KC-130 Hercules
tactical air-to-air refuelling planes to the gulf as Canada's
contribution to possible military action against Iraq. The
government has also approved Canadian participation in a new
three-month United Nations peace support mission in Central
Africa.
From what I have described so far we can see that a great deal
of work has been done over the last year. Changes are being made
on every front. I believe these changes have demanded strong and
effective leadership from the government.
These are changes that will improve transparency and
accountability, changes that will improve the quality of life for
members of the forces, changes that will ensure the forces can
continue to do the job that the government has assigned to them.
I believe that the government has indeed shown and will continue
to show leadership with respect to the Canadian forces and it
should be commended for that.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to another ministerial
speech from the parliamentary secretary. I would like to bring
up this point with him.
He mentioned the natural disasters that have occurred in the
last several years across our country, in the Saguenay, in the
Red River and the ice storm, and I fully support the military's
role, their great efforts and their great work to help the people
affected by those disasters.
However, if such a disaster were to occur in British Columbia,
what would the government's response be?
This government closed CFB Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley.
That base would have provided support to the greater Vancouver
region if there were a natural disaster. There are over two
million people in that area. The closest base has now been moved
to a Liberal riding in Edmonton.
What a big surprise. I cannot believe it. If there were a
natural disaster in that region of the country the forces would
have to go through the Rockies for 12 hours with heavy equipment
to get there. If there were a natural disaster, I rather doubt
that route could be taken by the forces.
1610
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that there is a new naval
base in his own riding. Surprise, surprise. I am questioning
whether the government is basing these decisions on sound policy,
on directions for the country, or is it more political patronage
in the establishment of these facilities?
I want to hear about CFB Chilliwack and why this government
chose to close that facility.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, numerous bases have been
closed over the last number of years, Chilliwack among them. A
lot of bases were closed, but the really big hits took place on
the east coast of Canada. The air base in my own province of
Prince Edward Island was closed in 1989. These things have been
going on since the end of the second world war. Many of these
bases were out of date and no longer needed.
As far as the Canadian forces' being able to get to British
Columbia, there will be no problem with that. As I said in my
speech, we have already sent troops to Italy. I am sure if we
can send them to Italy we can certainly send them to British
Columbia a lot faster.
As far as the naval base in Prince Edward Island is concerned,
it has been ongoing for a number of years. It was through this
government that we finally got the money to complete it. This
was promised long and ever ago. It is now in place on the east
coast. It is a very good naval base. I believe that Prince
Edward Island and all other provinces deserve to have a military
presence.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs. I hoped he would talk a little about the
problems between veterans affairs and the Canadian forces. In
our travels through the different bases we heard quite a bit from
people who suffered injuries while in the forces. When they
leave the forces and go to veterans affairs there seems to be a
block in the interchange between the two. Information is not
getting across.
There is a problem with different doctors. The Canadian forces
have one doctor and when they go to veterans affairs they see
another doctor. There seems to be a blockage. Every time
somebody applies to veterans affairs they do not seem to get the
two tied together. Medical documents seem to disappear. They
melt going from one to the other.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the
information handed down to the committee will go immediately to
veterans affairs to be handled, or will we have to wait for it to
go through report stage?
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his questions. There is no doubt, and I have heard it many
times in my office as I know he has heard it in his, that people
have experienced this breakdown in communications and, for want
of a better word, this turf protection between the two
departments.
I listened to members from veterans affairs the day before
yesterday as they appeared before our committee along with a
liaison officer from the Department of National Defence. There
are still problems with people who are injured in the forces who
then leave the forces and come under the Department of Veterans
Affairs. However, I am confident this is being overcome. It is
not 100% yet. There is no doubt there is a long road to go.
The member talked about different doctors, one from national
defence and another from veterans affairs, examining the same
person. These things must be overcome and they are being
overcome as we go down this road. As this communication
continues, as a result of a number of investigations by the
committee, by the McLellan report and others, I believe it will
be much easier for people leaving the forces to get veterans
affairs benefits than it has been in the past. That is not to
say it is right and all fixed by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I am confident from what I have heard in the last week
that the changes being made are real and that people are very
serious about making this transition as seamless as possible.
1615
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to join this debate on the motion concerning the armed
forces of Canada.
As my colleague has just indicated, the record of this
government in meeting the defence challenges and defence needs of
this country is outstanding. Our defence policy is responding to
the characteristics of the post-cold war environment. Our
Canadian forces have shown themselves to be fully capable of
executing this policy. This is a clear reflection of the strong
political leadership which the government has provided to our
forces.
The Canadian forces are designed to do many things. They
protect Canada's sovereignty, secure our global interests and
co-operate with friends and allies in maintaining a stable,
peaceful international system.
Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, the Canadian forces have
played an increasingly important role in promoting international
peace and security around the world. They have participated in
an unprecedented number of peace support operations during this
time.
Over the past few years our Canadian forces have been subject to
intense public scrutiny and indeed criticism. Yet at the same
time they have continued to carry out their assigned tasks both
at home and abroad with professionalism and courage. These fine
men and women have been put to the test time and time again and
they have accomplished great things.
Our military is recognized around the world for its expertise
and experience.
The people of our Canadian forces performed admirably during the
gulf war. They made a meaningful contribution to that campaign.
Since then they have participated in several deployments to the
Arabian gulf area to assist in the maintenance of the embargo
against Iraq. They have reached out to help and have spared no
effort in responding to the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda. While
they could not stop the bloodshed, General Dallaire's tiny force
was able to save thousands of lives.
They continue to assist in the international community in
dealing with the tragic conflict in the Balkans. Their military
contributions include land, sea and air capabilities as well as a
wide range of humanitarian activities. They helped stabilize the
volatile situation in Haiti and initiated a wide range of
humanitarian projects throughout that country.
They led a multinational response to ensure the delivery of
humanitarian assistance in central Africa thereby serving as a
catalyst to help break the impasse that had kept refugees in
camps for two years. Recently the Canadian forces have deployed
troops in the Central African Republic to assist in the
maintenance of peace and security there.
As my colleague mentioned this afternoon, our Canadian forces
have been asked to assist with the tragic mud slides in Italy.
We also have responsibilities very close to home. Last January
the Canadian forces mounted an operation which attracted
Canadians' favourable attention and I am sure warmed their
hearts. Operation recuperation was the largest peacetime
deployment of the Canadian forces in their history. Just as the
storm in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick showed Canadians at
their very best, banding together in times of trouble to assist
their friends and neighbours, it also highlighted one of the
Canadian forces' most essential roles: protecting the lives and
property of Canadians in times of crisis.
Operation recuperation at its height saw more than 16,000 men
and women of our Canadian forces deployed from bases across
Canada into storm ravaged areas where they assisted civilian
authorities in responding to one of the greatest natural
catastrophes in Canadian history. Masses of uniformed men and
women are a sight seldom seen in Canada's urban areas but there
they were during the terrible ice storm.
Newfoundlanders, British Columbians, Quebecois, New
Brunswickers, indeed military personnel from every part of the
country assisted with hydro repairs, distributed camp cots, air
mattresses and sleeping bags, set up and distributed generators,
assisted in clean-up operations, acted as police and advisers and
supplied water and hot meals.
I spent three days in the ice storm area and I saw this myself.
It was remarkable to see armed forces with full equipment
functioning in our own country in that way.
1620
Never was it clearer that the Canadian Armed Forces are a deeply
rooted national institution representative of all Canadians and
available to all Canadians. They provide a source of comfort,
security and pride drawing us closer together.
Like the assistance provided during the Red River flood in
Manitoba last year, or in the Saguenay and previous natural
disasters, or at the present time in Alberta fighting the forest
fires, these were proud moments for our Canadian forces. They
were fulfilling one of the crucial functions of any national
military organization: reacting, and quickly, to the unexpected
at the direction of the government.
Operation recuperation was a chance to render aid where and when
it was most needed, to help the taxpayers and citizens of Canada.
It was an opportunity to reinforce public faith in our Canadian
forces, in their professionalism, in their commitment to service
and in the value of maintaining a substantial viable military
organization even in times of peace.
Yet with more than 16,000 unarmed Canadian service personnel
rebuilding hydro wires and helping people in need move to heated
homes and emergency shelters, we must not forget that this
mission, critically important though it was, was only one of many
that we were asking our men and women in uniform to perform at
that time.
At the same time that thousands of our personnel were deploying
into eastern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, hundreds more
were completing a much longer journey to meet Canada's United
Nations obligations in the former Yugoslavia as part of the
international community's ongoing commitment to peace and
stability in that part of the world. They were replacing other
Canadians who had been there busy performing the same function.
Both missions were right and just. Both were rewarding and
potentially dangerous. Both demanded of our citizens in uniform
the utmost in training, preparation, will-power and skill.
These missions and others like them are not easy. The
professionalism of Canadian forces personnel in deploying so many
people and so much equipment so quickly to trouble spots does not
come without a tradition of expertise and many years of training
and experience. Such operations demand organizational skills,
physical toughness, mental agility and the art of leadership.
Sheer flexibility too.
Think of where the army, the air force and the navy have been
and what they have done in just the last two years. Saguenay,
Haiti, the skies over Bosnia-Hercegovina, Manitoba, Zaire, the
Arabian Sea, ex-Yugoslavia, the Central African Republic,
Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick, Italy. These are in
addition to all our more longstanding, ongoing obligations.
The fact that the Canadian forces have accomplished so much
during the past few years is proof positive that this government
has provided and continues to provide strong political leadership
to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member who said his government has
provided leadership for some time. It may be true in a sense,
but there have been some scandals. Some military personnel gave
a wake-up call to the government by doing unacceptable things.
Of course, I also want to pay tribute to the Canadian and Quebec
members of our armed forces. A number of my former students are
serving in the forces and they honour us through their
tremendous work. However, when we say that a government must
take its responsibilities, we mean a lot more than that. What do
we do with an army?
Do we want a peacekeeping force or combat troops?
1625
I think Canada should opt for a peacekeeping force and that
decision should be made collectively. The government should
assume its responsibilities, because what will the role of an
army be in five or ten years, if not to maintain peace, or to
provide services to the community, as was done in the
Lac-Saint-Jean region, in the areas hit by the ice storm, and in
Manitoba? I salute our military for their role in these
instances.
It is essential to define the role of our forces. But how are we
going to equip them? With submarines? Through contracts that
were signed, that the government does not want to fulfil, or
that it countersigns?
We lost an incredible amount of money with the helicopters. Is
this taking one's responsibilities? I do not think so. Is this
providing leadership? I do not think so.
I also want to talk about another point, women in the forces.
How many women said they were almost persecuted? How many women
generals are there in the Canadian forces? Women do not have the
importance they deserve, and I wonder what the hon. member has
to say about this.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a
number of interesting points.
There is one thing I would like to say first though. I think
for a variety of reasons our armed forces have come through a
period of time when they have been subject to enormous public
scrutiny and criticism. Although wherever there is fault there
should be public scrutiny and criticism, I would like to think we
have come through that stage now and we are at the time when we
can support our armed forces and we can compliment them for the
things that they have done and for the things that they do.
That is what I was trying to do in my speech. It was not to
ignore some of the problems but the time I hope is now past to
emphasize the problems.
With regard to the other parts of my colleague's questions,
first in defining the role, as I tried to point out, we ask a
great deal of our armed forces. We ask them to be available for
disasters here and abroad. We ask them to be in relatively
peaceful peacekeeping situations and very dangerous peacekeeping
situations and so on.
I do not see how in the modern world we can design an armed
forces except one that is very flexible and capable of performing
all sorts of tasks, while at the same time being combat capable.
It is important. The Canadian forces are a military unit. They
have to be combat capable, but also in the new world they have to
be able to adapt to a great variety of situations. I do not think
it is easy to define a single role or even one or two roles.
The hon. member mentioned the matter of equipment. It is very
important, as has been stressed today, that we now move steadily,
after some of the problems that we have had, and properly equip
our armed forces.
I mention the submarines. I myself, as you know, Mr. Speaker,
have done a great deal of work on sea ice. I have studied sea
ice in various parts of the north. I greatly regret the fact
that we have not had the capability, except by air, of getting
people and troops, if that is the right thing, into some of the
remote parts of Canada which are covered by ice.
The submarines, I hope adapted for under ice work, will be a
useful addition to one of the many capacities that our armed
forces need, which is to deal with the huge northern territory,
land and sea, that we have in those parts.
With respect to women, I make the point again, in my view great
progress has been made with the role of women in all parts of our
armed forces. I agree with my colleague and I hope that progress
continues.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment insurance.
1630
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.
Canada has a very rich and proud military history. Since
Confederation our young men and women have responded to this
country's call to arms by risking their lives in defence of our
country.
The exploits of our Canadian military personnel are legendary
throughout the world. History will always remember the
determination of our heroic young Canadians at Vimy Ridge during
the first world war. Their heroism helped turn the tides of
battle in favour of leading to the eventual allied victory. Vimy
helped define us as a nation.
The second world war saw our young Canadian soldiers involved in
some of the most important battles of the war. The ill-fated
landing on the beaches of Normandy, our victorious return to
Dieppe and our successful victory during the battle of the
Atlantic are all part of Canada's proud military history.
Often lost to Canadians is the vital role our military has
played and continues to play in helping maintain a peaceful
existence throughout the world. Our Canadian peacekeepers are
among the most respected throughout the world. The demand for
Canadian peacekeepers continues to exceed our capabilities.
Records of Canadian peacekeeping operations can be found in
troubled countries throughout the world including Bosnia, Turkey,
Somalia and Haiti, just to name a few.
Most recently our military has received great praise for its
efforts at home. I would like to extend our appreciation and
congratulations on recent citations of excellence for the work
performed during this winter's ice storm, as well as last year's
Winnipeg floods. At present some of our forces are involved in
fighting forest fires in Alberta. These acts of compassion
within our own boundaries have helped rekindle the once proud
image of our military.
I mention the military's proud image in the past tense because
since the government took power it has done everything in its
means to reduce this proud organization from a first rate
fighting force into nothing less than a support operation for our
NATO allies.
It pains me deeply to have to say this about our military.
However, consistent government cuts in military spending and a
lack of leadership from the top are responsible for seriously
reducing our military's capability resulting in serious morale
problems. It does not take long to come up with reasons there is
such a serious morale problem in the military.
The Liberal government has done more in recent years to destroy
our Canadian military than the German army did during both world
wars. It closed many of our military bases across the country
including CFB Cornwallis in my riding. In most instances these
bases had a long and proud history of service to the Canadian
people. The government has even refused to allow stained glass
windows that were removed from Cornwallis base to be returned as
part of the new military museum. These windows were donated to
the base by those who trained there to commemorate all those who
participated in the battle of the Atlantic.
This part of our military heritage has been tucked away where
only a select few will have an opportunity to enjoy them. The
wishes of our military personnel are once again being ignored.
Our brave young helicopter pilots continue to risk their lives
each day flying dangerous, antiquated Sea King helicopters. These
helicopters have long since worn out their usefulness and should
be replaced. For each hour flown it takes almost 24 hours of
maintenance, and I believe I am conservative in that comment. An
hon. colleague says 70 hours of maintenance. It is not a good
ratio.
For what can only be described as crass politics at its worst,
the Liberal government chose to gamble with the lives of our
brave pilots by cancelling the former government's EH-101
helicopter deal. Not only did it stick Canadian taxpayers with a
$500 million cancellation penalty, but it also delayed delivery
of much needed helicopters putting our pilots at risk of death or
serious injury.
The government will say it has purchased new search and rescue
helicopters at a much cheaper price. These new helicopters
resemble the cancelled EH-101, but taking into account some of
the needed modifications to these new helicopters the final tally
will be very close to the original EH-101 deal therefore offering
Canadians no savings at all.
1635
Our military personnel who served in the gulf war deserve our
utmost appreciation for a job well done. They distinguished
themselves with honour. How does the government choose to
recognize these brave men and women who once again answered the
country's call in a time of crisis? I am not sure it recognizes
the valiant efforts of these soldiers.
The government still refuses to recognize this conflict as the
gulf war, instead choosing to call it special duty area Persian
Gulf. I believe we are the only country involved in that war
which does not acknowledge it as such. By not recognizing it as
a war the government can defend its decision not to award the
veterans the same disability benefits as they would war veterans.
During the recent SCONDVA hearings in Halifax we heard from a
number of military personnel and their spouses. Among those
presenting was a wonderful human being from my constituency by
the name of Sue Riordon whose husband has been left totally
disabled from the effects of gulf war syndrome. The military has
a gulf war clinic, yet the government does not recognize the gulf
war. Military doctors question the existence of this syndrome.
Surely they cannot deny the debilitating effect this disease is
having on thousands of Canadian and U.S. veterans alike.
People such as Sue Riordon, Louise Richards, Rudy Saueracker and
Michael Innes, to name just a few, have had to battle the
Department of National Defence every step of the way to try to
obtain benefits they and others affected by gulf war syndrome are
legally entitled to receive. Many former veterans have refused
to pursue their rights for fear of reprisal through possible
reduction of their existing pensions.
There is reason for fear as Sue discovered. Having raised very
pertinent questions about gulf war veterans benefits she quickly
found herself and her husband being chosen for audit with the
results continually pending.
Our military needs the government to show some leadership. The
stories about military personnel moonlighting because they cannot
make ends meet, our veterans having to fight tooth and nail with
national defence to secure an adequate pension, living
arrangements on bases that are far less than normal standard,
torn uniforms, outdated equipment, and a serious lack of
direction for our military personnel are all about problems that
must be immediately addressed by the Liberal government if we are
ever to restore pride and dignity to our military.
As parliamentarians we have a duty to Canadians including our
Canadian forces. If we do not speak up for them who will? If we
continue to treat them with disrespect how will others treat
them? If the government fails to provide leadership to our
forces how can we expect our forces to show leadership whether it
is in Canada or abroad?
These are but a few of the illustrations of the government's
continuing campaign not to provide for the military. The
government sends speaking notes on Remembrance Day in November
and then forgets about its veterans until next year. I believe
we should remember and honour our veterans each and every day.
The government has forgotten our veterans. The government wants
to forget the men and women who serve in our forces today.
I am humbled to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of
all the men and women who fought and continue to serve so
valiantly on foreign soil in the quest for peace and freedom.
Lest we forget.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for West Nova
especially the genesis of his talk. He seemed to be using all
the correct terminology when speaking about our military being
honourable, dedicated, devoted and hard working. Then he reached
a certain point in his discourse where he went downhill faster
than an Ottawa valley otter could slide into the local creek, on
his belly I might add.
The hon. member raised the case of the helicopters and was
rather creative in his methodology. I had a math teacher in high
school who certainly would disagree.
In the first instance he was talking about $5 billion with the
Conservative government, and then the Liberal government did the
right thing and put the helicopter bidding process out for public
bid. It received the best bid that it possibly could get,
although personally I was a little disappointed that Boeing,
which is in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, was not
the successful bidder. We saved literally hundreds of millions
of dollars in the awarding of that contract.
1640
The member said there were certain reprisals for people who
appeared before the defence committee which has been travelling
throughout the country. Many people do not realize that
committee members from all political parties have been doing an
absolutely outstanding job.
I might say to the member for West Nova that even a member from
his particular party has not been real conservative in his
thinking when it comes to looking after the spouses and members
of the military. He should inquire from his colleague in his own
caucus. All people who appeared before the committee have been
told very explicitly that there will be no reprisals whatsoever.
An hon. member: Is this a speech or a question?
Mr. Hec Clouthier: I am getting to the question. I just
had to set the record straight. I will rush to the conclusion.
With regard to the veterans he would be interested to know that
the veterans in Canada have without a doubt the best compensation
of any veterans in the entire world. I would ask him, if he
would care to do so, to respond to my question.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in
answering the hon. member's question.
The hon. member states that he was very happy to hear my
comments, but I think he became disturbed when I went further and
spoke the truth about the situation that our forces are faced
with. I think it hurts him. My mother used to tell me an old
saying that the truth hurts. The truth is hurting and we are
hearing it today.
Let me just quote a couple of facts about the cost of killing
the deal for the EH-101 back in 1993. They do not take into
account that the deal the Conservatives entered into in 1993 was
for 15 search and rescue helicopters and 35 shipborne
helicopters. We are getting 15 helicopters similar to the
EH-101s for a similar cost or less money but by the time they are
reconfigured to function the way they are supposed to there will
be very little saving.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mark Muise: The hon. member just goes on and on
shooting rhetoric across the floor so I will sit down.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the morale. I would like to
ask him the following question.
With approximately 60,000 troops in the Canadian forces and 60
generals we have more commissioned officers per soldier and per
military personnel than any country in the world. No wonder the
NCOs are in the mood they are in. Would the member not agree
with that?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, the morale question in the
military is not necessarily one that has to do with dollars,
cents and equipment. It is how people are treated. It is how
military men and women who are still serving see their
counterparts that have left the military being treated by the
institution they so proudly serve. When these types of things
happen we cannot expect anything but for morale to drop.
The staffing situation is also another issue but I see that I do
not have time to continue.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, essentially
today's debate has touched on a number of details and
information, but primarily the problem is this government's lack
of respect for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I think that is the way it can be summed up lack of respect.
1645
Our military personnel go everywhere in the world. People react
favourably when they see “Canada”. They are drawn to the men
and women who represent us in peacekeeping missions. They are
glad to see our soldiers in Bosnia and elsewhere.
When there is flooding or some other problem in some part of the
country, our armed forces personnel go out into the part of the
country affected, to our counties, to our rural areas, and
Canadians and Quebeckers are glad to see the men and women of
the Canadian forces out lending a hand. They are glad to see
them there, glad to know they are not ignoring those with
problems, glad they will lend a hand.
The men and women of the armed forces are respected by people
everywhere except by the government, or more precisely by
cabinet.
I am prepared to say that, when it comes to looking at the
problems of the armed forces, my colleague for Compton—Stanstead
is far more aware of the details than I, but one might say that
the general in charge of the armed forces is a man respectful of
his men and women, and respected by all, a man who is doing a
good job. What is it that is not working properly?
We turn to the minister. I would not want to make any excuses
for the minister, but I do believe that in some cases he wants
to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces receive the
equipment, the training and the money they need to do a good
job. The problem again lies within cabinet. We do not know
how, but funding is being cut by 30%.
With the helicopters we have today—because the government
decided to buy some—every hour of flying time requires 70 hours
of maintenance. Essentially, our helicopters are birdhouses
with rotors on top. That is what they are like now. They put
the lives of our pilots and their passengers at risk.
Today we would have the latest model helicopter had the
Liberals, for strictly political reasons, not spent over $500
million to cancel a contract on an election promise. This shows
a lack of respect for Canadian forces.
It also shows a lack of respect for Canadians for having wasted
$500 million. The Minister of National Defence also displayed a
lack of respect for parliamentarians in preparing to announce
the purchase of helicopters by trying, for purely political and
partisan reasons, to find a way to hide the fact that the
helicopters were the same as those the Conservatives wanted to
buy, in consultation of course with the Canadian Armed Forces.
They looked for a little hint, a little sales pitch to say that
the helicopters were not the same. They came up with a name:
Cadillac, Chevrolet. That was the best they could do. In the
meantime, months went by and no helicopters.
The issue was totally partisan. How can the men and women in
the forces feel good about themselves and young people be
interested in signing up if the purchase of the helicopters was
delayed over the need to come up with a name like Cadillac or
Chevrolet? They waffled about for six months. This is a
flagrant lack of respect.
The armed forces are being realigned, but there are limits.
There is still a problem. Our soldiers have no boots. The
uniforms are pitiful. The men and women in the Canadian Armed
Forces have no boots. There are no boots.
I was a mayor for some ten years, and we supplied work boots to
our employees. That was customary. We had them. If a pair of
boots were worn out, we replaced them. They are having a hard
time getting boots for the Canadian Armed Forces. There are
limits. Is there no respect?
How do we expect to get people to join the armed forces when we
cannot even equip them properly?
Incidentally, I have in my riding one of the businesses that
manufacture boots for the armed forces. I am sure that it is
ready and able to carry out a contract to supply the men and
women of the armed forces with boots.
Another example of lack of respect, which my colleague touched
on, concerns those who saw battle and supported allied forces in
the gulf war.
1650
They will not admit that the gulf war was a war. Why? Because,
once again, they do not want to recognize gulf war veterans.
They are showing a lack of respect for the men and women who
fought and provided support services in Iraq.
It is the same thing with helicopters. Instead of describing
them as Cadillacs, they describe them as Chevys. Instead of
talking about the gulf war, they talk about the Persian
adventure or whatever. There is a big problem somewhere. I hope
the minister is not the problem. I do know, however, that the
problem is within cabinet.
A clear message ought to be sent to the men and women of the
Canadian Armed Forces to let them know that the days of savage
and disrespectful cuts are over. First we cut their funding,
then we ask them to give us a hand. Enough is enough. It is time
to send them a very clear message.
Helicopters were finally purchased, but at an absolutely
incredible price. Let us not forget that, until the old
contraptions were replaced with brand new helicopters, for each
hour of flight, the military had to spend ten hours on
maintenance. It all adds up. Now, we can say goodbye to our old
contraptions and fly decent aircraft. Eventually, we will also
get decent submarines.
Could we not send other messages as well, because our Canadian
Armed Forces members are human beings.
There are human problems on the bases. There have been a number
of suggestions, in several documents, that an independent
ombudsman be established to whom the men and women in the forces
could turn to obtain information and report difficulties. Why
not?
This would be one of the best messages we could send the men and
women in the Canadian forces, and it would not cost a fortune.
We are not talking about helicopters, boots, submarines or
canons. We are talking about the human element in the armed
forces. The human issue must be resolved by humans.
In closing, we hope that there will be humans, men and women, on
the government side, who will finally understand what the men
and women in the forces are really going through and agree to
provide solutions.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nippissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has a problem with the way he sees money.
My apologies. I speak French like an Ottawa valley logger. My
French is not as clear as that spoken in Paris.
The hon. member has a big problem with money. Permit me to
point out that, before the last election, the Progressive
Conservative Party was talking about cutting $800 million from
the defence budget. The member said the Liberal Party showed no
respect in its handling of the helicopter and submarine
acquisitions, but it is the Conservatives who decided to cut
some $800 million.
I might ask my colleague to comment on that.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I understood perfectly. The
member's French is truly excellent.
I would, however, tell my hon. colleague not to think too much
because, if he does, he will come up with the right answers and
probably cross the floor to join us. I therefore ask him to be
patient.
On the issue of money, and I made this very clear, there is of
course an economic context. What is clear, however, is that the
armed forces have always been one area where it was easy to make
unwarranted cuts. It is peacetime, the government says, and
proceeds to cut, cut, cut.
If the hon. member wishes to pursue the matter, however, he
could perhaps read the document and the appendices. What my
colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, regularly proposes
in committee is that there should be a guideline and some common
respect for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. I
think that is important.
In conclusion, I remind the member that we have nothing to learn
from him about finances, because, with an election in the
offing, the government party, with a single stroke of the pen,
signed a lovely cheque for $500 million and up to cancel a
helicopter contract for strictly partisan reasons, thus
endangering the lives of the men and women who fly these bird
houses.
1655
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate. I think the role
of the Canadian government, at least these past few years, in
supporting the defence forces has been not brilliant but very
good at the very least.
I would like to direct my remarks primarily toward the reserves
because I am very interested in the whole issue of the reserves.
My riding is Wentworth—Burlington, but close to my riding in
Hamilton there are two major reserve battalions of great historic
fame, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and the Argyle and
Sutherland Highlanders.
Just two weeks ago the member for Burlington and I went on a
training exercise with the Argyles at Meaford, the militia
support training centre opened in 1995 near the little town of
Meaford in the Bruce Peninsula. Note the date, 1995. This is
obviously an initiative of this government, not the previous
government.
This militia training support base is a part of a series that is
to be opened across the country. There is already one that has
been opened at Valcartier in Quebec. There is another one to be
opened in the west at Waineright ad there are two to be opened at
Gagetown and Aldershot in the maritimes.
The theme of these proving grounds is to give Canada's reserve
forces an opportunity to train in near combat circumstances.
Meaford is a section of ground that was set aside during the
second world war for the training of our troops for overseas. It
went more or less into mothballs for many years. It was opened
1995 primarily for the use of the militia but also permanent
force people train there as well.
It was very interesting. The member for Burlington and I
arrived about noon and we were taken on to the proving grounds.
There are some very excellent and modern support buildings,
barracks for permanent forces primarily but also for militia
forces. The area is very large, comprising of a lake, a section
of the Niagara escarpment, a lot of brush and mixed countryside.
In one section of the proving grounds there is an artillery
range.
While we were there we saw artillery being fired. They use live
rounds because they want to test the quality of the ammunition.
More important, we went down to where the Argyles were dug in.
There were dug in to some terrain facing the mock enemy. The mock
enemy were not all that mock. They were U.S. marines from
Buffalo who were testing out the Meaford proving grounds. They
were the supposed enemy approaching the Canadian militia across
about two kilometres of open ground.
It was very interesting. The youngsters who were in the
foxholes dug on the side of the hill were men and women who had
been recruited from primarily the city of Hamilton and the
surrounding area. There they were in foxholes with their primary
support weapon, the C6, and a machine gun derived from that in
their positions. They were staring across the countryside at the
opposing forces that were supposed to be coming.
It was very interesting for me. I have done some research in
the past on the military. One of the great dangers of peacetime
military is that it might get engaged in buying toys or buying
hardware that has political value but little real value in the
event of combat.
1700
As a military historian, I was most interested to see that
these young militia members in their foxholes were armed with
something called a C6, an automatic fire weapon that fires bullets
of about .25 in calibre. It is actually measured in millimetres but
I can never get the metric straight. It is half the weight of the
bullet that would be carried in a normal AK47 or M30 or whatever
it is the Americans use.
This weapon was totally without class. In other words, I cannot
imagine gun dealers across the world wanting to acquire this
weapon. It is manufactured in Canada. We started manufacturing
it in Canada for Canadian forces only four or five years ago.
It is a superlative firearm. The average soldier can carry
twice the amount of ammunition as an opposing soldier carrying
one of the more traditional firearms that we would expect in
Russian made weapons and certainly NATO made weapons.
We can see that someone in Canadian forces hierarchy is thinking
very carefully and is considering the fact that when there are
Canadian forces in the field, they want to minimize the weight
and maximize the amount of munitions they actually carry.
This was a superb gun as well in the sense that the militia
members demonstrated to me and explained that it was a gun that
fires dirty. In other words there is not a lot of maintenance.
It is extremely reliable.
I thought to myself that there is a lot of intelligence going on
somewhere in the Canadian forces brass, in its hierarchy, to come
up with a specific firearm for use by the Canadian forces and
which is unique to the Canadian forces.
Provided that we do not have a repeat of the catastrophe that
occurred in the first world war with the Ross rifle. I do not
know whether many people around here remember Canada's first
foray into producing its own—
An hon. member: George Proud.
Mr. John Bryden: George would know. I do not know that
many people in this Chamber would go back to the first world war.
Certain members might, perhaps.
Nevertheless, this is a superb weapon, and I am very, very
impressed. I was given the opportunity to fire the machine gun.
It was quite amusing. It was more amusing to see the member for
Burlington lying on the ground firing this machine gun because as
you know, Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington is noted for her
charm and forthrightness. It was quite amusing to see her down in
the trenches firing this machine gun. Fortunately, it had blanks
in it and I felt quite safe as a result.
The important point about this is that this machine gun was
highly portable and the amount of kickback was very minimal. We
are looking at weapons that have been designed for the modern
battlefield.
Coming back to my militia, it was very interesting because there
they were, all dug in. Their weapons were in place. Later we
moved down the road to look at the opposing forces. Along the
road came the U.S. Marines and I have never seen anything like
it. It was really amusing because these enormous young men with
big shoulders were marching along. I could not help but laugh
because in comparison to these youngsters serving the Canadian
militia up on the hill awaiting the enemy, they were huge
strapping professional soldiers.
I have to say that this C6 .25 calibre high power weapon is a
great leveller. The reason they can use the lighter weight
bullet is that it has the same ultimate impact of bullets twice
as strong.
Maybe I am just showing my Canadian nationalism but in the end I
would put more trust and more confidence in those youngsters from
Hamilton who were manning those trenches. Provided that the
Canadian government always remembers to equip its forces
properly, we cannot go wrong in the kind of policy that we have
toward our militia.
Turning to that, I will point out that in 1994 the defence
committee came out with a white paper that suggested cutting back
on the reserves.
It is very important to listen to what standing committees
produce and what the MPs in this Chamber produce in
recommendations to the government.
1705
We can say with some satisfaction that the defence minister
overrode some of those recommendations and had another report
done. Rather than cut the reserve forces back to a total of
24,000, he in fact reinstituted a basic level of 30,000 for the
primary reserve. In this year's estimates almost $1 billion is
going into the support of Canada's reserve forces.
I should switch for a moment. I have another story with respect
to our reserves.
Not very long ago, I think it was last year, the HMCS
Shawinigan came into Hamilton harbour on a demonstration
cruise. The then defence minister was there to tour the ship and
I happened to be able to come along. Local dignitaries on the
afterdeck were enjoying an occasional glass of wine and quite
nice sandwiches. I had the opportunity to go along with the
first officer and tour the Shawinigan from stem to stern.
It is like the C6 gun I was talking about. The Shawinigan
is a superb little vessel. This is tomorrow's ship. Technically
it is a minesweeper. It goes along on the ocean and it is
supposed to spot mines, but in fact it maps the ocean floor. It
has multiple defence capabilities. There is a container in the
back of the vessel. At that time the container contained extra
barracks. The Shawinigan is designed just like a container
vessel. Any container containing any kind of weapon system on
the Shawinigan can be transposed and it can be turned
literally overnight into any kind of a support vessel.
The other thing that impressed me about the Shawinigan is
that it is designed to be extremely mobile. The design of the
ship's bow thrusters, which are not installed and I hope the
defence minister will install them shortly, combined with the
type of propulsion it has, the Shawinigan can actually turn
on a dime. It can turn on its length. It should be able to turn
on its length.
In today's world we have the problem of homing torpedoes. These
are torpedoes which can be left on the sea floor and as soon as a
vessel passes nearby, they can pursue the vessel and sink it. The
Shawinigan has the capability of avoiding contact by one of
those undersea missiles on very short notice. This is one of the
reasons it is such an excellent support vessel, an excellent
minesweeper.
I do not like to say this, with all due respect to the Minister
of National Defence, but I actually like the forethought that has
gone in to the Canadian built Shawinigan more than the
forethought that is going in to the submarines that we are buying
from Britain. I do want to say that I support the minister's
decision to buy the submarines, but Canadian built is better.
These vessels, like the Shawinigan, and there are four of
them, are better than anything in any known navy.
What does that have to do with the reserves? The entire crew of
the Shawinigan except for the chief officer are reservists.
The reserves also have a naval reserve based in Quebec, for those
who are interested in the regions of the country and how they
play into our Canadian forces. We have about 5,000 reservists
and they take their training and do their duty on these vessels.
It was most interesting to go around with the first officer. I
am really sorry I do not remember where in the country he came
from. He was most informative in showing me the various systems
in place on the Shawinigan.
1710
In terms of Canadian defence policy, preparing for the next
millennium and preserving our nation, we have to stay ahead of
the worldwide threat that will constantly develop against Canada.
I am not talking about peacekeeping. I am talking about actual
threats.
The difficulty is that Canada is one of the richest nations in
the world. I am sorry to say that we have to protect that status
and our sovereignty. We will always be the subject of a certain
amount of hostility from other nations, not necessarily third
world nations nor former iron curtain nations. There are other
countries which sometimes have designs on Canada. That should
make us want to preserve a very active and capable military
response.
That is why the reserves are so important rather than a
professional army which takes a long time to change. With great
respect for our own professional army, professional armies are
like military bureaucracies. When you join as a private or as a
young officer and you stay in for 20 or 30 years, you are very
much influenced by your first experiences. Your vision tends to
be rooted very much in the past. An army with at least half of
its response force made up of reserves has an advantage. It
provides the opportunity to work with young people to create a
modern army that is loyal to its new weaponry.
Meaford was an interesting experience. There was a change from
armoured personnel carriers and tanks. The Persian gulf war
showed us that this type of hardware is enormously vulnerable and
is no longer an effective answer in a land war. We have actually
turned back to the citizen soldier. This is another reason I
like reservists. We are creating a Canadian forces based on the
classic concept of the citizen army. It is just like republican
Rome. When the state gets into trouble it has a cadre of
relatively well trained personnel to call upon to answer the
emergency.
While I do not pretend to be an expert on all the things the
government has done in terms of national defence, I believe the
minister is very much on track with his changes to the reserve
forces. This is where we should make the investment. In
tomorrow's wars, whether it is peacekeeping, whether it is local
wars, or whether it is a national emergency, we need intelligent
citizen soldiers who understand modern weaponry and modern
tactics.
I would put my faith any day in those young militia members I
saw at Meaford or on the Shawinigan rather than in the
professional soldiers I saw from the United States or any other
country either in NATO or out.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his very interesting speech. I quite
enjoyed it. There is only one thing that bothers me a bit. It is
probably the same situation as the situation I expressed to the
member for Oak Ridges.
It is this thing of the militia. The member said that the
government has made steps by increasing the numbers of militia.
The member talked about Meaford and other training centres across
the country and about improving training. At the same time the
bean counter somewhere along the line has said it is fine that
the numbers have been increased but now the expenses have to be
cut down. So they have dropped the training to 32 days a year
which is not enough time to give somebody good training and to
get them used to it. The member has seen how the militia works. A
normal training year used to be in the 60 day range.
Now we are talking half of that time. By expanding the numbers
but cutting the hours we are dropping behind.
1715
I would like to see both the hours increased and our soldiers
well trained, particularly our militia. Part of the problem is
that we seem to be comfortable with the fire power they have.
Unfortunately they are lacking a lot of other things.
The militia has access to clothing, but they do not seem to have
access to other things such as equipment. Our soldiers find
themselves in the opposite situation. They do not seem to have
access to clothing. Something seems to be missing.
Perhaps the member would care to comment on that.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of a
debate like this is that we can raise genuine issues that we are
concerned about.
When I was at Meaford I was impressed by the basic weaponry they
were supplied with. They had excellent weaponry. But I did
notice that the tents, for example, in the communications area,
although well organized with maps and so on, had holes in them.
My thought was that if it rained they would get pretty wet.
There was no doubt about it.
I would also like to say that while I applaud the fact that the
primary reserve level has been brought up to 30,000, I would
actually like to see it increased even more. I would like to see
the reserve increased by another 10,000.
What I failed to mention in my speech is that the reserves have
an enormous role to play in our society in giving young people an
opportunity to serve in an environment in which they put selfish
motives aside and look at larger issues such as serving their
country and being part of an effort that is not celebrating just
the individual, but working together as a group.
Do not mistake my remarks that I am only here to praise the
government. I believe there are things the government can do. I
agree with the member on the equipment problem. I believe from
what I have heard the defence minister say, especially during
question period, that there is a move afoot to re-equip the
Canadian forces. If we are going to send these kids out to fight
it is very important that they have the best weapons.
I believe that someone at the head of the defence establishment,
and I would like to think it is the minister but I suspect there
is some brass involved as well, is thinking ahead and will supply
the Canadian forces with the appropriate weaponry first. Next
must come good equipment and, I agree, more hours if possible.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed my colleague's remarks, but I would like again to pick
up the question of the reserve.
I agree with my colleague. He gave the example of citizen
soldiers in our cities, but it seems to me that many of the
peacekeeping operations that we have around the world are best
served by a judicial mix of regular soldiers and citizen
soldiers. Very often the troops are dealing with civilians and
it is good to have combat-ready troops, but it is also good to
have troops who may be combat-ready but who live in normal
communities.
The other aspect of that, of course, is that the reserve
provides a presence for our armed forces in all the communities
across the country and it ties in with the cadets. I heard the
member's remark about the increase. I had heard that we were
perhaps the only one of the G-7 nations with fewer reserve troops
than regular troops. I wonder if my colleague knows if that is
true and I wonder if he would comment further on how we might
develop a larger, more diverse, effective reserve force.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the
member's question is, we need to make more of a financial
investment.
1720
We already have the infrastructure because the armouries are
there, but if we invest in another 10,000 reservists and the
equipment they require we will more than recoup that investment
in the savings we make on intercity problems. It is not that we
are taking off the street kids who would otherwise be involved in
crime. It is not that at all. When we take young people into
the Canadian forces in a reserve capacity what happens is that
they go back into their communities with their uniforms and they
become a part of the community. It is like the Boy Scouts. They
return to their communities and they have a tremendous role to
play.
We saw the value of the reserves, of the citizen soldiery, in
the ice storm incident and in the problem we had with the floods
out west.
It is a worthy investment. Let us agree on all sides of the
House that we can conclude this debate by saying there is
consensus on all sides of the House to invest more in the
reserves and to do more for the young people of Canada. It will
promote the nation, it will promote the flag and it will make
Canadians that much more proud of themselves.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the previous speaker made some comments with respect to the
submarines about which I was very intrigued. He did not seem to
be all that enthused with the decision to go with the Upholder
submarines.
The defence committee recently had the opportunity to tour the
HMCS Okanagan, one of the current submarines in our fleet.
Commander Dermot Mulholland was delighted about the fact that
they are very cheap. He said it was like a dream buy for the
Canadian forces. They are extremely quiet and they are faster
than the current submarines, the Oberon class submarines. They
will also give us an opportunity to train well with the
Americans.
What problem does he see with the Upholders? Many people think
it is a great deal?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the
Upholder is the Shawinigan. Vessels like the
Shawinigan are more than a match for vessels like the
Upholder, and the Shawinigan costs a lot less.
The reason the Upholder is a good investment, and I support the
government on this, is that we need to have modern submarines in
order to play games with the Americans. Basically that is what
it amounts to. In order to stay abreast of any submarine warfare
we have to have the latest in technology and the Oberon class of
submarines is the latest in technology.
I also note that the purchase of the British submarines is
basically an exchange deal for time on Canadian ranges for
British troops. It is not so much a dollar investment as it is a
military exchange with the United Kingdom.
In the end, in tomorrow's world, smaller is better, although I
do support, in principle at least, the purchase of the four
British submarines.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to start by saying that I appreciate the efforts of the
Conservative Party for presenting this motion today. The motion
reads:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide
strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.
I expected that we would have heard from speakers from all
parties in the House today that in fact that leadership is
missing. We have indeed heard as we travelled with the defence
committee, of which I am a member and of which many of the
members who have spoken are members, that there is a lack of
leadership on the part of the government when it comes to the
Canadian forces.
I will talk about this leadership from a couple of points of
view. First, I will give a clear demonstration of the lack of
political leadership by making two key points and then I will
demonstrate the lack of commitment by talking about one
particular case involving the military's most important assets,
people.
1725
First, the lack of political leadership can be clearly
demonstrated in several ways. Let us start with funding. Money
is not everything. Putting more money into the military is not
going to solve many of the problems that we have in the Canadian
military today. However, funding has dropped below a critical
level which does not and will not allow, even with proper
management, Canada to sustain the kind of military force that it
needs to provide the basic security that Canadians expect for our
country. Funding has dropped from $12.5 billion in 1992, just
before this government took office, to $9.3 billion this year.
Clearly this government, as it has over the past many years, as
all governments have over the past 30 to 35 years, found the
military to be an easy target. Because of the lack of commitment
shown to the military by the top leadership in this country the
general public does not get too excited when the military is cut.
That situation is changing due to the involvement of the men and
women in our forces in some of the key natural disasters that
have taken place. But funding has been cut from $12.5 billion to
$9.3 billion.
Other than funding, a complete lack of support on the part of
our Prime Minister and this government has been shown in several
ways. For example, when was the last time we heard the Prime
Minister say that we need a strong military to provide basic
security for this country? I challenge anybody to remember
that. I certainly cannot and I doubt that anybody in this House
can. It has not happened. The Prime Minister is not committed
to having a strong military. When was the last time we heard the
Prime Minister say that the men and women of the forces are doing
a great job? We saw a little bit of that when the men and women
of the forces were involved in the ice storm, in the floods and
in peacekeeping.
The Prime Minister seems to completely miss the point that the
primary role of our forces is to provide security for Canada as a
sovereign nation. The lack of belief on the part of governments
over the last 30 years that we need a strong military force to
provide that basic security has led to the situation we see
today.
That contrasts dramatically with what we see in the United
States. I point to our neighbour to the south. There are a lot
of things they do not do right, in my judgement, but one thing
the president certainly does is acknowledge the need for a strong
military to protect that country. Occasion after occasion he
points to the men and women who have served so well. We could
point to the men and women in the Canadian forces in the same way
because they have served well.
I want to talk about the lack of commitment by bringing the
attention of this House to a specific case which was dealt with
in committee about three weeks ago. I will quote the chief of
defence staff who was at the committee meeting in a minute.
However, first, I want to set this up.
A woman by the name of Mrs. Dolhan phoned me. I talked to her
for some time. This is an extremely serious situation which I
believed would be dealt with. It involves Master Corporal Dolhan
who is a member of our forces. He was parachuting under very
unsafe conditions. He was one of eight out of eleven in that
particular jump who fell into trees. He was injured. There was
a bungled rescue attempt to get him out of the tree. He ended up
in the hospital. The comments made by him and his wife were that
they have had absolutely no support from the military. That is
sad.
I brought this case to the attention of the chief of defence
staff in committee about three weeks ago. The chief of defence
staff, General Baril, said this:
This is one of the examples that we are taking, that when an
accident happens we've got to cover all angles. We have only one
chance of maintaining and furthering the confidence of the men
and women who are serving and if we miss it, we miss it for a
long, long time and we hear stories that Col. McLellan has heard.
We will never be able to repair the damage that was done, but on
that case I think that I can assure you that we got the bull by
the horn on this one.
1730
She is not an unreasonable person. All she is asking for are
some very minor expenses to be covered, expenses that are not
minor for her. These are expenses to cover the mileage when she
takes her husband to the hospital which she has to do at least
twice a week, coverage for some child—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion
have expired.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from April 1, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic
manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
had no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing to second Bill C-247,
introduced by my colleague for Drummond and entitled an act to
amend the Criminal Code.
I am therefore pleased to rise today during this last hour of
debate on this bill. We are debating the necessity of clearly
banning the cloning of human beings.
The rapid progress made in recent years in new reproductive
technologies raises crucial questions on medical ethics.
Less than year ago, Dolly the sheep was in the headlines all
over the world. Scientists in Scotland translated science
fiction into reality by creating a lamb from a cell taken from
an adult female sheep. She subsequently gave birth to a
seemingly perfectly healthy lamb. The clone, a carbon copy of
the original, caused a commotion throughout the world, and
reopened the entire debate on regulating the new reproductive
techniques.
If applied to human beings, this technique raises important
ethical questions.
Scientists say that cloning does not require very sophisticated
technology and could unquestionably interest some scientists or
provide an opportunity for rich eccentrics to realize dreams as
dangerous as they are appealing.
In this respect, I draw your attention to the work of a Chicago
scientist, Dr. Richard Seed, who wants to open a human cloning
clinic to produce children for sterile couples, a new kind of
fertility clinic. This announcement, reported by the press
earlier in the year, makes us realize the extent of the problem.
This scientist applauds the absence of legislation in the United
States; there is nothing preventing him from going ahead with
his project. Should his country ever pass legislation
prohibiting cloning, he would do his experimenting in Mexico.
This is the context in which Bill C-247 takes its full
significance.
The only way to counter such behaviour is to prohibit the use of
this technique altogether.
Because it involves the future of mankind, who we are as human
beings, our origin and the whole way we relate to each other, to
allow human cloning, appealing as it may sound, is to destroy
the uniqueness of each individual.
Given the speed at which new reproductive technologies were
developing, in 1989, the federal government established a royal
commission of inquiry—better known as the Baird commission—on
the subject.
1735
Four years, and $28 million, later the commission handed in its
report: 1,275 pages and 293 recommendations, including one to
ban human cloning, and I quote “We have judged that certain
activities conflict so sharply with the values espoused by
Canadians and by this commission, and are so potentially harmful
to the interests of individuals and of society, that they must
be prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal
sanction. These actions include human zygote-embryo research
related to ectogenesis, cloning—”. This is from page 1022 of the
Baird commission's report.
Despite the urgency and importance of the problem related to
ectogenesis, it was not until 1997 that the government decided
to take action and introduced Bill C-47. But came the election
and the bill died on the order paper.
Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, the government has
done nothing about this issue, although the situation is
evolving rapidly and more than ever demands new legislative
measures with respect to new reproductive technologies.
Canada is now one of the only major western countries that has
had neither the courage nor the will to pass legislation with
respect to these technologies.
Following the announcement by Dr. Seed, which I mentioned
earlier, some 20 European nations approved a text prohibiting
human cloning and introducing sanctions. This text completes
the European convention on biomedicine signed by 22 member
countries of the Council of Europe.
This measure will extend to all European countries that sign the
protocol and will entail serious sanctions for infractions, in
particular the loss of the right to practice for offending
researchers. This measure will also apply to European citizens
and European corporations operating outside Europe. These
concrete measures should be echoed in North America. Bill C-247
is a step in that direction.
It was no accident that the Scottish lamb was given the name
Dolly. No civilized society will ever have the right to give
life to infinitely reproducible dolls. Our most precious asset
is our identity, our right to freedom and life in every sense of
the term.
I am confident that this bill will receive the unanimous
approval of the House.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-247, an act to
amend the Criminal Code as it relates to genetic manipulation. I
congratulate the member for Drummond for her efforts in
sponsoring this bill.
Bill C-247 would amend the Criminal Code by adding after section
286 a prohibition for genetic manipulation that could lead to
human cloning. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has hit the
nineties and it is a scary thought that science has advanced at
such a rate that this has become a reality, that in a science lab
a person might have the ability to create human life.
I think once again we find ourselves in the position in
government and in parliament to try to keep up to the quickly
advancing rate of science. As technology continues to advance we
too must advance and turn our minds to this situation.
This bill is very timely in light of the recent technological
advancements and developments that have resulted in, among other
innovations, the successful cloning of a sheep. As we have seen,
what once was thought to be completely impossible becomes
reality. We as law makers must be prepared in advance of other
new reproductive and genetic technologies.
1740
Unfortunately the government in this instance has been slow and
I want to remark on the steps it has taken. The Progressive
Conservative Party did have the foresight to lay the groundwork
for developing policy options with respect to this matter.
In 1989 the Progressive Conservative Party of the day had
established a royal commission on new reproductive technologies
and that commission's mandate was to examine the social, medical,
legal, ethical and economic considerations and implications for
new reproductive and genetic technologies. In particular, it was
to examine the area and implication of women's reproductive
health and well-being.
Following extensive consultations with Canadians the commission
reported its findings to the new Liberal government in November
1993, more than four years ago. The commission stressed at that
time the need for the federal government to adopt a comprehensive
public policy on new reproductive and genetic technologies.
In response to that commission the Liberal government announced
a voluntary moratorium on the nine NRGTs in 1995, which
continues to stand to this day.
In 1996 the Liberals tabled Bill C-47, the human reproductive
and genetic technologies act, which prohibited 13 practices
including cloning, transfer of embryos between humans and other
species and surrogacy arrangements. Unfortunately the Liberals
did not consider the legislation to be a priority and it died on
the order paper with the calling of the election last summer.
As with so many other pieces of legislation that died on
previous order papers, the Liberals have yet to reintroduce Bill
C-47. Again, hats off and praise to the member for Drummond.
Through her private member's bill she has attempted to fill a
void that was left by the government's inaction in this area.
On behalf of the Conservative Party I am pleased to say that we
support Bill C-247, the legislation that would draw a clear line
in the Criminal Code and set parameters in the area of human
cloning. Moreover, since the government has already recognized
that there was a need for some form of regulatory regime for
reproductive and genetic technologies, I hope government members
will join with those in the House in opposition who are in
support of this bill. They have taken what I would describe as
baby steps in this direction in the past in response to the report
I spoke of earlier and were moving in that direction. This in
essence provides a vehicle to do that.
It is important to note, however, that although Bill C-247 is an
important step to fill the vacuum there are still plenty of
legislative measures that need to be put in place and addressed
by this government.
Out of the 13 specific procedures that would have been
prohibited by the government's legislation had that bill passed
in the last parliament, only 2 are addressed and proposed in this
private member's bill. Furthermore, Bill C-247 does include a
national regulatory regime with a mandate to enforce controls on
improper genetic testing.
The Liberal government has a responsibility to introduce
comprehensive legislation similar to and based in principle on
that initial report, similar in content to what was before the
House in the last parliament.
Along with complementing the work of the member for Drummond,
any legislation the government introduces should also reflect an
emerging consensus for the need for a national regulatory regime
to manage the field of reproductive and genetic technologies.
This regime should also be allowed to be managed in a way that
would protect health and safety for all those affected.
Canada is very much in need of guidelines in this area. Next
month will mark the second anniversary of the government's
tabling of the human reproductive and genetic technologies act
and I encourage the government to stop any delay in bringing this
important issue back before the House and follow the example set
by the member for Drummond and introduce legislation to control
new reproductive and genetic technologies.
Most important, avoid any abuse or forays into this area without
some guidelines and parameters that would be firmly established
by legislation.
1745
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue because I believe it
is a classic example of the value of Private Members' Business.
I congratulate the member for Drummond for bringing the bill
forward. It addresses one portion of an issue that was covered
in Bill C-47, the bill that died on the order paper as a result
of the last election which purported to make all kinds of fixes
to issues of human reproductive technology.
One of the problems with our present system of government
sponsored legislation is that the government tries to get, and
rightly so, as much bang for its buck as it can. It prepares
omnibus bills that address entire issues.
For instance, Bill C-20 is a very elaborate bill that is looking
at amendments to the Competition Act. There is a group of bills
that look at whole issues that are debated in very grand style.
Sometimes they occasionally come to grief because they try to fix
so many areas that many flaws are discovered and the bills fail.
Bill C-47 on human reproductive technology is a case in point.
What killed it for me was that it wanted to stop genetic
research which would have in effect led researchers along avenues
that would have corrected genetically inheritable diseases like
muscular dystrophy. We had this incredible situation where a law
was coming down the pike that would have stopped cloning of human
beings, which we all agree is frightening and something we should
at least have a very long moratorium on. By the same token it
would have attempted to kill research in areas very much in the
public interest that hopefully would alleviate human suffering.
The problem is that the government—and I do not mean it as a
criticism of the government—traditionally in the parliamentary
system has always come down with big bills.
Where I think Private Members' Business has a tremendous role is
doing exactly what the member for Drummond is doing with her bill
which looks at one urgent issue. That urgent issue is that at
least Canadian society and at least this MP, if I may so, are not
prepared to have research go forward which could possibly lead
tomorrow to the cloning of human beings. That is a frightening
concept.
Not that we can make jest of it, but there are certain members
of the opposition I would only want one copy of. If we had
multiple copies of them I think we would all be very worried.
That aside, the reality is that we are not yet sufficiently
sophisticated as human beings to play God. I do not think we can
afford to go back into the science fiction books and actually
produce multiple copies of the same human beings. Quite apart
from religious ramifications it would raise huge ethical
dilemmas.
I cannot even begin to imagine the ethical problems that would
confront society in the process of choosing who would be copied.
Who would it be? Would it be some top politician? Would it be
some artist? Who would be the first to be cloned? Then how
would we prevent people being copied illicitly who might be
carrying genes or characteristics that are reprehensible yet have
the money to copy themselves?
It is an absolutely unacceptable concept.
1750
The difficulty is we know now that it is possible, or if not
possible it is immediately on the horizon. The member for
Drummond recognizes this. Discarding all the controversial
aspects of Bill C-47, she focused on the one thing that I think
most Canadians would absolutely agree with, that we must at least
have a moratorium now on the cloning of human beings.
The government's objection, as I understand it, is that the bill
would put the restriction and the penalty in the Criminal Code.
This is not an appropriate place for this type of penalty. We
can give the government the benefit of the doubt on that. The
government has to be very concerned about tradition, the
appropriateness of legislation and its effect.
I must say I tend to support the member for Drummond on this
issue. We must remember that if it goes into the Criminal Code
it will only be a temporary measure until we can come back to the
issue. Maybe it will take us a year. Maybe it will take us two
years. Maybe it will take us ten years, but we can come back to
the issue with a more comprehensive bill on reproductive
technology.
Quite frankly I do not think we will have an easy ride with any
new omnibus legislation on the subject. We need the bill to make
very clear that the country does not tolerate and will not
tolerate attempts to clone human beings. We can be open to other
forms of genetic research because we have to, because it is in
the interests of humanity to encourage our scientists to continue
with genetic research, but we should draw a line in the sand.
The bill does it. It puts it in the Criminal Code but probably
only temporarily and later we can move it to a more appropriate
place.
This is a classic example of Private Members' Business which
raises an important issue, offers Canadian society and the
government a way of putting on the back burner a very difficult
and emotional issue and sets it aside for now until society knows
better how to address it.
I have to say the member for Drummond has done us a service by
bringing the issue before the House and I thank her for it.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the
constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul in debating Bill C-247,
an act to amend the Criminal Code on the subject of genetic
manipulation. Of course the subject matter has a profound impact
on our human race, on our very humanity.
The essence of our being was shaken when a little more than a
half a century ago, in 1944 to be exact, research scientists in
the United States observed for the first time a human egg being
fertilized in a glass dish outside the womb of a mother.
Thirty-four years following that scientific milestone the first
live birth of a child, having its beginnings outside the human
body, occurred in England.
It was international news at the time, but at once it raised
many fundamental societal questions. I therefore understand that
today we are debating 20 years later this issue in the Chamber in
the bill before us.
I congratulate the member for Drummond on her initiative. I
concur in principle with the thrust of the bill, its prohibitions
on the cloning of the human embryo and of genetic manipulation
that could allow the transmission of an altered genetic structure
to a subsequent generation.
My intervention is in the nature of a friendly submission. I
have a reservation. How will the single focus, enshrining in the
Criminal Code one point of the very broad and complex
reproductive technology issue, be seen?
In preparing for this debate I revisited the two volume report
produced by the royal commission on new technologies that I may
have the guidance of its work and its wisdom. The royal
commission on new reproductive technology chaired by Patricia
Baird issued its final report entitled “Proceed with care” on
November 15, 1993. It contained 293 recommendations.
1755
Before I proceed further allow me for greater clarity to define
certain terms in the language of human biologists. First I go to
the fertilized egg before implantation as it develops during the
first 14 days. An embryo refers to a developing human organism
after implantation in the uterus until about eights weeks after
fertilization and a fetus refers to the human organism at the
beginning of the ninth week after fertilization until the time of
birth.
Why did I define these terms? The terms embryo donation, embryo
transfer and embryo research are inaccurate since they all occur
with zygotes and not with embryos in the language of human
biologists. However the terms continue to be commonly used and
we understand them in this context.
Embryo research since the milestones in 1944 and 1978 has raised
questions about the ethical and legal status of the embryo and
about how society's respect for human life should apply to the
situation. Concerns have been expressed about the potential
impact of embryo research on women and on society.
The royal commission was given the mandate to examine how new
reproductive technologies should be handled in our country. Some
40,000 people were involved in the work on the report “Proceed
with Care” from which I quote:
Commissioners have set out a blueprint for how Canada, with its
unique institutions and social make-up, can deal with new
reproductive technologies, regulate their use, and ensure that
future developments or use are in the public interest.
It continues:
At the same time, it will ensure that only ethical and
accountable use of technology is made, and demonstrate that
Canadians have wisdom, humanity, and compassion in the way they
choose to use technology.
The 293 recommendations were categorized into three general
categories: first, recommendations regarding the need for
criminal legislation to set boundaries around the use of new
reproductive technologies in Canada; second, recommendations
regarding the establishment and operation of a national
reproductive technologies commission to manage new reproductive
technologies within these boundaries; and, third, other
recommendations addressed to existing federal departments and
agencies.
With respect to criminal legislation and relevant to the bill
before us, certain activities according to the commission
“conflict so sharply with the values espoused by Canadians and
by this commission, and are potentially harmful to the interests
of individuals and of society, that they must be prohibited by
the federal government under threat of criminal sanction”.
My problem with the bill in terms of a submission is that the
actions defined by the commission include human zygote-embryo
research related to ectogenesis; cloning; animal-human hybrids;
transfer of zygotes to another species; maturation and
fertilization of eggs from human fetuses; sale of human eggs,
sperm, zygotes, fetuses and fetal tissues; and advertising for or
acting as an intermediary to bring about a preconception
arrangement.
What then will be the implication if out of this two volume
report we pick one or two items and say we will criminally
prohibit it at this point? Might it be implied wrongly that the
others are sanctioned? I am worried about that. I submit that we
ought to use an approach that is integrated and comprehensive.
The issue raised by the bill before us is of profound importance
to all Canadians. How we deal with it, as suggested by all the
speakers, is a reflection of our credo and faith as Canadians.
It is in this spirit that I say again I concur with the
principle of the bill. It is also in this spirit that I offer my
reservation and why I would prefer that the bill before us not
proceed at this time but be taken into account as we await the
government's more comprehensive response and integrated response
to this very delicate human issue that transcends political
partisanship and challenges us to a more thorough, careful but
urgent look as we prepare our parliamentary response.
In conclusion, this response may not be limited only to criminal
legislation but should encompass the totality of the
recommendations contained in the two volumes of “Proceed with
Care”, the full report of the royal commission.
1800
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to speak and I thank my colleagues for their
indulgence. I have to say I will be speaking against the bill
and I encourage my colleagues to give serious thought to my
arguments.
I am not opposed to the idea of prohibiting cloning. I think
everyone agrees on this point, and that is not where the problem
lies with the bill introduced by the member for Drummond.
I would draw your attention to the second part of page two. I
will quote from it, if I may, and then list my reasons for
opposing it.
The second part would necessarily prohibit the following, that
is:
—alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or
embryo, if the altered structure is capable of transmission to a
subsequent generation.
[English]
I would like to take a step back and perhaps put into
perspective why I think we should not approve such a measure.
In 1990 the international community launched what is called the
human genome project, an exercise of some 52 countries over 15
years that had as an objective to map out the human genome, our
entire chromosomes, the entire sequencing, the 100,000 or so
genes that are contained in human chromosomes.
Canada participated in that effort up until last year to the
tune of $21 million over five years, $1 million from the National
Research Council, $1 million from the Medical Research Council,
and the balance from Industry Canada. That has now lapsed and
Canada is no longer at that table. I think we should be back at
that table and I encourage the government to consider that.
The project is going so well that it is quite possible that by
the year 2002 the entire human genome will have been mapped out.
Why is that significant to this? There are about 4,000 genetic
diseases known. It is quite probable that we, the human species,
will have the ability to isolate the genes that cause these 4,000
genetic diseases and cure them. There are two ways of doing
that. One is the somatic approach which means that we can cure
the individual and it does not get transmitted into the next
generation, which is fine but then we would have to do it for
every person who is born with that genetic disease.
There are possibilities that we could cure some of these
diseases for good. To put this into the Criminal Code now would
prohibit Canadians benefiting from such advances when they come.
My colleague from Hamilton—Wentworth was saying this could be
in 10 years. The odds are very good that some of these diseases
will be curable long before 10 years from now. I would hesitate
to put in the Criminal Code something which would prevent us from
curing genetic diseases and transmitting that cure from
generation to generation.
I am not against the intent of prohibiting human cloning but I
certainly would not want us as parliamentarians to prohibit the
curing of diseases permanently. That is what we strive for.
I caution my colleagues in support of this bill.
[Translation]
We are entering a new era, that of genetics. We have had a
number of eras, but, in three or four years, we will have the
capacity to understand our genes. Naturally, there are benefits
associated with this, as there are also monstrous disadvantages
we cannot yet imagine.
We need not necessarily preclude the possibility of passing
on a genetic correction from one generation to another. I think
I also agree with the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. What has to be done, and what
the government must do, and the responsibility is its, is to
draft framework legislation for the whole issue of genetics.
We must be able to set controls on this enhanced knowledge and
to reap its benefits. Naturally, we must ban anything that can
be very harmful. I think everyone can agree on that. Instead
of passing a bill like this one, I call upon the government to
act and to strike a parliamentary committee if necessary.
Yet we must admit, dear colleagues, that we are on the verge of
an absolutely amazing era. As parliamentarians and as
legislators of this country, we must take the bull by the horns
and create a legislative framework that will indeed ban such
things as the cloning of human beings, without banning the
possibility of correcting genetic diseases or curing them
definitively. We must not make that error.
1805
I apologize for getting a bit more carried away than usual, but
these are things I believe in. Well intentioned as the bill may
be, I believe it is a mistake to put such limitations in the
Criminal Code at this point in time.
I trust that serious thought will be given to this, and that
instead of making this mistake, we will collectively do what
must be done, which is to make a pre-emptive strike and to create
a framework which will enable us to benefit from this new
knowledge and to eliminate the possibility of the human race
doing itself harm.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred until Monday, May 25, 1998, after Government
Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak to a matter I have raised in the past about employment
insurance eligibility.
Employment insurance is in a crisis. At the moment, fewer than
40% of unemployed Canadians are receiving benefits and yet the
surplus in the employment insurance fund is over $15 million.
On March 10, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development
when the situation would be critical enough to cause him to act.
When the percentage of those eligible for EI benefits is down
to 25% or 15%?
What would it take to get this government to revise its
eligibility criteria for employment insurance?
The minister said he was concerned about the situation but did
not understand why the proportion of unemployed people who
qualified for benefits was so low. Is the government blind or
simply stupid? It changes the EI eligibility criteria to make
it harder to get benefits and then wonders why people do not
qualify. After a year the government is wondering why people do
not qualify.
I would like to repeat the minister's response. He said this:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst would do well to
start learning about his own region.
The employment insurance participation rate in the Atlantic
region is 75%. The participation rate in the province of New
Brunswick is over 80%.
1810
I can guarantee you that I am familiar with my region. My hon.
colleague across the floor, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, is not.
That is why I invited the Minister of Human Resources
Development to come to Acadia. The local newspapers back home
supported this, and even ran political cartoons showing the
Minister of Human Resources hitchhiking his way to Acadia.
If he did get down to our area and saw the poverty in which
people are living, he would not be long in noticing that his 80%
figure does not exist.
Absolutely not. What is more, the New Brunswick minister of
human resources development, a Liberal, has called the
employment insurance changes terrible, and has said that fewer
people would be eligible for EI, so more would end up on
welfare.
Those are the words of a Liberal, the New Brunswick minister of
human resources development, and a Liberal like those members on
the other side.
Last week, moreover, another Liberal, minister of
intergovernmental and aboriginal affairs and acting minister of
education, Bernard Thériault, said that the crisis in Acadia was
the fault of the employment insurance changes. How can the
minister and the government not have any social conscience
toward the people of Canada?
Ours is not the only area affected. Look at Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, the Gaspé, and parts of northern Ontario. Or
northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan. I am just back from
B.C., and they had the same problem there too.
I am calling upon the government, once and for all, to examine
its conscience and do the right thing for Canadians, do what
Canadians want to see done. That $15 billion in the bank should
go back to the people it belongs to, in other words back into
the pockets of the workers.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this government is very concerned about unemployed workers and we
continue to develop policies to improve their prospects.
However, we realize the problem is more complex than the hon.
member is suggesting. For example, labour market changes such as
increases in long term unemployment between 1990 and 1994 played
a significant role in the decline in the proportion of unemployed
who receive benefits.
Simply providing passive income support through regular EI
benefits could never be a sufficient response to the problem we
are going through. We understand Canadians would not be
satisfied with a step backward to an obsolete system. Instead,
the federal government is working with the provinces to provide
real solutions for unemployed Canadians. We will create more
jobs by using a three year, $300 million transitional job fund.
That is now in place using general revenues to serve high
unemployed areas.
To date the fund has already created 30,355 jobs throughout
Canada, 8,067 in Atlantic Canada alone. We will also spend an
additional $800 million per year on active employment benefits
under EI, bringing federal funding to more than $2.7 billion
annually by the year 2001.
We are co-operating with provincial and territorial governments
to deliver these benefits in the best possible way. Labour market
development agreements are now in place or are under discussion
in all provinces and territories. Decisions on the best way to
help the unemployed get back to work must benefit from the
knowledge and insights of those who most closely are in touch
with local markets.
1815
We have confidence that these measures will be successful in
helping the unemployed return to productive employment. As
employment growth continues and the number of unemployed falls, the
ratio of beneficiaries to unemployed should rise again.
Nevertheless we are carefully monitoring the recent declines in
this ratio. The department is conducting an analysis of the
situation and the results will be released in a paper in 1998. We
will use that to make decisions for Canadians in the future.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.14 p.m.)