36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 119
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 10, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABITIBI
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN EDUCATION SERVICES
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRICENTENNIAL OF MAISON SAINT-GABRIEL
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITY OF L'ANCIENNE-LORETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE PETER WONG
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Bonin |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Fontana |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCUEIL BONNEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCUEIL BONNEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NIGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CASINOS ON CRUISE SHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANFF NATIONAL PARK
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL PORT CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Remarks of Members
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-420. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1510
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTEREST ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-421. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1515
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Candu Reactor
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ipperwash Provincial Park
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Care
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Assisted Suicide
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1520
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Violent Crime
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ferry Service
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1525
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bioartificial Kidney Project
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1530
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1550
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1555
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1600
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1605
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND CANADIAN BOUNDARIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1735
1740
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1755
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1800
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1815
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1830
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1835
1840
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1855
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1900
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1915
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-30. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1920
1925
1930
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
2000
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
2005
2010
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
2015
2020
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2025
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
2030
2035
2040
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
2045
2050
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
2055
2100
2105
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
2110
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
2115
2120
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
2125
2130
2135
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
2140
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
2145
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
2150
2155
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2200
2205
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
2210
2215
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
2220
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2225
2230
2235
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
2240
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
2245
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
2250
2255
2300
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
2305
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
2310
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 119
![](/web/20061116182130im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 10, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Bruce—Grey.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Ukrainian community in my riding of Parkdale—High
Park and Ukrainians worldwide are commemorating the 65th
anniversary of the 1932-33 famine in the Ukraine. This famine is
considered to be the largest famine of the 20th century and one
in which some seven million Ukrainians perished.
In 1932, under Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union
dramatically increased its grain procurement. Wheat grown on
Ukrainian farms was shipped to Russia and as a result many
Ukrainians were unable to feed themselves.
Soviet leaders, backed by the military and secret police units,
seized all food in an attempt to break the spirit of
independent-minded Ukrainians. Large parts of the Ukraine were
blockaded, with no food being allowed in and no one being allowed
out.
Only after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s did
information on this terrible human tragedy come to the world's
attention.
I join today with members of the Ukrainian community and all
Canadians in recognizing and remembering this man-made famine
that killed seven million Ukrainians.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the situation on the Pacheedaht Reserve in my riding is
desperate. Band members have begged for over a year for the
department of Indian affairs to investigate allegations of the
gross misappropriations of funds and lack of accountability. For
example: $1.8 million from Parks Canada, misappropriated; $1.3
million for treaty negotiations, misappropriated; $47,000 for
suicide prevention, misappropriated; septic fields draining into
the water table; social assistance and pension fraud.
The minister's response? Go to the RCMP. The RCMP, however,
cannot investigate. The result is that the Pacheedaht people are
caught in a vicious cycle with deteriorating third world social
conditions and nowhere to turn.
The government has tossed money at these aboriginal people
without accountability. The result is an abuse of the grassroots
people.
I challenge the minister to listen to the aboriginal people, do
independent audits and help those grassroots people right now.
* * *
[Translation]
ABITIBI
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 13,
Abitibi will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the annexation
of its territory to Quebec.
Until 1867, the Abitibi region was part of the Northwest
Territories. Negotiations were then initiated between the
provinces and the federal government concerning disposition of
the northern regions of the country.
On June 13, 1898, the Canadian government gave a favourable
response to the Quebec government's request, and the territories
of Abitibi and Mistissini were annexed through legislation.
The matter took 25 years to bring to a conclusion, and as a
result, Quebec acquired an additional 168,749 square kilometers.
This region, which is renowned for its mining and forestry
activities, plays an important role in the economic history of
Quebec and Canada.
My best wishes to all those who will be organizing activities
throughout the summer to mark this important anniversary.
* * *
[English]
QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is not the segregated United States of
yesteryear when government officials at all levels conspired to
defraud black Americans of their democratic and constitutional
right to vote in any election, including school board elections.
The segregationists used every trickery in the book to ensure
that southern blacks could not get their names onto voters'
lists.
Elections for the linguistic school boards are taking place
right now in Quebec and thousands of English-speaking Quebeckers
are being cheated out of their right to vote for the English
school boards because of the Péquiste government's ill thought
out voter registration process.
I call on all of my colleagues, including the Bloc MPs, to join
their voices with mine in denouncing this election debacle and in
calling on the Quebec government to ensure that all Quebeckers
can cast their votes on June 14 in the elections of our
linguistic school boards.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN EDUCATION SERVICES
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 8, a round table was held at York University in
Toronto, focussing on the commercialization of Canadian
education services. The Minister for International Trade
co-chaired this event.
Participants included representatives of national education
associations, of provincial bodies, of private and public
institutions at all levels, of the council of ministers of
education and of the provincial education ministers, including
the Quebec minister, as well as federal officials.
This event is noteworthy because it paves the way for enhanced
exchanges between all suppliers of education and training in
Canada as well as some partners on the international level.
Familiar as I am with what Canada has accomplished in education
and with the huge potential for international exchange and
co-operation in this area, I believe this initiative by the
Minister for International Trade will stimulate the
implementation of numerous partnerships aimed at the
commercialization of our expertise in education, both here and
elsewhere.
This is one more piece of good news for both our economy and our
entrepreneur-educators.
* * *
1405
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
a result of the Delgamuukw decision, the entire land mass of
British Columbia is now subject to land claims.
The entire legal jurisdiction of the B.C. government over its
aboriginal citizens and its natural resources has been
challenged. In other words, the foundations of the provincial
government have been shaken. What is the federal government
doing?
The budgetary estimates for the coming years show reduced
spending on land claims by the department of Indian affairs in
the order of over $200 million by the year 2001. These estimates
do not show one single dollar being allotted for any contingent
liability which might arise from the Delgamuukw decision.
I urge the government to address this problem as soon as
possible. Get on with the job.
* * *
[Translation]
TRICENTENNIAL OF MAISON SAINT-GABRIEL
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
page of our history was written this past year in southwestern
Montreal, in Pointe-Saint-Charles, in my beautiful riding of
Verdun—Saint-Henri.
Maison Saint-Gabriel is 300 years old this year. This house,
built by François LeBer and bought by Marguerite Bourgeois in
1668, was used both as a farm house and a residence for “les
filles du Roy”.
Thanks to the partnership between Heritage Canada and Maison
Saint-Gabriel, activities depicting everyday life in those days
will be held every Sunday as part of the 300th anniversary
celebrations.
As the member of Parliament representing Pointe-Saint-Charles,
allow me to congratulate all the organizers on showing us this
part of our heritage, and particularly Madeleine Juneau, who was
a driving force behind this project.
* * *
CITY OF L'ANCIENNE-LORETTE
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I live in
the city of L'Ancienne-Lorette, in the riding of Québec East,
which I represent.
In 1650, the Hurons, driven out by the Iroquois, left my home
town of Penetanguishene to come and settle in L'Ancienne-Lorette,
which Father Chaumonot, a Jesuit, founded in 1673.
Our city is celebrating this year the 325th anniversary of its
founding, a historical event that took place under the French
regime.
Throughout the month of June, a number of activities will be
held to give the residents of L'Ancienne-Lorette the opportunity
to celebrate this 325th anniversary.
People can have fun and learn about the past by visiting an
exhibition of old photographs, finding out about the life of
Father Chaumonot and participating in other activities.
I congratulate everyone who helped organize these celebrations
and wish a happy 325th anniversary to all the residents of
L'Ancienne-Lorette.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE PETER WONG
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
stand today to pay tribute to the late Peter Wong, chairman of
the regional municipality of Sudbury.
Mr. Wong held the distinction of being the first elected
chairman of my region.
This position was the culmination of a long and successful
career of public service as a school board trustee and mayor of
the city of Sudbury.
In his public life, Mr. Wong possessed a leadership style that
cultivated the trust, loyalty and respect of his peers and
constituents. Everyone who met and worked with Peter knew they
were dealing with a man true to his principles and a man
unselfishly committed to his community.
In his work with various community organizations he set a
benchmark that few can aspire to attain. He will be missed.
On behalf of the people of Nickel Belt and the members of the
House, I offer our sincere condolences to the Wong family, his
wife Lynn, daughter Nancy and son Eric.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
his continuing fight to get compensation for all Canadians who
contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood, 15 year old Joey Haché
will leave Halifax on his bicycle this Monday and bike across
Canada.
As someone who contracted the potentially fatal liver disease
from a blood transfusion, Joey is calling his journey “The Cycle
of Conscience”. Its purpose is twofold: to draw attention to
the plight of hepatitis C victims callously forgotten by the
Liberal government and to get a million signatures on a petition
which demands that the government extend an offer of compensation
to all victims of this tragedy.
1410
I spoke with Joey Haché this morning and asked if there was any
message he wanted to give the Prime Minister. He said to tell
the Prime Minister that he will not give up until this government
does the right thing, and that he is your conscience.
For those who want to wish Joey well on his journey, he will be
out on the front steps of the Peace Tower today following
question period.
On behalf of all members of this House, I want to wish Joey
Haché good luck.
* * *
LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to add my support to a very worthwhile cause,
leukemia research in Canada. Leukemia is a cancer of blood
cells. If affects children and adults from all backgrounds and
of all ages. Canadian research centres across the country have
made progress extending the life expectancy of those diagnosed
with leukemia. The cure rate for children is 65%. This will
only continue with more support from Canadians.
The Leukemia Research Fund of Canada, a national volunteer
organization, raises money to provide grants to Canadian
researchers and to educate the public about the disease. For the
past 42 years, thousands of volunteers have donated many hours of
their time throughout the year.
This year the Governor General, His Excellency Romeo LeBlanc,
has given his support to this worthwhile cause. I am asking for
the support of this House for the designation of the month of
June as Leukemia Research Month. I want to thank the many
volunteers for their time and encourage others to join the fight
against this disease. I thank them on behalf of my mother, a
survivor of leukemia.
* * *
THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, almost a lifetime ago in my grandparents' home country,
seven million Ukrainians starved to death at the hands of Joseph
Stalin. Determined to bring the Ukraine under Soviet control,
Stalin starved the very Ukrainian farmers whose grain he then
shipped to Russia and sold to western countries. The food left
the Ukraine, but the people were barricaded in. The results
devastated and nearly destroyed an entire generation of
Ukrainians. In the words of one Soviet writer, people were
“dying in solitude in slow degrees—trapped and left to starve,
each in his own home”.
Moreover, it was a crime in the Ukraine to discuss the famine.
Many international observers dismissed it as a rumour until
documents surfaced in the 1980s.
Canada became the new home for many Ukrainian famine survivors
after the second world war. All Canadians join with them and
their families as they mark this month, the 65th anniversary of
the Ukrainian famine. We pledge: “We remember. Never again”.
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, personally and
on behalf of the Canada-Algeria parliamentary group, I wish to
welcome the parliamentary delegation, made up of members of
Algeria's national council and headed by Bachir Boumaza.
We are pleased that the Speakers of both houses of Parliament
are officially welcoming these senators, who are here to discuss
with us our way of doing things. This visit will allow us to
forge new ties and to strengthen existing ones.
In these difficult times for Algeria, we must not underestimate
the hopes generated by the establishment of a parliament and an
multiparty Senate. The fight for democracy in Algeria deserves
our support.
Therefore, I invite all parliamentarians to participate in and
contribute to the strengthening of Algeria's emerging democracy,
and to also exchange views with our Algerian guests.
* * *
[English]
THE REFORM PARTY
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at a time when the Reform Party is telling us that Canadians are
flocking to join its so-called united alternative campaign, a CTV
Gallup public opinion poll tells us otherwise. The poll shows
that support for Reform has now fallen behind support for the
Conservatives. Only 12% of Canadians support the Reform Party,
while 15% would vote for the leaderless Tories. In my own
province of Ontario where Reformers keep claiming to be making
inroads, support for their party is at a paltry 8%.
What can they do to reverse their situation? Perhaps they can
stop alienating Canadians and back away from the redneck
extremist positions they take on most public policy issues. Or,
they could simply get rid of their leader and try to boost their
support by convincing the hon. member for Saint John to lead the
united alternative campaign.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCUEIL BONNEAU
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to offer, personally and on behalf of my colleagues,
support and sympathy to those affected by the terrible tragedy
at Montreal's Accueil Bonneau, yesterday.
I want to stress the excellent work this shelter has done and
must continue to do with the homeless in the greater Montreal
region.
In this regard, I invite Montrealers to provide financial
assistance and volunteer support to help rebuild Accueil
Bonneau.
I also ask both levels of government to support Montrealers in
getting Accueil Bonneau back in operation as soon as possible.
1415
[English]
Saint John, New Brunswick was also the victim of a terrible
tragedy yesterday when an explosion occurred at the Irving oil
refinery. My colleagues and I take this opportunity to offer our
support to the victims and their families.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Ann-Margaret Dickey was a soldier in the Canadian Armed
Forces.
Today she courageously stood before a press conference to allege
that two years ago she was sexually assaulted four times within a
10-day period at a military base in Quebec. She said she reported
these assaults to the military police and the medical people but
her complaints were ignored and she has been told not to raise
the issue again.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why did Private Dickey
have to go public today, revealing painful personal information
in order to get this government's attention to her complaint?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an accusation of a criminal nature and has to be
dealt with by a special group called NIS, which has the
responsibility for these investigations. I am informed that it
is doing the investigation.
Yesterday we named somebody to receive complaints from outside
the military. She decided to go public today.
I am informed that there is an inquiry about that. There will be
a complete investigation. If some criminal actions have been
done against her, the people will be taken to court.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, female soldiers have no faith whatsoever in either the
government's commitments or its procedures for dealing with
sexual harassment or assault in the military.
The minister has appointed an ombudsman and that is good. But
that ombudsman's investigators are exactly the same people who
told Private Dickey not to raise a fuss. The minister fixes one
link in the chain but it is the chain that is the problem. How
can this ombudsman do his work when the government itself just
wants to sweep these problems under the rug?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence was extremely clear
last week that there will be absolutely zero tolerance. We intend
to make sure that these reprehensible actions will be dealt with
civilly.
In 1997 we put in the national investigation service which did
not exist before. That is its task. Is the member telling me
that it has perhaps not performed its duty the way it should? We
are looking into that but I am telling you that if there was
criminal action committed by some people, they will be taken to
court. On top of that, we have named the ombudsman.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone in this House wants to believe that progress is
being made in dealing with these complaints. They want to
believe that there is zero tolerance. We want to believe that
there is somebody somewhere in the government who is going to
take up the concerns of rank and file soldiers and treat their
complaints with dignity and with speed.
How can we believe that the government is taking any of this
seriously when every day brings new allegations of wrongdoing,
like those of Private Dickey?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am disturbed like anybody else.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes, I am. We put mechanisms
in place but for a long time people were not coming forward. It
is great that today they have the confidence to help the
government make sure that that type of behaviour is not tolerated
in the Canadian army.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Ann-Margaret Dickey contacted three successive defence ministers
of this government with her case, including the present defence
minister. None of them gave her a satisfactory response. The
ministers would not even let her know if an investigation was
under way.
Why does it take a press conference in Ottawa to get a minister
of this government to address such serious allegations?
1420
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the national
investigative process is still ongoing. It would not be
appropriate to comment at this time, as all members know.
Allegations of sexual assault have been taken seriously by the
Department of National Defence and what happened? The Reform
Party trolls around trying to find something and bring it back
here. Typical Reform Party tactics.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Private Dickey has been attempting for two years to have her
complaints looked after. For two years the response on the part
of the government as well as the military has been to suppress
it.
A toll-free sexual assault hotline apparently has received 40
calls in one week of operation. Ann-Margaret Dickey called this
line last week and she still has not received a response. My
question for the minister is, what about the other 39?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the number 39 has been
thrown out but no adjectives to describe it, no adverbs put in
front of the actions. How can we expect to respond to something
39?
The Private Dickey situation is clearly under investigation. We
will get to the bottom of it. When the time comes, charges will
be laid.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
situation deteriorating in eastern Quebec, Quebec's Minister of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Guy Julien, has just told the
press that he has received no proposal from the federal
government for a solution to the TAGS problem, and that there
are no discussions under way right now.
How could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the
House yesterday that he was working with the provinces to find a
solution, when he has just been formally contradicted by his
colleague from Quebec?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that there
have been meetings between officials and that my assistant
deputy minister is in contact with several directors general and
representatives of the Atlantic provinces.
The discussions are lively and are going very well, because we
are determined to work together. This is a very important
problem; we are aware of the difficult situation faced by
fishers who must contend with greatly reduced fisheries, and
this is a problem we wish to address with the provinces.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what kind of
game is the Minister of Human Resources Development playing,
while an unprecedented human tragedy is taking place in eastern
Quebec, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and eastern Canada?
What is he up to telling us his officials are holding talks with
provincial officials? Does he not get it? He is being called
upon as a member of the government by fishery workers in need of
the government's assistance.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our people went to meet with
provincial officials, with a specific mandate and topics to
discuss regarding the communities and the people who live in
those communities. We have specific matters to discuss at this
point and we will be in a position to take appropriate decisions
when the time is right.
I think it is entirely normal that the minister begin talks with
the provinces through his officials, but we will take a decision
when the time is right, once consultations are over.
[English]
The Speaker: Once again my colleagues, I ask you to
listen to the answers rather than giving discourse throughout the
answers.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, again, a human tragedy is unfolding in eastern
Canada.
In Newfoundland, in the maritimes, on the Magdalen Islands and
in the Gaspé, people are vocalizing their dissatisfaction as the
Atlantic groundfish strategy comes to an end.
1425
Since the problem of the victims of the fishery disaster is of
unprecedented scope and calls for exceptional measures, how can
the minister say to us, as he did again last week, that the only
plan he has in mind to help fishery workers is to draw on his
government's ordinary programs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I must say that our
government's regular programs are excellent and have been
considerably improved in recent years. Moreover, hundreds of
thousands of Canadians are very happy with them.
I can assure you that license buybacks are among the options
available to us. We can apply economic development measures.
We can apply adjustment measures. We have options open to us
and we will make sure, jointly with the provinces, that they
meet the needs of the individuals and communities affected
according to the priorities we have set for development.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, not only do we have ordinary measures, we have an
ordinary minister.
Does the minister realize that his technocratic attitude is
responsible not only for the mess the people are in but, more
importantly, for all of the current social unrest in eastern
Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ours was the first government to
react to the very difficult situation facing the population
there. In the very strained fiscal situation of the time, we
invested $1.9 billion in Atlantic Canada to help the fishers and
the communities, and we remain very sensitive to their concerns.
I can assure you that our compassion for what these people are
experiencing is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Prime Minister.
Canada agreed in Kyoto that greenhouse gas emissions reduction
begins at home. It begins by cleaning up our own act. But today
we have evidence that Canada is behind closed doors in Bonn
promoting instead unlimited emissions trading, a massive loophole
to escape responsibility for domestic emissions reductions.
What happened to Canada's Kyoto commitment? Was it a sham?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Kyoto is taken very seriously by this
government. It was not a sham. It was extremely important to
Canada that we get mechanisms like trading of emissions, joint
implementation, clean development mechanisms within the protocol
of Kyoto.
Why would we reduce greenhouse gases at $20 a tonne if we can do
so at $2 a tonne? That is why we are pursuing this avenue.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, why
would we sign on to an agreement that we have no intentions of
honouring? What Canadians need is not loopholes but leadership
on climate change. That is what the environment commissioner is
looking for as well.
Why is the government telling Canadians one thing and saying
something completely different behind closed doors in Bonn?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these allegations are absolutely
ridiculous. This government is totally committed to our Kyoto
protocol commitment and we will reduce by minus 6%. Trading of
emissions is an important way not only for Canada to achieve its
goals but for other nations around the world as well. We are
showing leadership on this file.
We are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about
human health and we will achieve our objectives.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, Krever
commission documents reveal that Health Canada allowed plasma to
go unscreened until 1993 even though it was ordered to screen
this product prior to that date. This order was in 1990 on the
advice from doctors and the Red Cross.
Does the minister accept the fact that this product did go
unscreened in that timeframe? If he does, does that not tell us
that all post-1990 victims have to be compensated?
1430
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all the documents referred to in that report were before Mr.
Justice Krever. He looked into all of the facts and, in fact,
they were referred to in his report.
The report this morning on the radio was factually wrong in
important respects. I encourage the member to look at the facts.
It was alleged that there was no action taken until 1993. In
fact, Health Canada issued a directive in 1991. It said this
morning that Health Canada awaited a U.S. study. That is false.
Health Canada instructed manufacturers to start screening plasma
a full two years before the publication of the U.S. report. The
Health Canada directive was issued five months before the FDA
acted.
The facts were—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is confusing the issue. What we are talking about is
the responsibility of Health Canada. At the end of the day, the
safety for Canada's blood supply stops at his doorstep.
Is the minister considering compensating those victims? His
facts, unfortunately, disagree with what the record actually
states. Again, will he consider compensating those victims
outside of the previously announced package for 1986 to 1990?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the whole issue of compensation is before a working group with
the provinces.
But I want the member to acknowledge that it is very important
to get the facts right. The fact was improperly reported this
morning. Health Canada issued a directive in 1991. We did not
wait for the Americans. We were ahead of the FDA.
By the way, we have accepted the Krever recommendations on
regulation. We are going to spend more money to put better
regulation in place and make sure that through the Blood Safety
Council we have the highest standards of safety for all Canadians
because that for us is the bottom line.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister says the facts were wrong in this report. The U.S. made
it illegal to use hep C tainted blood in September 1991. I have
the directive from the health protection branch here. It was in
fact issued November 15, 1991, and it said “effective January 1,
1993, you cannot use the blood”. The facts are straightforward.
Why did we continue to use dirty blood for that period of time?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said, all of these facts and all of these documents
were before Krever. They were all gone into in detail and
referred to in Volume 2 of his report.
The answer to the question is that the practice at Health Canada
at the time, 1990-1991, reflected the scientific knowledge and
understanding of that time.
In 1991 a directive was issued in keeping with the usual
practice to get manufacturers to test plasma. That is what we
did. We did it ahead of the Americans and in advance of the
publication of many American reports.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would be
happy to table these documents in the House because it was
illegal in the U.S. in September 1991 and it was not illegal in
Canada until January 1993.
My question stands. Why did Canadian regulators, who were
warned outside Canada and inside Canada, continue to use dirty
blood?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I refer the member to Volume 2 of the Krever report, page 698 and
following, in which Mr. Justice Krever goes through this whole
history, examines all of the facts and puts them into the context
of the scientific knowledge of the day.
What I want to stress is that this government has accepted the
recommendations of Krever in relation to regulation. We have
established the Blood Safety Council. We are going to have the
highest standards of regulation in the world because for this
government safety is the bottom line.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health refuses to recognize his very considerable responsibility
for the deterioration of Canada's health care system. His cuts
are hurting everyone, whatever he says.
Why is the minister refusing to admit that all Canadians are
worried about the future of health care, that they view this
sector as the top priority and that they want Ottawa to invest
its surpluses so as to give back to the provinces part of what
the federal government has cut from their health care budget?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, health
is one of this government's top priorities. That is why we have
already increased health transfers to all the provinces to $12.5
billion annually.
1435
We have already expressed this government's commitment to
renewing and strengthening Canada's health care system. That is
a priority for this government.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know what
the situation is in Quebec. But hospitals have also been closed
in Ontario. On Prince Edward Island, there is talk of using
private funds to build hospitals, and I could go on.
If the federal government was as generous with the provinces as
it claims to be, how does it explain that health care is a
problem for all provinces at the same time and that governments
are no longer able to meet the public's expectations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have given a clear answer. We have said that health is our top
priority.
We have already taken action in this regard with the budget
brought down in February. We invested money in research and
restructuring. The problem is that Quebec is investing less
money than the federal government in the health sector.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
approximately one month ago the defence committee, which consists
of both Liberals and opposition members, met in Halifax.
On that occasion Ann Margaret Dickey approached the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and
told him about her concerns. He promised that he would get back
to her.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is, why did he not
follow up on that request?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly I would be been
in violation. This investigation is ongoing. It is in the hands
of the national investigative service and it would be
inappropriate for me to intervene at this time.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Ann Margaret Dickey was seeking an investigation into her
complaint. The parliamentary secretary's excuse is not
acceptable.
What guarantee is he going to give to Ann Margaret Dickey now
that this investigation is going to proceed under the direction
of the NIS and the ombudsman? What guarantee is he going to
give?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations of
sexual assault by the person named have been looked at.
The ombudsman has no position in criminal cases. It is
appropriately set with the NIS. It is the channel to be used
when such allegations are made. It is an ongoing situation and
it is before the investigators.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government is penalizing Air Canada with
its strategy of maintaining two national carriers in Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. How would allowing
Air Canada to provide direct service between Montreal and Milan
compromise his grand two-carrier development scheme, especially
since this service is not provided by Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already explained that it is in the interest of
all Canadians to have profitable airlines, whether it is Air
Canada or Canadian Airlines.
[English]
For the hon. member, day after day, to take the position of one
commercial carrier, I would say he is not really doing justice to
those people who work for Canadian Airlines. He is not of course
taking the pan Canadian view and looking at the health of the
Canadian airline industry. But that is no surprise because the
Bloc Quebecois traditionally only looks at narrow points of view
that reflect parochial interests. In this case, when it talks
about harm to Montreal, it is dead wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how would allowing Air Canada to provide direct service
between Montreal and Amsterdam compromise his grand two-carrier
development scheme, especially since Canadian does not even fly
to the Netherlands?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have looked at each of these routes. We have
analysed it meticulously.
1440
Let me draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that two
years ago we had a crisis in terms of the viability of the future
of two airline carriers in this country. This government stood
steadfast behind competition and assisted the competitive nature
of the Canadian airline industry. We are not going to penalize
one of those companies in a way which would hurt its
restructuring plan, in this case Canadian Airlines.
Air Canada got a lot out of these deals. He should got back to
the officials at Air Canada who will tell him that they are going
to make more money out of this arrangement.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Since the Delgamuukw decision was handed down aboriginals in
British Columbia have laid claim to over 100% of the province.
We have asked the Indian affairs minister for her position for
several days and we still do not have an answer.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what the government's position
is? Does he believe these claims are legitimate? Who owns
British Columbia?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, British Columbia belongs to
all of its citizens.
There are rights, there are interests that have to be
reconciled, and in our view the best place to reconcile those
interests is at the treaty table where they can be negotiated
fairly, openly and in a manner of trust.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we finally
have the Indian affairs minister acknowledging that British
Columbia belongs to all of its citizens.
Does she understand how important this decision is for all of
Canada and what the repercussions are going to be for
Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Alberta? Does she understand how important this decision is and
the repercussions it will have on the rest of this country?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly we understand the
repercussions.
We have been at the table with all the parties in British
Columbia. We are settling comprehensive claims right across this
country. We are doing it in a way that is consistent with
Canadian values which recognize that aboriginal rights exist,
that they must be reconciled in a modern Canada and that it must
be done in a fair and equitable way.
That is what the people of British Columbia want. That is what
all Canadians want.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
We learned today of another member of the military who was the
victim of sexual and physical assault in the armed forces while
she was stationed at Saint-Jean. She experienced a real
nightmare in the face of a wall of indifference from the entire
military hierarchy and from the current Minister of National
Defence and his predecessors.
Does the Prime Minister intend to ask the new ombudsman to give
priority to this case so that the minister may take vigorous
sanctions against these sexual predators in order to put an end—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Right
Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
my response earlier, I indicated that this matter was being
investigated by a committee that was set up in 1997.
As everyone knows and as the member pointed out, an ombudsman,
who is not a member of the military, was appointed yesterday.
We believe that together he and the committee will ensure that
such acts are not repeated and that those who committed criminal
acts will be punished.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the office of the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development has no problem releasing
personal and confidential information. Yet, when it is a
question of public policy, this minister refuses to release the
information as to how much land claim settlements will cost
Canadians.
How much will it cost British Columbians to settle the land
claims issues?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aboriginal rights have to be
reconciled in British Columbia. The best place to do that is at
the negotiating table where all parties who are aware of their
fiscal limitations come in a very practical way to resolve those
issues step by step.
It is a fiscally responsible approach. It is a Liberal
approach. It is a Canadian approach. It is where we will find
progress being made on this very important aspect of modern
history.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, part of Canadian history is that in the
terms of union of 1871 when B.C. joined Confederation there was a
constitutional commitment that all native land claims issues
would be assumed by the federal government.
1445
My question is for the Prime Minister and the minister of Indian
affairs. Is this government going to assume the financial
responsibilities for all the land claim settlement costs in
British Columbia?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are sitting at the table
with the federal crown, the provincial crown and the First
Nations. Together we will reconcile aboriginal rights in British
Columbia.
Is the hon. member suggesting we should legislate compensation?
How much is she prepared to pay for that? They are saying we
should legislate without true certainty. How much are they
prepared for the lack of certainty in their approach? They say we
should talk about cash, not land. How much is she prepared to
put on the table?
* * *
[Translation]
ACCUEIL BONNEAU
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
We were saddened to hear of the explosion at Accueil Bonneau
yesterday over the noon hour, which left three persons dead and
a number of its volunteers and homeless clients injured. The
suffering of the victims was at least lessened by the admirable
speed with which staff and passers-by intervened, as well as the
rapid response by emergency services.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what the Government of Canada
will be doing to help these people out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all of us were saddened by this tragedy affecting the most
disadvantaged Montrealers. We will be making all of the
government's services available to the people there in order to
help them overcome these most unfortunate circumstances.
Immediately after Oral Question Period, the Minister of Human
Resources Development will be leaving for Montreal to meet with
the management and to offer financial and other assistance to
help them through this tragedy.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health today does a great disservice to
Justice Krever who by no stretch of the imagination recommended a
two tier system of compensation for hepatitis C victims.
In a letter dated January 28, 1991 experts recommended to the
government that contaminated plasma not be used for coagulation
products. A decision was made anyway to use this stock for the
sake of money.
Will the Minister of Health admit that the federal regulator
failed to protect those infected after 1990? Will he adopt a
position on hepatitis C compensation—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have responded on the factual matters to other members of the
House just this afternoon. If the member wants to know what the
policy of the government of the day was in relation to such
tests, perhaps she ought to take it up with the party then in
office.
As far as we are concerned we have adopted all the
recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever. Seventeen of his 50 were
in relation to regulation and safety. We have adopted them. We
have every intention of putting them into effect, spending the
money, the time and the energy necessary to ensure that we have
the safest blood supply system in the world for the future.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is the hepatitis C victims who are left out in the
cold.
Is the Minister of Health prepared today, before we leave this
session, to give some assurances to hepatitis C victims that they
will be compensated on the basis of collective responsibility and
human compassion and not on the basis of the amount of money in
his wallet or on the basis of legal technicalities?
Joey Haché knows that the government is wrong and he is setting
out across this country to prove it. For the sake of Joey and
everyone else, will the minister take action and correct the ills
in the health protection branch today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a process in place between governments to look at all
the options for dealing with hepatitis C victims.
Throughout this session of parliament there is a trend that has
emerged from the NDP. It is to make suggestions on a daily and
weekly basis, a sort of procédé du jour from the NDP. A few
weeks ago it was satellites and toys that were going to endanger
the health of children and that proved to be wrong. Then there
was an international conspiracy in relation to drug testing which
proved to be wrong. Two weeks ago it was albumin that was a
threat to health and that proved to be wrong.
If the member wants to be taken seriously she should—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
* * *
1450
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
unemployed Canadians across the country are continuing to suffer.
When the government introduced EI reforms in 1996, approximately
40% of the unemployed did not qualify for EI. Today as a result
of that reform nearly 72% of the unemployed are on welfare
because they no longer qualify for EI assistance.
Will the minister tell the House that the act must be
restructured to ensure Canadians that when they need EI
assistance EI will be there for them?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all the number of
people on welfare in Canada is the lowest that it has been in
five years because of the performing economy.
Second, the member can look at his own province of New
Brunswick. He will find that 80% of people in New Brunswick are
covered by the employment insurance system and not the number
that he mentioned this afternoon in the House for his own
province.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there certainly seems to be confusion between Ottawa and the
ridings. All local HRDC offices are of the opinion that the
reforms are not effective. It is the minister's position to sit
back and accept the status quo rather than to examine the
shortcomings of his department.
The 1997 employment insurance monitoring assessment report
failed to show what we already know, that the EI system is not
working properly. Will the minister tell the House today that he
will revamp the EI act and give Canadians the assistance they
need when they need it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear on
this issue.
We are well aware that after 25 years we have made the most
important reform of the employment insurance system to overhaul
it, update it and modernize it to better serve Canadians with the
new conditions in the labour market. We will have to monitor it
very closely. We are well aware of it.
This is the reason that I tabled in the House last January the
first report of the impact of our EI reforms on Canadians and the
unemployed. We will do it every year to make sure that the
impact of our reforms serves Canadians well.
* * *
NIGERIA
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa.
The death of Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha and his
replacement by an interim leader still leaves Africa's most
populous country firmly in the grip of a military junta.
Can the minister advise the House what steps the Government of
Canada is going to take in the weeks and months ahead to
encourage the restoration of democracy in Nigeria?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nigeria and its hundred million
residents can be among the leaders of the renaissance across the
continent of Africa.
The death of General Abacha, as I am sure my colleagues agree,
provides an opportunity to open a new day for Nigeria and the
Nigerian people. General Abubakar could start by releasing Chief
Abiola who is now coming up to his fifth year in prison. This
would be a wonderful step for Nigeria and for the entire world.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
a letter that I will table later, Indian affairs informs the
chief of the Chemainus Band that it knows of the illegal timber
harvest which is taking place on their reserve just outside of
Nanaimo. Instead of enforcing its own regulations, in the same
letter Indian affairs officials are offering to participate in a
criminal act by helping the chief and council sell the timber
from this old growth forest.
Will the minister of Indian affairs intervene and order that
this timber be seized before any more is permitted to leave the
reserve illegally?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to review
the circumstances surrounding this case.
* * *
[Translation]
CASINOS ON CRUISE SHIPS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Justice.
For the past 10 years, those involved in tourism in the Quebec
City region have been calling for a change to the Criminal Code
to allow casinos on cruise ships to operate until an hour prior
to arrival in port at Quebec City, instead of having to cease
operations as soon as they enter the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Does the minister not see that the federal inaction in such a
simple matter is depriving the entire Quebec City region of
sizeable economic spin-offs, as it has for the past 10 years.
We are asking her to do something, for once and for all.
When will she be taking action?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a government we understand
the importance of this aspect of tourism to the province and
people of Quebec. In fact I will be making an announcement in
this regard very soon.
* * *
1455
JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On Monday,
members of all parties, except Reform, strongly supported the
Ontario court of appeal decision in Rosenberg extending pension
equality in the Income Tax Act to gay and lesbian couples.
Will the minister accept this courageous decision and agree not
to appeal it? Will the government also review all federal laws
to ensure that they reflect the equality principles which were
eloquently set out in the Rosenberg decision?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department is reviewing the
Rosenberg decision. I will be providing legal advice to my
colleague the Minister of Finance in relation to the Rosenberg
decision. As with all decisions in this area, we will review
their implications for either the Income Tax Act or other federal
laws.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I really enjoyed the answer by the minister of human resources
but I certainly do not see the previous minister there, the
infamous Doug Young.
According to the figures of the Department of Human Resources
Development, last summer New Brunswick received $5.6 million for
a summer career placement program. This summer the province will
receive some $300,000 less. Students across Canada are being
affected by these cuts. Will the minister explain to the
students of New Brunswick why they deserve less funding this
summer?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should be very
happy because the number of unemployed has gone down in New
Brunswick. It is why the project is being reallocated.
[Translation]
Our government has doubled the jobs program. We have taken it
from $60 million to $120 million Canada-wide, and the funding
allocation formula is based on the number of students in a
province, its unemployment rate, and its needs.
* * *
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Even though education comes under provincial jurisdiction, the
federal government is prepared to help Ontario's official
language minority by managing its schools under the terms of an
agreement signed last week.
Could the minister tell us how this agreement differs from
similar ones signed with other provincial governments?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to thank the members from all
political parties who worked together to come up with an
agreement that represents a $180 million investment, over a
five-year period, in French language education in Ontario. This
initiative will have an impact on more than 100,000 students
attending 426 Ontario schools.
The difference between this agreement and others is that we
demand a business plan that emphasizes concrete objectives,
instead of simply giving away money.
* * *
[English]
BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us talk about Banff. Last fall the minister shut down a
democratic process top down. She then established a new process.
Her Secretary of State for Parks has been working directly with
the mayor and the council has been involved in the process right
from the word go. Yet without even knowing the results, without
even having a bylaw, the minister has said there is no way she
will even respect the democratic process. Why is she knee-capping
her own secretary of state and ignoring the democratic process?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. As the member will know, the
preliminary bylaws have been in the hands of the hon. secretary
of state for many weeks. He and I have had a personal
opportunity to review all of the aerial photographs.
It is unfortunate what the Banff council did. Instead of
seizing an opportunity to create a real ecocommunity into the
21st century, it chose crass commercialization. The secretary of
state, the cabinet and I have rejected that position.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL PORT CORPORATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, about 250 people living in some
40 residential properties located in an industrial area are
dramatically deprived of any quality of life, because of the
pollution generated by the operations of the port of Montreal.
Consequently, these residents have been asking to be
expropriated since 1986.
How does the Minister of Transport explain that the Government
of Quebec and the City of Montreal earmarked the funds necessary
to expropriate these people, but that the port of Montreal,
which comes under the minister's authority, refuses to get
involved financially?
1500
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already discussed the issue with the hon. member
and yes, he is right, the situation is serious. We have made
representations to the Montreal Port Corporation in an attempt
to solve the problem.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of Bachir Boumaza, Speaker of Algeria's
National Council.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
REMARKS OF MEMBERS
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on a point of order with regard to comments made last
night in this House by the Reform member for Wild Rose.
The Reform member directed an accusation at the member for
Ottawa Centre. He very clearly stated that the hon. member had
lied. I will certainly state for the record that the member for
Ottawa Centre is one of the most respected and experienced
members of this House.
1505
The Speaker: Colleagues, with all respect, I was here
during that exchange of words and I have looked at Hansard.
I judged at the time while I was sitting here that it was not a
direct accusation.
I, like you and all members, deplore the use of the words lie or
liar because when we use these words it tends to incite us. But
I decided at the time that it was not a direct accusation.
I reviewed Hansard and I reviewed the tapes. My decision
of yesterday would stand, but I would encourage all hon. members
to please stay away from the use of the words lie or liar.
I thank the hon. member for his intervention.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that you will find there is unanimous consent for me to
table a document which I mentioned in my question today.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to put a motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I believe our colleague is
merely tabling the document, not moving a motion.
The Speaker: The hon. member needs unanimous consent to
table a document in the House.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
did not give unanimous consent because we do not know the nature
of the document, but we would be willing to look at it and
consider the matter.
The Speaker: We have a no and we have a maybe. Maybe you
can get together and work this out before the end of the day.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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 honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the reports of the Canadian section of
the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians,
as well as the financial reports of the meeting of the IAFSP
co-operation and development committee, held in Geneva,
Switzerland, from March 23 to 25, 1998, and of the conference on
the democratization effort in Africa, held in Libreville, Gabon,
from March 30 to April 2, 1998.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HEALTH
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
first report of the Standing Committee on Health in accordance
with Section 5.(1) of the Tobacco Act and, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(5), the proposed seizure, restoration and excise tobacco
regulations were referred to the committee as of Wednesday, June
3, 1998. Your committee has considered the proposed regulations
and has agreed to approve them without amendment.
* * *
BANK ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-420, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Insurance
Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act (repayment of
a mortgage loan before the maturity of the loan).
1510
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a short word of explanation with
respect to the purpose of this bill. When people sign a
mortgage, the language used for the cancellation provision should
be easily understood by the majority of Canadians.
People have a right to know exactly what they are getting into,
how to get out of it and how much it will cost. A number of
people have been asking for legislation of this sort. It is
important to the consumers of the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INTEREST ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-421, an act to amend the Interest Act (interest
payable on repayment of a mortgage loan before maturity).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this issue is something that we have all
been lobbied on by real estate people across the country. This
bill would amend the Interest Act to make possible mortgage
cancellation for mortgages of five years and under. That, of
course, would be subject to the payment of a prescribed interest
charge.
Mortgages of one year and under would not be included in this
amendment to the Interest Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present the following motion which has been
circulated among all party leaders. I move:
[Translation]
That this House take note that over 100 nations will meet in
Montreal this month to begin negotiating a new global convention
to reduce emissions of persistent organic pollutants.
That the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report (CACAR)
shows that POPs are entering the food chain in the Arctic and
contaminating country food consumed by Inuit and aboriginal
peoples;
[English]
Therefore, this House supports the need for a strong and
comprehensive global convention to reduce the emissions of
persistent organic pollutants, addressing key issues of
technologies transfer, capacity and institution building and the
need for Canadian aboriginal peoples to take an active role in
the negotiations through membership of the Canadian delegation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Davenport have
unanimous consent of this House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three
petitions.
The first petition is from several hundred constituents of
Medicine Hat who are repulsed by Bill C-68 and who would like to
see the money that is going into Bill C-68 directed toward
suicide prevention centres, crime prevention programs, women's
crisis centres, anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for
fighting organized crime and street gangs.
I am happy to present this petition.
THE SENATE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, also
there are several hundred people who have signed petitions in my
riding calling for an elected Senate. These petitions come from
people from all over southern Alberta. Of course, that is a big
issue in Alberta right now.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition I am presenting concerns changes to the Young
Offenders Act. Several hundred constituents of mine are
extraordinarily concerned that the Young Offenders Act does not
adequately deal with the problem of youth crime.
The petitioners call for tougher sentencing. They also call for
the minimum age in the act to be reduced to 10 years of age, for
the maximum penalty for first degree murder to be pushed up to 15
years and for more parental responsibility in the justice system.
I am happy to present this petition on behalf of my
constituents.
1515
CANDU REACTOR
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with several thousand
signatures from my riding and right across Canada.
The petitioners are calling upon the Canadian government to stop
the sale of nuclear Candu reactors to Turkey. They also state
that these reactors will be placed in a seismic area that is more
than eight on the Richter scale and which could foresee leaks and
will affect the neighbouring countries of Cyprus, Israel, Syria,
Lebanon and Armenia. They also state that Turkey is a state that
does not respect the human rights of its citizens, represses
minorities and has used force and military aggression against its
smaller neighbours and that giving nuclear technology to such a
country will give it the ability to produce nuclear weapons of
mass destruction and destabilize the whole region.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the House not to go through
with this sale.
[Translation]
IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition.
[English]
This petition concerns an event on which many petitions were
presented previously. It relates to the call for a public
inquiry into the events at Ipperwash provincial park where over
200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women.
There are many questions that have not been answered around that
particular incident which culminated in the shooting death of
Anthony Dudley George.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons for a
public inquiry to be held into the events surrounding the fatal
shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to
eliminate all misconceptions held by and about government, the
OPP and the Stoney Point people.
CHILD CARE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great honour today that I present a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of my constituents from
Kings—Hants.
The petitioners are concerned about the government's failure to
live up to its 1993 promise of a national child care strategy.
They believe that the government should amalgamate current
federal spending in the area into a national child care program
and that negotiations with the provinces, the territories and
with aboriginal people should be commenced to discuss the
development of such an important national program.
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to
present to the House a petition signed by Bramptonians in the
region of Peel, which is signed by over 500 Canadians.
This petition asks first, that parliament ensure the present
provisions of the criminal law of Canada for assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and second, that parliament make no changes
regarding this issue.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of petitions
to the House today.
The first two call for the repeal of the gun control legislation
passed in the last parliament. These 109 petitioners from my
riding and outside my riding ask that the money presently aimed
at the creation and implementation of the gun registration system
be redirected toward more cost effective methods of fighting
crime in this country, including more police on the streets,
crime prevention programs, suicide prevention programs, women's
crisis centres, anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for
fighting organized crime and street gangs.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
would like to present a number of petitions which call for
significant changes to the present Young Offenders Act. The
nearly 250 petitioners from all across the country call upon
parliament to make the protection of society the number one
priority in amending the YOA through measures such as reducing
the minimum age covered by the act from 12 to 10, allowing the
publishing of violent young offenders' names, increasing the
penalties for all violent crimes committed by youth and ensuring
parental responsibility.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two sets of petitions, both on the same subject
matter. The first one is signed by Canadians from in and around
Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The second one, containing over 300
signatures, is from constituents of my riding of Scarborough
Southwest.
Both sets of petitions call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225,
an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the
Interpretation Act, which I introduced in the House, so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
1520
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure and honour to
present a petition from the people in Stewiacke area of Nova
Scotia.
They call for the repeal of Bill C-68. They say and rightly so
that it is a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of
taxpayers' money. The money could be redirected and used much
more effectively in order to reduce crime by having more police
on the streets, more crime prevention programs, et cetera.
This is most timely considering the fact that recent information
has revealed that Bill C-68 was based on entirely wrong
information.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of some islanders.
These constituents are urging parliament to remove the GST from
books, magazines and newspapers. They believe taxing reading
material is unfair and wrong. As well they believe that removing
the GST from reading material will help promote literacy in
Canada.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6) it is my pleasure to
introduce a petition signed by 125 residents of the small
northern town of Fort Nelson in my riding.
The petitioners assert that registering legal firearms will do
absolutely nothing to stop the criminal misuse of guns. They
therefore request that parliament repeal Bill C-68 and redirect
the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted on the
licensing and registering of responsible law-abiding gun owners
and their firearms toward proven cost effective methods of
fighting crime.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians including from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters are required to place
their lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their
duties. When one of them loses their life in the line of duty,
the public also mourns that loss and wish to help in a tangible
way the surviving family.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to establish a
public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
families of police officers and firefighters who are killed in
the line of duty.
FIREARMS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first
involves the firearms act.
The petitioners are crying out that this act is a waste of money
and it is a waste of police resources. They indicate that there
are insufficient police officers per capita compared to 1972.
They feel the money should be better directed toward that.
VIOLENT CRIME
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the people who are subject to violent
crimes, home invasions, crimes against the elderly and crimes
committed by street gangs in Manitoba, thousands of petitioners
cry out that something be done with the Bail Reform Act and that
we get tougher with violent criminals.
FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by thousands of people from my
riding regarding the provision of a freight and passenger ferry
service between Port au Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney,
Nova Scotia.
This service is a constitutional obligation of the federal
government and a right held by all people of Newfoundland and
Labrador under term 32 of the Newfoundland Act, 1949. The
petitioners feel that this service is a vital link between the
province of Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. It is critical
to ensuring the economic well-being of our province.
Petitioners feel that the provision of high quality, customer
oriented ferry transportation services on this route must be
guaranteed on a timely basis and at reasonable rates to users.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to amend the
Canada Labour Code, Part I to prevent any disruption of this
essential service as a result of strikes or lockouts, and to
increase the federal funding available to Marine Atlantic for
this particular ferry service.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present. One petition
is from constituents in my riding of Serbian descent.
They call upon the government to take all necessary action to
stop all forms of armament into Kosovo and Metohija.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the next petition I have is from 113 people in my riding
who call upon parliament to affirm the duty of parents to
responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs, and to retain section 43 of the Criminal
Code as it is currently worded.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition is signed by 200 people from my
riding. It urges parliament to remove the GST from books,
magazines and newspapers.
1525
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, these petitions are certified correct in
form and content.
The petitioners pray and request that parliament revisit the
issue of hepatitis C compensation to reflect the concerns of the
citizens of Canada to offer a fair, compassionate and humane
compensation package to all those who received infected blood.
These petitions range from London, Ontario through to
Newfoundland, in fact from the small community of Clarenville,
Newfoundland. The Hepatitis C Society has forwarded these
petitions for consideration.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY PROJECT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition to add to the thousands of names of people who
believe that the Government of Canada can deal more effectively
with the more than 18,000 Canadians suffering from end stage
kidney disease by developing research in a bioartificial kidney.
These signatures were collected by the Peterborough police
force; Grant, Willcox, Whetung, barristers; and the Barrie
Consistory—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have cautioned the
hon. member before that who gathered them is irrelevant. The
hon. member is free to tell us who signed them, not their names
but where they are from, and the general tenure of the petition,
but honestly I think he should stick with the rules.
Mr. Jay Hill: He should know better.
The Deputy Speaker: Oh, he does know. He has been
cautioned on this before.
Mr. Peter Adams: The petition is from people who believe
that those on kidney dialysis and those who have had successful
transplants recognize the importance of this life saving
treatment. They also believe that an inadequate dialysis service
exists across the country. Therefore, they call on parliament to
work and support research toward a bioartificial kidney. I will
not mention where those signatures were collected.
The second petition is from the same series. The petitioners
point out that ministers of health across Canada have difficulty
providing access to dialysis treatment and that rates of organ
donations are not sufficient to meet the need. They call upon
parliament to work and support the bioartificial kidney project.
* * *
[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 that agreed?
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention Question No. 92
which is now past due. It is a question that relates to the use
of the drug mefloquine by Canadian forces bound for Somalia in
1993. The question is of some interest not only to the many
people who have written to me about this matter but also to the
auditor general who is currently reviewing the processes of the
health protection branch.
I would like to know when I could expect that question to be
answered.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this
week I presented well over 100 responses to petitions. In
dealing with more than 1,000 petitions we are running close to a
90% response. In the matter of this question, I will follow up
on it with great diligence in the coming days.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on February 24, Question No. 78 was placed on the Order Paper and
on March 5, Question No. 79 was placed on the Order Paper. This
is my second point of order on these questions.
I waited seven months on a production of papers motion and I
have never received the information. I wonder if I am going to
be stonewalled on these questions as I was on the previous
motion.
The outgoing information commissioner, John Grace, said today
that the Liberal culture of secrecy is worse than in the Mulroney
government. Seven months for the production of papers is
unacceptable. I want these questions answered. I would like the
parliamentary secretary to tell me when I will receive a response
to these questions.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of
Questions Nos. 78 and 79. I will not repeat my explanation. We
work diligently on these matters and I will make a great effort
to produce these responses.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1530
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, an act to
amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Defence,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Defence,
Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to open the third reading debate on Bill C-25, an act to
amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
This legislation is a comprehensive package of amendments that
will strengthen the statutory framework governing the operations
of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces.
The amendments proposed in the bill are the most extensive
amendments to the National Defence Act since its enactment in
1950. Bill C-25 addresses a broad range of provisions in the
National Defence Act. However, it is primarily about military
justice.
The military justice system anchored in the code of service
discipline is designed to promote morale, discipline and military
efficiency. One must appreciate that the Canadian forces are
armed forces, trained for combat, requiring a distinct system of
justice. Discipline is at the heart of any efficient and
effective armed force. Whether in peace or in war it spells the
difference between military success or failure.
The government took action after a number of unfortunate
incidents in recent years called into question the capacity of
the military justice system to promote discipline, efficiency,
high morale and justice. We consulted with persons within the
military, with the public at large and with distinguished
Canadians with specialized knowledge.
The amendments contained in Bill C-25—
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among
the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That the Order referring Bill S-2 to the Standing Committee on
Transport be discharged and the said bill stand referred instead
to a committee of the whole and that the said committee of the
whole be deemed to have considered the said bill, reported
progress thereon and granted leave to consider the bill at a
future sitting.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be happy to provide my consent to these matters
provided that the government does not try to sneak them through
when I absent myself from the House and provided that I am
consulted in advance. In order to discharge my responsibilities
as a representative for the people of York South—Weston, it
seems to me that before I give my consent to any motion for
unanimous consent, at the very least I ought to know what I am
voting on.
For the time being I am not prepared to give my consent, but if
the government wishes to discuss this matter I would be happy to
discuss it.
The Deputy Speaker: I take it, then, there is not
consent.
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the government took
action after a number of unfortunate incidents.
The amendments contained in Bill C-25, which has now had the
benefit of second reading debate and the committee study, are the
result of that process. With the amendments the government has
followed through on the defence minister's report to the Prime
Minister in March of 1997 and the reports of the special advisory
group chaired by Chief Justice Brian Dickson. The government has
also responded to the recommendations of the Somalia commission
of inquiry.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank in particular my
colleagues on the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs for their work in relation to Bill C-25.
Twenty-one amendments, mostly of a technical nature, to improve
the bill were approved by the committee.
1535
Individual members who were already heavily burdened with other
commitments made significant sacrifices to move the bill
expeditiously through the committee. Their efforts have improved
the bill and will ultimately assist the men and women of the
Canadian forces to carry out their missions.
The Minister of National Defence appeared before the committee,
as did several witnesses with experience and expertise in the
areas dealt with in Bill C-25. Chief Justice Dickson, who
chaired the special advisory group, and Lieutenant-General
Belzile were witnesses. They fully endorsed the amendments
contained in the bill. The advisory group was satisfied that the
enactment of the bill into law would follow through on its
recommendations and would assist the Canadian forces and its
leadership in the maintenance of discipline and in the
accomplishment of its task on behalf of Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chief Justice
Dickson and other witnesses for their appearances at the
committee and for their contributions to this bill.
As the minister advised the committee and this House during
second reading, the amendments under Bill C-25 will modernize the
military justice system. The main thrusts of this bill are: to
clearly define roles and responsibilities for key participants in
military justice; to provide greater structure and transparency
in investigations and charging; to modernize powers and
procedures for service tribunals; and to strengthen oversight and
review. Each of these components is a significant building block
in the revitalization of military justice. During committee
study each of these components was scrutinized and a variety of
issues were raised and debated.
I would like to take this opportunity to make the government's
position clear on a number of issues that were raised and debated
in full.
During the second reading date and in committee there was
discussion as to whether we should have one system of military
justice for peace and another for periods of conflict. It was
also suggested that we might have one military justice system for
inside Canada and another for abroad.
The Canadian forces must be ready to deploy at any place in the
world on a few hours' notice. The armed forces need one system
that is at once workable in Canada and abroad in time of conflict
or peace. Bill C-25 provides such a system. That was the advice
of the witnesses at committee and of our military leadership, and
the government followed that advice.
There was also discussion during second reading and in committee
as to the independence of the judge advocate general and the
military judges, both key factors in the military justice system.
It was argued by a number of members that the JAG was still too
dependent on the chain of command and that military judges should
be civilians, perhaps members of the federal court, as
recommended by the Somalia commission.
The JAG is appointed by cabinet on the recommendation of the
minister. Bill C-25 has set out the duties the JAG must perform.
It clearly states that he will be responsible to the minister for
the performance of those duties. We believe we have done what is
necessary to ensure the independence of the JAG.
As for military judges, Bill C-25 will provide for fixed
appointments of five years. Judges will be appointed by a
governor in council, as are other federal judges in the civilian
system. They will have financial security and will be removable
for cause only on the recommendation of an inquiry committee.
Both the supreme court and the special advisory group have
endorsed the practice of appointing serving military officers
with legal training to perform the function of military judges.
We are convinced that all measures necessary to assure the
independence of military judges have been taken.
Under the system as it now stands, the minister of defence is
also a key figure and may play an active role in the routine
administration of individual cases under the code of service
discipline. Bill C-25 will remove the minister from such day to
day administration. This will avoid the perception of
interference by the minister in individual cases, reduce
potential conflicts of interest and enable the minister to focus
on other duties.
The investigation and charging process has been criticized for
its lack of transparency and for the broad discretion it gives
the commanding officers. A commanding officer may make final
decisions concerning not only minor offences, but also serious
and sensitive offences that may implicate interests well beyond
his or her individual unit.
Bill C-25 will remove from the commanding officer the power to
dismiss charges and will provide a clear statutory basis for
tailoring the jurisdiction of summary trials to those minor
offences necessary for the maintenance of internal unit
discipline.
At the same time, the amendments will ensure the valuable and
essential participation of the chain of command in the process.
1540
The committee heard testimony from Colonel Mitchell, the Base
Commander at CFB Petawawa, and Lieutenant-General Belzile, now
retired and former commander of the army. These witnesses
underlined the necessity for commanders, who are responsible to
the chain of command and to the people of Canada for the
accomplishment of missions assigned by the government, to have
the necessary tools to retain control over discipline in their
units. Both witnesses were clear in their testimony to the
committee that the reduced powers and jurisdictions resulting
from Bill C-25 would not prevent commanders from doing their job.
As for the summary trial process, the minister indicated during
second reading debate and in committee that reform is already
well under way. Amendments to the Queen's regulations and orders
enacted on November 30, 1997 restrict the jurisdiction of summary
trials to more minor offences that affect internal unit
discipline. They also grant accused persons the right to elect
trial by courts martial in all but the most minor cases.
One feature of the summary trial reform that was discussed at
length in committee was the requirement to provide commanding
officers with more comprehensive training in their military
justice duties and responsibilities and to have them certified as
qualified to conduct summary trials.
The minister made it clear to committee members that we are
committed to certification training for the conduct of summary
trials. It is now under development and we hope that the
training will get under way in the fall. Once it is in place we
will require officers to be certified as qualified prior to
conducting summary trials.
There was concern in the committee regarding the requirement to
be able to award the punishment of detention at summary trials
and the committee sought direct testimony on that point.
Chief Justice Dickson told the committee that it was vital that
the commanding officer retain the power of detention. General
Belzile also told the committee that it was essential for the
commanding officer to retain the option of awarding detention at
summary trials. While retaining the punishment of detention at
summary trials, it has nevertheless been reduced from 90 to 30
days. The automatic permanent reduction in rank to private has
been eliminated. The members will be paid as privates while
serving detention.
The government has thus strengthened compliance with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and detention will remain
an effective tool for commanding officers to use to maintain unit
discipline and operational effectiveness.
In debate and in committee there has been reference to a
two-tiered justice system. It is the goal of the government and
this bill to promote equal treatment of Canadian forces members
under the code of service discipline, regardless of their rank or
sex. Several initiatives have been taken to ensure members are
treated equally, regardless of sex or rank, and to provide
treatment that is comparable to that under the civil justice
system.
The code of service discipline procedures have been reviewed to
ensure that any departures from civilian standards are militarily
necessary and changes have been made where they are not. For
example, at courts martial military judges will now sentence
those convicted of service offences. In addition, punishment of
hard labour and the death penalty will no longer be available as
a result of changes under Bill C-25.
With respect to sexual equality, men and women in the Canadian
forces must be able to contribute equally and work together in an
atmosphere of trust. The extension of jurisdiction by courts
martial over sexual assault offences that occur in Canada serves
this purpose.
The establishment of the independent national investigation
service will ensure that such offences are promptly reported and
fully investigated. Permitting courts martial to try sexual
assault offences committed in Canada will ensure that such
offences are dealt with promptly and will demonstrate the
government's commitment to treat sexual violence against members
as a serious issue and to foster equality in the Canadian forces.
1545
Disciplinary and general courts martial panels which previously
were composed of officers only will now include warrant officers
and above where a non-commissioned member is being tried. This
better reflects the spectrum of individuals responsible for
command and discipline in the Canadian forces. Mandatory
accompanying punishments have been removed, eliminating a number
of differences between ranks and the application of punishments.
For example, non-commissioned members but not officers were
automatically reduced in rank when sentenced to imprisonment.
Under the bill the automatic reduction in rank will not be
removed.
Bill C-25 also demonstrates the government's commitment to
strengthened oversight and review mechanisms for the Canadian
forces and the department. In committee it was suggested that
there be a requirement for oversight by the inspector general.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been further consultations and I think you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Order referring Bill S-2 to the Standing Committee on
Transport be discharged and the said bill stand referred instead
to a committee of the whole and that the said committee of the
whole be deemed to have considered the said bill, reported
progress thereon and granted leave to consider the bill at a
future sitting.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
to the government House leader have unanimous consent of the
House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated
in committee, we put in place a threefold strategy to improve
oversight and review.
First, we are strengthening our co-operation with existing
oversight bodies such as the Office of the Auditor General, the
Commissioner of Official Languages and the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. Second, we are establishing new and specialized
oversight bodies such as an independent and external grievance
board and the military police complaints commission.
As the minister recently announced, Mr. André Marin, a former
assistant crown attorney and past head of Ontario's special
investigations unit, has been appointed the first ombudsman of
the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces. The
ombudsman will be an alternative to the chain of command and will
be vital for providing advice to members and superiors as to the
best way to go about resolving sources of conflict and grievances
to the satisfaction of the members involved.
The appointment of an ombudsman is a clear demonstration of the
government's continuing commitment to strengthen the
effectiveness and transparency of oversight mechanisms as well as
to improve openness and fairness in the Canadian forces. The
ombudsman will complement the mechanisms already in place to
oversee the DND and the Canadian forces, including the new
grievance board and military police complaints commission that I
have mentioned.
In our third step to improve oversight and review we will
substantially increase annual and public reporting. There will
be annual reports under Bill C-25 by the JAG, the grievance board
and the military police complaints commission. In short, there
would be nothing left for an inspector general. As I said in
committee all bases are covered.
I would like to take the opportunity of this third reading
debate to address the issue of the removal of the death penalty
provisions from the National Defence Act. The removal of the
death penalty from the military is long overdue. It was
abolished some 22 years ago in the Criminal Code. Since the
enactment of the National Defence Act in 1950 no member of the
Canadian forces has been executed for a service offence under the
act.
During World War II three soldiers were sentenced to death by
courts martial but only one was executed for committing murder
which was a civil offence and punishable at that time by death.
The military advice of the chief of the defence staff is that the
death penalty is not required under the code of service
discipline for military purposes.
The removal of the death penalty from the National Defence Act
will bring Canada's military law in step with its civilian
counterpart and with the approach taken by most western nations.
For more serious offences involving traitorous acts the
punishment of imprisonment with ineligibility for parole for 25
years which is being submitted will provide a sufficient
deterrent.
1550
No witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the
death penalty. In Chief Justice Dickson's testimony before
SCONDVA he underlined the importance of bringing the punishment
into line with the maximum punishment available under civil law.
The amendments to the National Defence Act are the most
comprehensive in 50 years. The government has delivered on the
reports of the Minister of National Defence, the special advisory
group and the Somalia commission. Also under Bill C-25 the
government has undertaken to review provisions of the act in five
years time.
The amendments in Bill C-25 in conjunction with the reforms
already undertaken will modernize the military justice system
while continuing to meet the military requirements for
portability, speed and involvement in the chain of command in
time of peace or conflict wherever the Canadian forces operate.
These amendments will ensure that our military remains combat
capable and ready to respond to the challenges and missions the
Canadian people demand of it, consistent with the values of
Canadian society and our constitution. Our country, with the
dedication of the men and women of the Canadian forces, deserves
no less.
Accordingly I urge all hon. members to support the bill.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for me to share
my 40 minute time slot with three of my colleagues thus breaking
it into four 10 minute slots.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca split his time into four
10 minute slots?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its
generosity. I will be sharing my time with the hon. members for
Lakeland, Edmonton East and Compton—Stanstead.
It is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-25. Men and women in
military uniform have been for a long time serving our country
with courage, distinction and in silence. They have worked hard.
They are busier now than they have ever been and have engaged in
some 17 military operations since the Korean war. Yet their
morale is the lowest it has been in years.
Why is that so? There are many reasons for it. The government
had an opportunity but it is disappointing that Bill C-25 did not
get to the heart of that.
My colleague from Calgary East put forth numerous constructive
suggestions to the government. It did not adopt any of them. The
suggestions would have gone a long way to making Bill C-25 the
bill that it should be, one that restores accountability,
transparency and honour to the military justice system.
We wanted to make the inspector general independent which would
have given the IG more power to represent our people in uniform.
On reforming the office of the judge advocate general we asked
that the JAG be separated from the chain of command. In other
words it would enable the JAG to have more power to investigate
problems within the military.
A situation is taking place in our military that is tearing out
its guts. Criminal activity including rape is somehow being
allowed in the military. It is turning a blind eye. Activities
done by a very small number of bad apples are tarnishing the vast
majority of people in the military who are doing an outstanding
job.
Those things are hardly being touched upon. Yet petty rules and
regulations are being enforced which are eliminating the esprit
de corps that is necessary to be able to mould a fighting force
that can be deployed around the world. The traditions of our
military have been torn away. The ability to wear badges of
merit are forbidden within our military.
How can we have a situation where promotions are basically
flatlined and stalled, where people are in the same positions for
10 or more years? Salaries have been stalled and flattened out
for a long time, and we understand that.
1555
The government could have put forth constructive solutions that
would not have cost any money. I presented them to then General
Dallaire who was responsible for the military in that capacity
two years ago when he appeared before the defence committee. We
were promised that action would be taken on them and nothing has
happened.
One constructive solution was the provision of a tax free
accommodation assistance allowance for all military people. Local
base commanders should have more power and more ability to manage
their services. Public works should be taken out of the hands of
base commanders so that they would be able to operate in a more
constructive way.
It is important also to look at our equipment. It is true that
the government has made some sensible purchases recently, but the
military still labours with equipment that is hazardous, rickety
and dangerous to the health of our service people. Military
personnel move around the country. They move from a small base
like the one in Cold Lake, Alberta, to the Esquimalt base in my
riding, the Marine Pacific Command. They find their costs
increase dramatically but there is no allowance for that.
When people enter the military they are willing to move around
to various parts of the country. They know it is part of their
job but they do not expect to be kicked in the teeth when they do
it. The situation is so bad military service people are going to
soup kitchens. They are moonlighting. Men with pregnant wives
are forced to work abroad to make a bit of extra money to put
food on the table back home. How can they serve our country and
our international obligations properly when they are forced to do
that?
We all understand the situation of the government with respect
to the financial crunch we all labour under. However
constructive solutions such as making a tax free accommodation
allowance payable to everyone and reducing the rents of members
quarters to what they were three years ago would be only fair.
PMQ rents were repeatedly jacked up and the salaries were
frozen. That sends a very bad message to our military personnel.
They are not looking to get rich. They know the situation they
are in. They understand the situation of the government and the
restrictions it is under. However they expect to be treated
fairly.
That is not too much to ask for people who travel far away under
extremely dangerous circumstances to wave the Canadian flag and
do the bidding of our country to fulfil its obligations abroad
and domestically.
We also have to consider the non-military people who work for
the military, the civilian population. At the base depot in
Esquimalt the people have done an admirable job of cutting. They
have cut remarkably well, so much so that they have been used as
a model for other bases around the country.
Many of those people have been working for the military at
salaries less than what they would make if they had gone on
welfare. Yet they have chosen to stay with the military and work
for DND because of the pride they feel in supporting an
institution that is an honourable part of the history of the
country.
Those individuals have no assurance of what will happen in the
future. They are not being communicated with at all on their
future. They know the tender process that is taking place is
occurring for efficiency reasons. All they ask is to be able to
bid on the contracts fairly and on a level playing field. They
are not being allowed to bid on jobs in which they have worked
honourably for decades in some cases. That is no way to treat
the people in our military. It is no way to treat the honourable
people who work in the Department of National Defence.
We should listen to the solutions put forth by my colleague from
Calgary East which would revamp our—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. government House leader on a
point of order.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the
Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons may introduce and propose for first reading of a bill
entitled an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the
Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act and Salaries Act
during Routing Proceedings on Thursday, June 11, 1998 and the
said bill shall be disposed of by the House as follows:
1. Commencing at 3.00 p.m. that day, the bill shall be debate at
the second reading stage and after not more than one hour of
debate all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading
stage of the bill shall be put without further debate;
2. Immediately after receiving second reading the said bill
shall be considered in a committee of a whole and after not more
than thirty minutes of consideration in committee of the whole
all questions necessary to dispose of the committee stage of bill
shall be put without further debate;
3. Immediately after being reported from the committee of the
whole, the said bill shall be concurred in at the report stage
and shall be debated at the third reading stage and after not
more than thirty minutes of debate all questions necessary to
dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put
without further debate;
4. The motions for second reading, concurrence and report stage
and for third reading of the said bill and the adoption of any
clause or title of the bill or any procedural motion necessary
for the adoption of the bill in committee of the whole shall be
deemed to have been carried “on division”.
That business to considered under Government Orders on the
morning of June 11, 1998 shall be the report stage of Bill C-38,
followed by the third reading stage of Bill C-37, provided that
no later than 11.00 a.m. on that day, all questions necessary to
dispose of the report stage of Bill C-38 shall be deemed to have
been put and divisions thereon requested and deferred to l.00
p.m. that day and at 1.00 p.m. all questions necessary to dispose
of the third reading stage of Bill C-37 shall be deemed to have
been put and divisions thereon requested and deferred until
immediately after completion of Bill C-38; and
That, during consideration of Government Orders on that day, a
member may propose a motion with respect to the amendments made
by the Senate to Bill C-410.
1600
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passsed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are some constructive solutions we can adopt to
make sure our military people have the ability to carry out their
jobs.
To revamp their morale, make the accommodation assistance
allowance non-taxable. Make it applicable to every person
serving in our military. Roll back the rents to what they were in
1994 at the time their salaries were frozen.
Give the base commanders the ability to maximize the
efficiencies on their base and get public works out of their
hair.
Bring back the traditions within the military. Listen to the
grassroots people in the military and allow them to wear their
merit badges. Bring back the honourable traditions that have
given them pride.
Stop penalizing the petty little infractions that enable them to
have esprit de corps necessary for them to form a fused fighting
force that will enable them to take care of the difficult
activities they must engage in abroad.
Be hard on those who are engaging in criminal activities and be
ruthless about eliminating them.
Take a look at the upper echelons of the military and make sure
there are people there who are working for their soldiers and the
grassroots and who are not people who are politicians in military
garb.
Give our soldiers a clear direction as to what their activities
are to be. They must not be ambiguous messages from the Minister
of Foreign Affairs. Through the minister of defence make sure
that the direction of our military people is very clear and
precise. Ask them to do a task and they will do it, but make sure
the message is not ambiguous.
Make sure we remember we are not training cub scouts, we are
training individuals to go abroad and potentially engage in war.
Make sure we do not forget those individuals who are in civilian
garb who operate and serve our soldiers and military garb in the
department of defence. Many have worked for many years. They
have undergone great cuts. They have engaged in efficiencies
willingly and they have done a superb job of doing that. They
need to be looked at, examine what they have done and do not
throw the baby out with the bathwater. In doing that we may be
adopting systems that would be less efficient for our military.
1605
Let us remember that our tradition in our military is
longstanding. Men and women have fought and died to make sure
that we have a country that is strong and free.
Let us enable our military personnel today to engage in the
honourable traditions of the past to engage in and fulfill our
obligations abroad and at home.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this legislation. I will talk a bit about
the reforms in this legislation but unfortunately much more about
what was not included in this legislation, in particular the
position of ombudsman and independent inspector general. I will
make some general comments about the men and women who serve in
our forces.
What is in the legislation has been talked about to some extent
but what we have in the legislation are some changes to the
office of the judge advocate general. There are some positive
changes in that but by and large the positive changes laid out in
this area are nullified because the judge advocate general is
left within the chain of command. There is not enough
independence.
Some of the improvements that have been made have lost their
value because the independence is limited. The military police
is another area where there was reform in this legislation. There
are some positive changes but again these positive changes are
largely overridden because this office really is not made
independent enough. That is still a concern regarding that
position and really limits to a great extent the value that could
have been presented in this legislation had it been done
properly.
That is what is in this legislation. What is not in the
legislation? The position of ombudsman is not mentioned in the
legislation. The position of independent inspector general has
been completely left out. There is no mentioned whatsoever and
seems to be rejected by this legislation, and certainly was
rejected by the minister's announcement of the ombudsman
yesterday.
The parliamentary secretary in his opening comments said there
is no need for an independent inspector general and his quote is
that all the bases are covered by what is presented in this
legislation and by the position of ombudsman. The ombudsman was
announced yesterday. I am going to point out as clearly as I can
that all the bases are not covered.
Because independence is not given to any of those involved in
this military justice system the reality is if any gains have
been made they are very small.
Let us look at the position of ombudsman. There is no mention
of it in this legislation. The interesting thing is that in
spite of the fact that the ombudsman was announced by the
minister yesterday, there is no legislation to establish a
position of ombudsman. What does that mean? We have an
ombudsman appointed. There is no legislation. To me that means
absolutely no power. That was something made very clear in the
press conference yesterday. The ombudsman who was appointed has
no power.
The only real power this ombudsman has is in presenting
information to the public about what is going on inside the
department. That is very limited because the ombudsman does not
really present the information that he might have on a situation
that is not being dealt with properly to the public. The
ombudsman rather presents the information to the minister. It
will be up to the minister to decide whether anything is done
with the information presented to him.
What really has been accomplished with that? I would like the
parliamentary secretary to explain how all the bases have been
covered.
1610
I want to read some of the things that have been said by the
minister and General Kinsman, former ADM of personnel. They were
talking about the position of ombudsman and what it would and
would not do. It is important to note here that this is an
organizational ombudsman, not the ombudsman that people are used
to when they hear about an ombudsman who is set out to deal with
a particular problem by a provincial government or some other
organization.
General Kinsman said: “Typical functions of an organizational
ombudsman would include listening to members' complaints and
providing an opportunity for ventilation; providing information
to members on policies, how to take action, where to find
information and so on; reframing issues and developing options
for members; referring people to help themselves with advice or
coaching; making informal, third party interventions”. As he
goes down the line he makes it clear that this position does
carry with it absolutely no power. That was reinforced yesterday
with the minister's announcement.
General Kinsman goes on to say: “Because of objections in the
operational commands to the proposal as tabled a compromise
option was developed which would limit members' direct access to
the ombudsman office, to administrative actions only, but would
authorize secondary access on all other matters after first
attempting resolution within the chain of command”.
People who have a complaint that is not being dealt with still
have to go through the chain of command and only then can it be
dealt with in some way by the ombudsman. The ombudsman, having
no power because there has been no legislation introduced to give
that power, has a very limited capability. The minister in
yesterday's press conference really reinforced that.
I would like the parliamentary secretary and the minister to
show how all the bases have been covered. It is clear that very
little progress has been made.
The most disturbing thing of all was said by the parliamentary
secretary today and the minister yesterday at the press
conference. They said that because this ombudsman has been
appointed there is no need for an independent inspector general.
We had proposals again and again by the Somalia commission and by
several other people who have done reviews of the military system
that call for the appointment of an independent inspector general
who would report to parliament completely outside the chain of
command. That is what people have called for. That is what is
needed and it is completely absent from this legislation. It is
a glaring hole.
All bases covered, I suggest the government does not get to
first base with this legislation. I am extremely concerned about
that because of the impact on our men and women who serve so well
in the Canadian forces and their need now for someone to go to
when their concerns are not dealt with properly.
I want to make it clear that when I am talking about the
position of ombudsman and the lack of authority and legislation
to even establish the position, I am not criticizing the
gentleman who was appointed, André Marin. He seems like a bright
young man and has great qualifications when one looks at what he
has done. He has been successful at what he has done. In terms
of the person appointed I do not have a concern.
However, I think Mr. Marin is headed for frustration. He goes
into this position for six months and he is then going to realize
he has been given an impossible task. There are high
expectations of what he would do but there is no authority
granted to allow him to do it.
1615
I will close by commenting on the impact of this legislation
which is very weak, on the ombudsman position which is very weak,
and on the impact of that on the men and women who serve so well
in our forces.
As the House of Commons defence committee found out, it is clear
that there are very good people serving in the Canadian forces.
They are dedicated. They are certainly not there for the money.
They are there because they want to serve this country. They are
proud of what they do, but they do need someone to help them when
they have a problem that is not dealt with by the chain of
command. They need someone.
Presenting legislation like this and saying that all bases are
covered is completely letting down the men and women who serve
this country so well. It is sad that has happened. Something
else has to happen to make up for the wrong that is being done in
presenting this legislation and nothing more.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise as the humble servant of the constituents of
Edmonton East to contribute to this debate on Bill C-25, an act
to amend the National Defence Act. I also contribute to this
debate in my capacity as official opposition critic for veterans
affairs.
Some commentators have remarked that there does not appear to
have been that much of significance on the legislative agenda
during this parliamentary term. The debate on this bill
demonstrates how commentators can easily be off the mark. Bill
C-25 is a most important piece of legislation. Through this bill
the most extensive set of amendments to the National Defence Act
since its enactment in 1950 are proposed.
As discussed by the Minister of National Defence in the House
last March, the government intends by this bill to implement
approximately 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry,
an inquiry cut short by this government.
This bill appears to be in part a government response to
conflicts of interest in the military justice system identified
in inquiries into the conduct of our troops in Somalia and
Bosnia. It also appears to be an attempt to address the perceived
discriminatory treatment of wrongdoing in the military. The
higher the rank of an accused, the less it is perceived that
justice will be administered fairly or that punishment will be
rendered equitably.
I enter into this debate as a parliamentarian with a military
background. From 1962 to 1965 I served with the military police
in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Some might argue that the justice system for the military should
be no different than the justice system for Canadian civilians.
Some might question why there is a separate justice system for
the military; should the administration of the criminal justice
system not be the same across provinces and across groups? Some
might argue that the military is no different from any other
self-governing profession where matters of professional
misconduct are addressed internally but where criminal matters
are addressed through a civilian court system.
My opinion is that a separate military justice system is
important and should be preserved. One reason for this is that
many of our most notorious cases in the military have related to
events occurring while on service outside Canada. It is far more
efficient for such wrongdoings to be addressed through the
Canadian military justice system than it would be to seek justice
in circumstances of international jurisdictional disputes.
As stated by the Minister of National Defence during the course
of his remarks on this bill, “by tradition there is a separate
military justice system because of the nature of dealing with
matters swiftly—it is necessary to have a portable system.
What we are attempting to do is to bring it as close as possible
to the civilian system”.
My colleagues and I are very supportive of improvements to the
system of justice in the military. At the same time we will be
opposing this bill. A primary reason for our opposition is that
we question whether this legislation is more akin to window
dressing rather than involving substantive changes to the
military justice system. We question whether the legislation
will achieve the government's objective of approximately
paralleling the civilian justice system particularly in terms of
increased bureaucracy.
We are all mindful of serious problems in the military
particularly relating to troop morale and generalized sentiments
that the higher the rank, the easier it is to transgress.
1620
The appointment of an ombudsman to address these concerns may do
little to change matters. The appointee is after all André
Marin, son of Judge René Marin, a Liberal judicial appointee.
Throughout any process to improve our military there must be a
lack of political bias, both in appearance and in fact. It has
been reported that André Marin was appointed at the personal
insistence of the defence minister and over the objection of
others who believed there were more suitable candidates.
I am not in any way impugning the competency of Mr. Marin. I
find it interesting and of course purely coincidental that his
appointment was announced two days before the final debate on the
bill.
Why is any issue of bias in appearance or in fact in the
assessment of military procedure important? It is because the
memories of the Liberal shutdown of the Somalia inquiry are quite
recent. As may be recalled, that shutdown occurred as the
inquiry was about to investigate the involvement of the Liberal
government in the Somalia affair. To the extent that Bill C-25
may be viewed as an attempt by the government to counter
criticisms of its shutdown of the Somalia inquiry, the bill may
be viewed as a vain attempt to deflect concern.
In the absence of clearly unbiased processes throughout,
unbiased in fact or in appearance, the government may still be
viewed as permitting a culture of secrecy, cover-up and
intimidation to continue unchecked in the military. The
government may also be viewed as ratifying the behaviours and
attitudes of senior military officials who are not held
accountable for their roles in important mistakes and scandals.
Invariably, subordinates are the ones who end up being blamed for
the mistakes of their superiors.
I now wish to address certain particulars of the bill,
particularly as they relate to the military police. If one
accepts as I do that a separate system of military justice is
necessary, then a separate military police force becomes equally
necessary. If one accepts as I do that such a military system of
justice should not significantly vary from the system of justice
governing civilians, then a separate regulatory regime for the
military police becomes necessary.
In furtherance of a recommendation from the Somalia inquiry, a
military police code of conduct is authorized by Bill C-25. In
addition, processes are established for complaints by or against
the military police. These processes for complaints against
military police parallel those in civilian life. There is to be
an independent military police complaints commission to address
what is referred to as conduct complaints. On the other hand, when
military police have concerns that investigations have been
interfered with, they too can complain to the complaints
commission. This is called an interference complaint.
An interference complaint may be made by a member of the
military police who conducted or supervised an investigation and
who reasonably believes that a member of the Canadian forces or a
senior official at the Department of National Defence had
improperly interfered with that investigation.
This puts military police on a different footing from civilian
police. There is a charge in criminal law called obstruction of
justice. Police do not have to go before a police commission to
have such a charge reviewed. The charge may simply be laid based
on the facts.
Being charged with obstruction of justice should not depend on
where one is positioned in the national defence hierarchy. I
believe the military police should have similar powers to those
available to civilian police. By placing a commission between
the facts and any charges, the government perpetuates the image
of bias in the assessment of obstruction of justice charges.
This is particularly so since the commission has the power to
discontinue an investigation. This is one of the very failings
within the military that is identified in the Somalia inquiry and
elsewhere.
There is a pervasive impression that justice can be obstructed
within the military depending on the rank of the accused or in
circumstances where the military perceives itself to be under
attack by an organization.
All legislative initiatives should be with a view to eliminating
any impression that such obstructions of justice could occur or
continue within the military. I do not believe this legislation
accomplishes this.
1625
On a more positive note, the possibility of a stay of
proceedings by a commanding officer who may not be a lawyer is
finally eliminated. There is a clear appearance of bias when
criminal justice proceedings may be stayed by someone who has a
vested interest in the outcome.
Within the constraints of my time, I wish the Hansard
record to show that my main reservation with this bill is that
bias in appearance or in fact in the military is not eliminated
by it. While the bill is an ambitious first start toward reform
of the military justice system, there is clearly much work to be
done and in the case of this bill much more legislative drafting
to be done. I urge my colleagues to vote against Bill C-25.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party for sharing their
time.
I am happy to speak to this bill today. The government has
decided to address the issue of justice in the Canadian forces
and it is about time. Like everything this government does, no
matter how noble it appears to be, all we have to do is scratch
the surface and we will always find an ulterior motive. Those
motives generally are to look good rather than to do good. Today
is one of those days.
Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both
important and urgent. My party understands that if we are going
to do something, it is worth doing it right. Unfortunately while
there are some interesting points in this bill, it leaves far too
much out and does not address the real problems the Canadian
forces face today.
There are several questions we have to ask ourselves today.
First, what events brought us to this point to have this bill
reach Canada's House of Commons? Second, did this government act
in the appropriate way and does this bill address the need for
change? Third, if passed, will this bill work in a practical way
when it is applied? While all of these questions are certainly
connected, it would serve us well to take time to ensure that
they are answered to Canadians' satisfaction.
The first question is perhaps the most important and the key to
this. What events brought us to this point? All members of this
House are aware of the events that transpired as a result of
other events in Somalia. However they are worth repeating and
repeating. The Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and
personal reasons last year. That brings us here today.
Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public
concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials to this
House, it is incumbent upon all of us to take such matters very
seriously. It seems to me that if there is a good enough reason
to begin an inquiry commission, then there is probably a real
reason to complete that inquiry commission.
Because the Somalia inquiry was cut short, this has never been
resolved. The result is that Canada's fine military has been
dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The
result is that Canadians do not know what the true story is and
still there is no resolution. It is not because this government
suddenly cares about military justice. The government shut down a
public inquiry and there was no resolution.
Last month Maclean's magazine revealed that there was
ongoing sexual abuse and sexual assault taking place in the
military. Women do not feel comfortable doing their job. This is
unacceptable.
Although my friends in the Reform Party seem to think that women
should not be in the military at all, most members in this House
and I believe the minister of defence agrees that this behaviour
toward women is unacceptable. Saying it is unacceptable and doing
something about it are two different things.
What we have now is an atmosphere of distrust with the Canadian
forces members who have been wronged. They feel safer and feel
as if more will be accomplished if they go to Maclean's
magazine than if they report the crime to the appropriate
personnel.
1630
There is something wrong with that and this bill does not fix
the problem.
The Minister of National Defence introduced a new ombudsman
yesterday. In this House, I congratulated that new ombudsman and
wished him well on his new job. When asked, this new ombudsman
said that he has not been told what his budget will be, how much
staff he will have and has not been given virtually any
guidelines. That is certainly not acceptable.
That brings me to the second point I outlined earlier. Did this
government act in the appropriate way? Does this bill address
the need for change?
I just told this House that I disagree with the way this bill
arrived here. However, there is much in this bill that my party
agrees with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to
cover something up, rather than address the real issues as this
government so often does, the result is very often inadequate.
Similarly, because this government is introducing this bill for
the wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the
real problems.
Indeed the government missed an excellent opportunity to instil
new confidence in our military. The government could have taken
measures that would truly make a difference, measures the
Canadian public could point to and say “my government listened,
I now have faith in the way the military operates”.
But the government did not listen. Instead it shut down an
inquiry and stifled debate. Now the Canadian public will feel
cheated, and justly so.
There are ongoing investigations into sexual abuse. Does that
make the Canadian public feel good about the people who wear
Canada's uniform? I do not think so.
This government feels proud when it says it is fulfilling 80% of
the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two
points about this not so great accomplishment.
First, the Somalia commission was cut short and so we do not
know what the full recommendations would have been. Second,
while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my
party's answer to that is quality is much more important than
quantity.
The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that the judge
advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored that
recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended
that an office of inspector general be created. The government
ignored that recommendation.
My party proposed in our election platform last year and we
maintain today that creating the office of inspector general
would be the best way to make the military accountable and
increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its
armed forces.
The Minister of National Defence said that the Canadian forces
do not need someone looking over their shoulder. Then he goes on
to say that the role of inspector general is being fulfilled in
other ways. He mentions the grievance board made up of eminent
Canadians. He mentions the new ombudsman. Could it be that the
grievance board and the ombudsman do not do what an inspector
general could do?
The way this bill would have it these bodies have absolutely no
teeth. They can make recommendations and the CDS can ignore
them. The Canadian public has little reason to believe that the
recommendations will not be ignored.
The witnesses who came forward to speak to us on this bill were
very knowledgeable. Professor Doug Bland of Queen's University
recommended that the committee look at chapter 44 of the Somalia
report.
It might be most effective if I read his words directly: “With
respect, I would direct your attention to the final section of
the report of the inquiry, the Somalia inquiry, `The Need for a
Vigilant Parliament', which comes back to my original point. I
believe that the defence of Canada, the operation of the armed
forces, the delegation of responsibility, every act, every aspect
of national defence policy in this country is the responsibility
of members of parliament”.
That was on May 12, 1998. I would like to read a motion I put
forward on November 29, 1997 at SCONDVA: “That the committee
invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before this
committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report `The Need
for a Vigilant Parliament”'.
I presented this motion five months before Professor Bland and
others appeared before the committee to discuss this very bill.
I am sad to say the motion was turned down.
This government does not want a vigilant parliament because if
parliament were too vigilant, this government might not get away
with all its schemes.
As the events of the last few days have demonstrated, when there
is not one government member in the Chamber, this Liberal
government has absolutely no respect for parliament and no
respect for democracy.
This government's members do not listen. They do what the Prime
Minister's office tells them to, no questions asked. After the
hepatitis C compensation vote all Canadians know this, but it is
true in other instances also.
1635
I want to review some of the amendments that I know this
government in its arrogance would not even consider. For
example, if I had any faith that this government would actually
listen and consider, I would have introduced a motion to
establish an independent body of the office of inspector general
including the powers to evaluate systematic problems in the
military justice; conduct investigations into officer misconduct
such as failure to take corrective action, personal misconduct,
waste and abuse and possible injustice to individuals; protect
those who report wrongdoing from reprisals; protect individuals
from abuse of authority and improper personal actions including
racial harassment and sexual harassment; and most important,
report directly to parliament.
We know that the government would not even listen. The Minister
of National Defence is not listening now. But the government did
turn down the inspector general with solid reasons that my party
could not accept.
Another recommendation we could have made is make the
recommendations of the grievance board mandatory and binding and
introduce a six month time limit within which the complaints must
be examined.
But this government does not listen. It does not hear. It does
not want an office with teeth and with real authority.
My party wholeheartedly agrees with the need to change the
military justice system. This bill needs to go further to create
real change. We want the public to know that the military serves
it and not itself. This bill fails to do that and the government
has failed to do its job.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-25, an act
to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Ever since he tabled this bill, the Minister of National Defence
has been trying to make us believe that the proposed amendments
to the military justice system will ensure greater transparency
and improved accountability on the part of his department and
the Canadian forces.
It is true that the bill includes some accountability
mechanisms.
The new grievance board, the new military police complaints
commission and the judge advocate general will release annual
reports that the Minister of National Defence will then have to
table in Parliament. These reports are in addition to those of
the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Provost Marshal of the
Canadian Forces, and other reports issued by the new monitoring
committee set up last fall by the Minister of National Defence.
Soon, we will literally be flooded with annual reports from DND.
While the Department of National Defence has long been
criticized for lacking transparency, its new will to account to
the public is somewhat surprising.
However, in spite of this apparent openness, I have doubts about
the objectivity of these various authorities in drafting their
reports, considering how close they are to the institution
itself.
The judge advocate general, the chief of the defence staff and
the provost marshal are all members of the military; the members
of the monitoring committee are friends of the minister;
finally, the chairman of the grievance board will work in close
co-operation with the chief of the defence staff.
Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to think that we will
not have access to very objective reports. When it comes to
transparency, more is required than these reports to make
Quebeckers and Canadians stop feeling that the Canadian forces
are a state within the state.
Since parliamentarians will not have free access to a critical
and impartial analysis of defence issues, they will not be able
to properly monitor military affairs.
1640
Admittedly, my comments may seem harsh, but the issue here is
not to launch a personal attack on those who will have to submit
annual reports, but to be aware of the difficulty of objectively
criticizing an institution of which one is a member. Generally,
it is preferable to have an impartial outside observer.
This is why, as the Létourneau commission recommended, we
believe that an inspector general, working independently from
the Canadian armed forces and accountable to Parliament, would
ensure a fair, neutral and balanced analysis of the activities
of the military, which the present bill will never be able to
do.
Not only does the Bloc Quebecois think it would be preferable to
have an non-political and independent review body, but all other
parties in the House have also expressed the same view.
The Minister of Defence tells us that the Somalia commission of
inquiry's recommendation regarding the office of inspector
general is being implemented, but in other ways. Among other
things, the minister is referring to the review committee he set
up last fall.
As we pointed out at second reading of the bill now before us,
this committee bears no resemblance to what the Létourneau
commission wanted to see. This review committee is composed of
eight individuals who will examine the implementation of the
changes announced in the department and in the armed forces.
These people will have no say, however, regarding the actual
conduct of the Canadian armed forces.
In addition, the minister is deliberately not pointing out that
this committee has a mandate of only two years. In the end,
what will there be for it to do? A few annual reports here and
there in order to meet the accountability requirement.
The minister is thus misleading the public and giving the
impression that he is agreeing to an inspection. We are not so
foolish as to think that there will be a real inspection,
independent of military activities.
In his various interventions on Bill C-25, the minister has also
said that implementing the amendments to the National Defence
Act will increase the fairness and effectiveness of the military
justice system. Bloc members have raised several procedural
shortcomings in summary trials during second reading of the bill.
Time prevented us from discussing the problems associated with
the military justice system specific to courts martial. We
therefore welcome the opportunity today to comment on this
matter.
The National Defence Act provides for four different types of
courts martial: the general court martial, the disciplinary
court martial, the standing court martial and the special
general court martial. The first two are comprised of a military
judge and a committee whose membership varies the same way that
of a jury does in a civilian criminal court.
The members of this committee are the triers of fact, which
means that they determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
It is therefore up to the committee to sentence any accused who
has been found guilty.
However, this prerogative of sentencing is abolished by the bill
before us, and it will fall to the military judge. This
amendment brings the military judicial process more in line with
ordinary criminal procedure.
Even though it will no longer have authority over sentencing,
the committee will nevertheless continue to determine guilt or
innocence of the accused. Its judicial independence and
impartiality is therefore of paramount importance to the
accused.
At present, only commissioned officers can sit as members of
general and disciplinary court martial panels. The bill ensures
greater openness to non-commissioned members by allowing them to
serve on courts martial under certain circumstances.
However, since court martial panels remain composed of military
personnel, the issue of institutional independence remains.
Can a military tribunal, made up of military personnel and
therefore likely to be affected by military culture, really be
impartial within the meaning of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms? Is it really independent enough to render a
verdict without reasonable apprehension of bias?
1645
According to the principle of impartiality, a court must not be
influenced by either the parties or outside forces, except to
the extent that it is convinced by the arguments on the point of
law being disputed.
The decision makers' status must guarantee freedom from all
outside influence. As we know, military personnel undergo
periodic performance evaluations which can impact on their
career advancement as well as their pay. A member of the
military may therefore find himself in a situation where his
performance as part of a court martial can be evaluated. The
assessment might, therefore, reflect the satisfaction, or
dissatisfaction, of his superior.
It is true, however, that the Queen's Regulations and Orders
were amended several years ago to prevent any consideration
relating to the performance of a member of the military from
affecting his promotion or pay.
Can we reasonably believe, however, that this change in the
regulations has had the expected results? In other words, can
the person evaluating a member of the military really disregard
that individual's performance in a court martial?
Similarly, can a member of a court martial panel really
disregard the fact that he is running a risk if he goes against
the will of the military establishment?
Despite the changes to the regulations, the risk is still there.
What effect does this have? It leaves us with committee
members who may not be totally independent and whose judgment
may be influenced by outside forces or considerations .
Earlier we pointed out that the bill now allows non-commissioned
members to sit on a court martial, under certain circumstances.
This opening up of the system to include non-commissioned members
is probably the result of the negative image projected by the
court martial of certain members of the Airborne Regiment, in
connection with the incidents in Somalia.
The public as a whole gained the impression from these events
that the lower ranks were the designated fall guys, while the
senior ranks escaped unscathed. These cases also left the
impression that court martial panels were too heavily stacked
with Defence Headquarters brass with interests to protect.
Now they are trying to reverse engines by indicating a
willingness to allow non-commissioned members to serve as members
of court martial panels. Imagine, however, the pressure there
will be on non-commissioned members to go along with the wishes
of high ranking officers on court martial panels. Imagine the
pressure there will be on non-commissioned members to conform to
the military establishment. Imagine the consequences on
military careers of stepping out of line.
This is not an attack on the personal integrity of NCMs who
serve as members of court martial panels. It must be admitted,
however, that the knowledge that a general or disciplinary court
martial panel includes a non-commissioned member in a position of
vulnerability might cause a reasonable and well-informed person
to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the tribunal's
impartiality.
At the risk of being repetitious, I wish to say that my remarks
are not intended as any sort of attack on soldiers. We must
simply be aware of the risk of hierarchical influence.
The U.S. military court of appeal has already described
hierarchical influence as the mortal enemy of military justice.
Despite the sanctions in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for
the Canadian Forces, the problem of undue hierarchical influence
remains intact.
This does not mean that a court martial is always impartial,
except that the knowledge that a general or disciplinary court
martial panel includes soldiers might cause a reasonable and
well-informed person to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the
tribunal's impartiality.
The very composition of general and disciplinary court martial
panels does not meet the requirements of section 11(d) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1650
The bill does not answer concerns about the impartiality of
court martials. Under the circumstances, would it not be
appropriate to simply abolish the court martial committee,
which, one way or another, will always be open to criticism, and
replace it with a real jury of civilians, which would be more in
keeping with the standards of impartiality and independence
guaranteed by the charter?
I would also like to say a few words about the new commission to
review complaints about the military police. Under the bill,
the commission will examine complaints of misconduct by the
military police. It will also look into complaints of
interference by members of the Canadian forces and senior
officials in the department in its investigations.
At first glance, there is merit in creating a new commission.
Unfortunately, the Minister of National Defence missed the
opportunity to give this body real powers to intervene, because
the conclusions and recommendations of the commission are not
binding. In fact, its conclusions and recommendations are
reviewed by one of the authorities provided by the legislation.
According to the type of complaint and respondent, the reviewing
authority will vary.
It may be a provost marshal, the chief of staff, the deputy
minister or the minister himself. In other words, the final
decision on treatment given complaints rests with one of these
individuals.
Therefore, the commission has no decision-making authority, since
the final decision on the handling of complaints rests either
with the military—the provost marshal or the chief of staff—or
with the executive—the minister or the deputy minister. The
minister therefore considered it enough to create a body similar
to the public complaints commission for the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, or its imperfections.
So what exactly is the point of creating such a commission when,
in the end, the result is the same? Once again, had the
minister really wanted to change things he would have created a
commission with real powers instead of trying to fool us by
setting up an empty commission?
In closing, I must say that the Bloc Quebecois will not vote in
favour of Bill C-25.
Contrary to what the minister claimed, we do not think that the
amendments made to the bill will ensure transparency in the
military justice system and increase its fairness.
On the one hand, the accountability mechanisms provided by the
bill will not ensure a better review of the activities of
National Defence and the Canadian forces. On the other hand,
since the standards that apply to military justice do not offer
the same constitutional guarantees as those of civil criminal
courts, we cannot support the bill. It is a matter of respect
for all military personnel. They, like any other Canadian
citizen, have a right to be treated fairly. Otherwise, their
right to equality before the law is compromised.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed a bill to which the concurrence
of this House is desired.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-25. The bill was
introduced last December. It proposes the most extensive set of
amendments to the National Defence Act in the past half century.
The main focus of this bill and a key focus of the act is the
military justice system, the distinct system of penal law
applicable to members of the Canadian forces and other persons
subject to Canadian military jurisdiction.
The eight parts of the act comprising the statutory basis for
service, that is military offences and the procedures for
enforcement, investigation, prosecution, trying and punishing
those who commit them, are called the code of service discipline.
1655
Service offences under the code of service discipline naturally
include infractions which relate uniquely to military service.
However, the code of service discipline also incorporates
offences against the Criminal Code and other federal acts and
with a few notable exceptions permits the military justice system
to have jurisdiction over persons who commit them while subject
to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Canadian forces.
As we all know, the military justice system in recent years has
been under increasing scrutiny and pressure for significant
changes. One factor is undoubtedly the extended and
unprecedented period of time since Canada was last involved in a
major war and the perception that the chances of such involvement
are remote. This situation tends to lead people to be less
tolerant of any perceived systemic unfairness in the system and
its retention of punishments perceived as excessive or
anachronistic.
Another factor has been the adoption of the charter of rights
and freedoms. This constitutional change has brought the
military justice system as well as the Canadian legal system
generally under increased public scrutiny regarding procedural
safeguards for accused persons and principles of fairness and
equality of treatment in general.
Particular attention has been drawn to aspects of the military
justice system which reflect the disparity of treatment between
soldiers and civilians or among military personnel such as the
lack of certain traditional criminal law safeguards at summary
trials; the fact that only junior ranks, private and corporals,
and non-commissioned officers, master corporals and sergeants can
be summarily sentenced to detention or reduction in rank; the
considerable discretion of commanding officers in deciding to
proceed with or dismiss charges, possibly including even serious
criminal offences; and that persons exercising judicial functions
or what would be judicial functions in the civilian system are
frequently members of the chain of command who have no legal
training and who have other apparently conflicting
responsibilities for administering the code of service
discipline.
In the past few years such issues and concerns have been brought
to the forefront by various high profile cases such as those
relating to misconduct by some Canadian forces members in Somalia
and Bosnia, which has been well discussed here this afternoon.
Moreover, the 1997 reports on Somalia and the Dickson report
recommended a series of changes to the military justice system.
There have also been a number of other internal and external
studies about possible reforms to our military justice system.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the things
that have not been addressed in Bill C-25 that came out of that
Dickson panel. One is the office of the inspector general which
was discussed at some length here this afternoon.
The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of such an
institution as a general supervisory and review body outside the
chain of command. It did not happen. Whistleblower protection
was another item that came out of the Dickson Report. Again
referring back to the Somalia inquiry, it recommended specific
measures aimed at protecting both those who reported wrongdoing
in connection with Somalia, both at the time and in conjunction
with the inquiry, and those who may do so in the future.
Another item that was conveniently ignored in Bill C-25 is
trials by civilian judges and juries. The Somalia inquiry
recommended that military accused charged with offences
punishable by five years imprisonment or more have the right to
elect trial by jury before a civilian court. The Somalia inquiry
also recommended that all military judges be civilians appointed
under the federal Judges Act with the same security of tenure as
civilian judges. Again, this was not acted on.
On the independence of military police, a number of
recommendations of the Somalia inquiry were directed at making
concrete institutional and procedural changes to ensure the equal
treatment of all suspects without distinction of rank and to
insulate military police from direct or indirect command
interference. This was not acted on at all.
It is not surprising that as a result one of the three
commissioners, Peter Desbarats, called the shutdown the most
brazen cover-up and denials of responsibility in the history of
our country. He also said that the government's action were a
brazen cover-up and a total denial of responsibility.
Because the government opposite snuffed out the inquiry Canadians
will never know all the truth about what happened in Somalia or
who was responsible for the ensuing cover-up. It has to be
constantly restated that this was the first time in Canada's
history that a federal government shut down a commission of
inquiry before that important work had been completed. It was
profoundly undemocratic and an extremely dangerous precedent was
set by the government in the previous parliament.
1700
I want to draw my remarks to a close by referring to the charges
of sexual misconduct in the military that have been revealed
recently, particularly by Maclean's magazine, but by other
news media as well. I want to talk about it in terms of a
specific case that deals with one of my constituents, with whom I
met less than two weeks ago. I want to put her case on the
record.
Before I do that I want to say that, without a doubt, this was
the most stomach churning, upsetting bit of casework that I have
ever done in the brief time I have been here as a member of
parliament.
Here are the key points as they were related to me. This
individual, who was then 18 years of age, signed on as a female
bosun. As I understand it, it was at a time when females were
being allowed to take that position for the very first time,
which was in 1989. She was dispatched to the west coast and
assigned to a ship there.
During the fall of 1989 this individual said that she
experienced several instances of unwanted and unwelcome sexual
advances that included touching, rubbing, petting and patting.
She advised that there was a particularly disgusting incident
prior to Christmas 1989 when she was presented with a plastic
penis from some members of the crew of another ship that was in
port.
Following the break over the holidays this individual, who went
in as an ordinary seaman and had been promoted to an able seaman,
returned to the west coast. The occasional harassment and
unwelcome sexual advances continued, including one incident of a
male superior exposing himself in front of her on board the ship.
However, nothing during the early months of 1990 prepared this
individual for what took place on a night in early May of that
year.
On this evening the individual stated that she was asleep on
board the ship when she awoke to find a seaman in the cot with
her. The seaman was partially naked. She says that she could
feel his penis against her thigh and her bra had been pushed up.
According to this individual, the male seaman had his hand in her
underwear and a finger inserted in her vagina. Her screams awoke
the other females present in this female only section of the
ship, who in turn began screaming at the male seaman, who then
apparently picked up some of his clothes and repaired to a female
only washroom to get dressed.
The military police were called and the male in question was
either arrested or detained. A rape kit indicated that the
individual, despite the overbearing harassment, had not in fact
been actually raped, but she was sent home on compassionate
leave.
When she returned two weeks later she felt that she was being
completely ostracized, excluded and was unwelcome by her peers
and superiors.
1705
The insensitivity of the military officials was heightened by
the fact that she was forced to share a military bus on the base
for two weeks with her assailant before somebody figured it out
and changed one of their schedules so she did not have to go
through this ordeal.
She eventually requested a leave. She could not go back on the
ship. She was not much longer in the military before she sought
to get out and was released from duty.
Although she was under psychiatric care in Esquimalt, when she
left there she was not eligible for treatment and there was no
military psychiatrist who could treat her. Her parents helped
her out for a bit in terms of psychiatric help, but it was too
costly and she stopped seeing anybody for professional help.
It is also worth noting that the navy lost all of her
performance records and she was told that if she wanted to go
back she would have to start all over again as an ordinary
seaman.
My sense of this is that what the military did after this
odious, horrible and shameful incident is as bad as the actual
incident itself.
No one ever contacted her. She never had a chance to testify
at the trial. No one has ever told her that she may be eligible
for compensation under veterans affairs.
This is symptomatic of the problem we have in the military. We
have low pay. We have low morale. We have a lack of leadership
and we do not think that Bill C-25 begins to deal with the root
of the fundamental problems in the military.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[English]
At the request of the the chief government whip the vote on the
motion is deferred until tomorrow at 1.00 p.m.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today I tabled a motion
and I am seeking unanimous consent to make a minor amendment in
the sixth paragraph of the motion at the fifth line to add after
the word question, “necessary to dispose of the third reading
stage of Bill C-37”.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the government House leader have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose this amendment to
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment to the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
(Amendment agreed to)
* * *
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, in accordance with section 54(1) of the act to extend the
present laws of Canada that provide access to information under
the control of the Government of Canada, Chapter A-1 of the
Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approve the
appointment of the Hon. John M. Reid, P.C., as Information
Commissioner.
[Translation]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take these few moments
today to submit to the House the candidacy of the Hon. John Mr.
Reid for the position of Information Commissioner.
1710
The Hon. John Reid, a native of Fort Frances, Ontario, studied
at St. Paul's College, at the University of Manitoba, and at the
University of Toronto. He was first elected to the House of
Commons in 1965, and again in 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980.
He was parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy
Council in 1972 and became Minister of State for
Federal-Provincial Relations on November 24, 1978.
For a number of years, he worked for a group well known to all
parliamentarians, the Company of Young Canadians, to which he
gave distinguished service.
Far more important in today's context is the fact that, during
his time here, the Hon. John Reid was one of those in favour of
our country's having campaign expenses legislation.
He did excellent work in support of that cause. Many credit him
for the existence of certain components of the legislation we
now have in this area.
Later, he worked along with another former MP, Alfred Hales, and
others, on the creation of an access to information system to
allow the Canadian public to gain a greater knowledge of this
country's government machinery.
[English]
The position of information commissioner, which we are about to
fill, is not an easy one. It requires that an individual be
dedicated to the ongoing development of democratic practices. It
also requires that one be willing and able to express strong
opinion, and yet have an excellent knowledge of the inner
workings of government and of the public service.
The position was held, until recently, by Dr. John Grace. His
term, as I understand it, expired on April 30, 1998, just a few
days ago. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr.
John Grace for the work that he did as information commissioner.
Under the Access to Information Act, 1983, Canadians have a
broad legal right of access to information recorded in any form
and controlled by most federal institutions, but subject to
limited and specific exemptions.
The information commissioner is a very special ombudsman
appointed by parliament to investigate complaints about the
refusal to provide information pursuant to the act. The
commissioner's priorities are: to convince government to release
information informally, without the need to resort to legal
proceedings or the rigour of the courts; to follow, where
possible, a non-adversarial approach; to resolve complaints in a
fair, equitable and expeditious manner; and to ensure that
response deadlines are consistently respected across government.
The position requires experience in managing at the senior
executive level and in innovating and leading the management of a
multidisciplinary team on sensitive issues in a public
environment.
In addition to possessing a thorough knowledge of the Access to
Information Act, and of course an understanding of the rules of
natural justice and fairness, the commissioner must have an
extensive understanding of the principles of public
administration, current government structure, the internal
government decision making process, the complexities of federal
and provincial jurisdictions and government security
requirements.
The government and I believe that the Hon. John Reid has the
unusual kind of qualities necessary to achieve the desired result
of providing information to members of parliament and the public,
to respect the limitations that I have just described and to
recognize the Privacy Act and the counterweight that it provides
where appropriate and necessary.
1715
In this regard I thank my colleagues in the House who brought
the candidacy of the honourable John Reid to my attention and to
the attention of the government. Even though the honourable Mr.
Reid was a member of a Liberal government in the past and sat as
a member of parliament, I think the fact that his candidacy was
brought to the attention of the government by members of other
parties in the House speaks very highly to his qualifications.
I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for drawing his name
to the attention of the government. Of course the government
officially proposes the candidacy of an individual, which is what
I am doing and what the government has done through the authority
of the Prime Minister. Now I am seeking the consent of the House
to have this nomination ratified.
The honourable Mr. Reid is an historian by training. As I said
a while ago, he was a member of the House for a number of years.
His brother, Patrick Reid, served for many years and was the dean
of the Ontario legislature at the time that I sat at Queen's Park
many years ago, so long ago that I even had hair in those days.
An hon. member: That was some while ago.
Hon. Don Boudria: “That was a while ago”, says an hon.
colleague. Probably the opposition House leader would understand
just how I feel in that regard.
Returning to the honourable John Reid I want to say a word as
well about the late Jed Baldwin. Jed Baldwin, a Conservative
member of parliament, worked tirelessly for the adoption of the
access to information laws in Canada. I remember as a junior
staffer working on the Hill many years prior to my first election
as an MP, walking by Mr. Baldwin's office and seeing him work
tirelessly as he did then. I pay homage to him as well as a
pioneer of this legislation.
With these few words, I offer to the House on behalf of the
Right Hon. Prime Minister and the government the candidacy of the
Hon. John Reid, PC, as information commissioner for Canada. I
thank in advance my colleagues across the way for not only their
generous support of the candidacy of the honourable John Reid but
also for having drawn his name to the attention of the
government, recognizing that it is the nomination of the
government that will be supported hopefully later this day by the
House of Commons.
I highly recommend this person. I believe he will serve the
country faithfully as he did in his previous function. With
access to information laws being what they are often individuals
who administer those functions tend to do so and sometimes their
judgment displeases the government more than they do the
opposition. As we say “Them's the breaks”.
I recognize that will probably happen every now and then once
Mr. Reid assumes these functions. I certainly undertake to
respect that as I am sure all of us will once he begins to
discharge the duties of information commissioner. I am sure,
though, that he will perform these functions with wisdom and that
he will do a good job for the country he loves so much, Canada.
1720
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to see so many of my colleagues here today. I will
talk about the process of appointing an information commissioner.
We are going to support this appointment. I had the opportunity
and indeed the pleasure to interview Mr. John Reid and I was
quite impressed. I will go through a bit of the process. I hope
to influence my colleagues on the other side that the process was
not as harmful as they thought it could be.
During my lifetime I have probably interviewed 300 to 600
people. I lost count years ago. I have always seen a benefit in
it. It is not just for bureaucracy but for business. The
process of interviewing people is so common that it is uncommon
not to do it. The selection process of any individual is common.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have done it in your past businesses.
You have to know the type of individual you want in your
business, in your company or in any job like that of information
commissioner. You have to advertise as widely as you can to get
the most prominent applicants. You have to look at all the
applications and short list which does not come as a surprise to
anybody over here. You have to interview, talk to the
individuals you have short listed and make a selection. Then you
check references to double check that your selection is right.
That process is not a strange process in the land but it is
strange in the House. I do not want to degrade any conversation
in terms of patronage appointments, but I really want to try to
influence my colleagues that we have started a process which
could actually work for officers of the House of Commons. Perhaps
someday we could expand it. At the very least what should have
occurred here is the process I was talking about.
Instead some time ago an individual was proposed by the
government. I did not know that individual. I do not know how
many of my other colleagues or the media actually need this
function as much as the opposition and others do. Once the name
was proposed there was quite a backlash. A lot of people said
that the person was inappropriate for the job.
There are two problems with that. First, whoever thought this
individual could be good enough for the job made a drastic error.
Second, we managed to embarrass the individual. The individual
had a job somewhere else and suddenly half the country turned on
her because they did not like the fact that the individual could
be an information commissioner. That process clearly does not
work. It is very much like patronage.
Let us look at the process we went through further to that. Once
that individual was basically turned down prior to even being
interviewed or talked to, up came another name. Fortunately the
two of my colleagues who put the name forward had a good person
in mind, but that may not have been. We took a chance. The
government took a chance and said let us bring this person before
the government operations committee to be more or less
interviewed by members of parliament.
If that person had been much like the first individual it could
have been extremely embarrassing. It turned out the individual
was in my opinion quite competent. When we went through the
interview process I asked questions as I normally would with
hundreds of other people: what are your skills, what are your
abilities, what are your qualifications, where are you going to
take this job, and how does it apply to society in general and to
the people who are looking for information.
Lo and behold this person not only had good answers to those
questions but had excellent answers. John Reid had excellent
answers to those questions.
1725
What is the impact? Here is the impact I think we have just
gone through. John Reid in my opinion was a very good candidate.
I will never know in my own mind whether he is the best because I
only had one to talk to.
I am not belittling in any way, shape or form this individual
because I think he will do a very good job. However I think even
John Reid would be one of the first to admit that he could go
against anyone else in an interview and probably win the job. I
would have guessed had we gone and asked him that he would
probably have insisted. That is how much I thought of this
individual and his character.
We have left an open door on the whole process. We will never
know whether we got the very best, but we do know we have a very
good individual.
There is another impact of this process. What about all other
well qualified individuals in Canada today? There are well
qualified executives who have been replaced and are out of their
jobs because their companies closed down or for whatever reason.
These are well qualified people who would like access to these
types of jobs. They would at least like to have the opportunity
to compete. They do not insist they get the job; they just want
the opportunity to compete. What we are telling good people out
there is that they do not have the opportunity to compete. I
think that is wrong.
I see another impact. Perhaps this is the positive part. I
think we have come a long way. I applaud the whole House for
that. However, the next time a position for another officer of
the House becomes vacant I ask my colleagues to go through the
process of advertising, go through the process of knowing what
kind of individual they want, go through the process of a short
list and interviews, and then at the end of the exercise they
will truly know they have the best person beyond any amount of
reasonable doubt.
We will support Mr. John Reid and I congratulate him. I think
he is a very good candidate. I also congratulate my colleagues
in the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party who had the
ability to assess whether or not this individual was good and put
his name forward.
We have to go the next step. Just one more time, I think the
government will realize that this one did not hurt a bit. It
only gave credibility to the process. The next time it should
try it all the way. From the official opposition's point of
view, if the government goes through that process there will be
no tomfoolery. There will be no games played. It will be
business and it will be fair and square and above board at all
times.
My congratulations to Mr. John Reid. My congratulations to a
process that is halfway there and that has yet to come.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are very quickly
coming to Private Members' Business but we will start with the
hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I know the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has a few comments to make.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker,
I do not know if it is procedurally possible to seek unanimous
consent of the House to finish with this matter before we move on
to Private Members' Business. I do not know if the member from
Red Deer would be amenable to that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona has requested unanimous consent of the House
to extend Government Orders for a period of time long enough to
accommodate five to ten minutes for the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
Then the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough would
have five minutes to finish with this and then proceed to Private
Members' Business.
1730
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30, the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND CANADIAN BOUNDARIES
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek
majority support, through an official vote in the House of
Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian
military personnel to an active military mission beyond the
boundaries of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will explain the motion further before I
really get started.
I have not put specific numbers in there and that is intentional
so that the government would use its discretion. We are not
talking about three people going off for telecommunications duty.
We are not talking about some of the smaller missions. We are
talking about major engagements and about the kind of events that
have occurred. Many of my colleagues across the way were very
vocal during the late 1980s and early 1990s about the
government's not coming to the House of Commons to talk about the
issue, to inform Canadians and to seek permission of
parliamentarians to send troops on these kinds of missions.
I am certain today that my hon. colleagues on the government
side will be supporting the motion. I could list all the quotes
from many of the people who are still there regarding the past
government and how it did not talk to parliamentarians.
I want to relay some of the motivation for this. I want to talk
first of all about some of the Canadian troops I have encountered
as I have travelled in many parts of the world. Specifically I
want to talk about our troops in Bosnia and Haiti.
I had the privilege of meeting with these troops in both these
locations. In Bosnia I was there observing elections. I was
part of the OECD mission to observe the elections, basically
working for the European Union in terms of that observation role.
In Haiti I was travelling with the foreign affairs minister and
at that time he and I together had an opportunity to see the kind
of role our troops and the RCMP were playing in that situation.
I was proud of what I saw. I was proud of the men and women I
had the opportunity to go out on patrol with. While in a rented
car, a Swedish translator and I were out in the boonies and we
came across a Canadian armoured carrier with a Canadian flag and
Canadians soldiers. I flagged them down in the middle of the road
and they stopped and asked what a member of parliament from
Canada was doing in Bihac. They were surprised.
As a Canadian serving Canadian voters there was a pride there I
cannot describe to the House.
1735
The fact that they are there doing that job for all of us is
something we should know more about. I really feel Canadians
know little about what our troops are doing in foreign countries.
If for no other reason, bringing that information to the House
will help Canadians to find out exactly where we are sending our
men and women.
I cannot help but relay to members the pride when those little
kids took me to a school in Bosnia and said “Look at that. There
is a Canadian flag. There is a Bosnian flag. Your troops on
their own time rebuilt this school, put the windows in it, put
the desks up and we now have a school”. A little old lady took
me to the hospital and said “There is a Canadian flag and your
troops on their own time came to this hospital and volunteered to
do all kinds of things to make our lives a little better”.
As well I will never forget going into some of the really hard
areas of Haiti on a 2.00 a.m. patrol. I saw the kind of
relationship that our troops had built with those people in that
very impoverished country.
We need to think about this issue and the motion at hand and
what I am trying to accomplish in this private member's motion.
I love taking pictures. When I talk to a rotary club or when I
talk to a chamber of commerce I have watched people's faces when
they see those little kids, that little old lady or that hospital
in some of those pictures. I have seen their faces light up with
pride. They said they did not know we were doing that sort of
thing. They did not know our troops got involved in that sort of
stuff. All they have heard about is the negative stuff the media
love to print. They have not heard about the schools or the
hospitals and all the positive things.
To involve our young men and women in a foreign country I
believe it is vital that we bring into this House and talk about
this issue. I believe that the top down cabinet decision about
committing to some part of the world is not acceptable.
We may hear these things come up overnight and we will not have
time. Nothing comes up overnight. We knew about Bosnia. In the
1980s we talked about Bosnia and its potential. Many people
thought Kosovo would be the place that would ignite first. It
turns out that it might be the place that ignites last. We knew
that something was going to happen there. We have known for
1,500 years that things were not well there.
I was in Rwanda in 1985. It was very clear at that point that
there was a problem. When General Dallaire was there in 1990 he
clearly told everyone there was going to a serious problem. He
told us that there was a problem between the Tutsis and the
Hutus. Nothing much happened. People were not made aware of it.
These things do not just happen.
The Americans were in Haiti in 1925 trying to solve the problems
of Haiti. They built schools and infrastructure. We know that
85% of the people are illiterate and do not have jobs. We know
the potential places. We know the problems in Sudan. We know
the problems in Nigeria.
1740
It is a poor excuse to say that this would handcuff the
government into not being able to discuss this issue. That is
not possible.
Unanimous consent would be given in this House, I am positive,
to discuss the issue when it comes to the lives of our troops
going to a foreign country.
I do not think there is a single person in here who would dare
stand up and oppose that sort of motion. To say it cannot happen
is just not acceptable. To say it would handcuff the government
is just not possible. That is what was said in 1990 and so on
but that is not true. That is not an excuse.
How should we handle this sort of thing? How should we get
accountability and transparency? How would it work in this
House?
What I would like to put forward is a process something like
this. Members are aware of the special debates that we have in
this House. These special take note debates in the last case
occurred the day after the press release and press statements
were made downstairs, that this was what we were doing, extending
our mission in Bosnia for a year and so on.
Then we had the next day the take note debate, of which there
was an audience of one or two members. That has been typical.
That is not what I am talking about. That is not an excuse for
democracy.
What I am talking about is where we have a problem in the world
the Canadian government says this is a problem we should get
involved with and Canadians should be interested in.
We then come to this House and committee of the whole and we
inform this House so that every member has the opportunity and
the responsibility to be in this House to listen to experts. This
is non-partisan politics.
This is where every member is going to hear from the military
experts, the foreign affairs experts, the academic experts and
about the history of that part of the world we are proposing to
send troops to.
This is an education for us and for Canadians. I would even go
so far as to say it would be to our advantage as parliament to
vote some advertising funds to let Canadians know that on their
national television network they will be able to watch and get
firsthand expert information on Bosnia, on Haiti, on Zaire, on
Nigeria, on Sudan, wherever it is.
We heard yesterday from parliamentarians from Pakistan. The
question was asked of how to solve the problem in Kashmir.
The senator said the way to solve that problem and what Canadian
parliamentarians could do would be to send a mission to Kashmir
to see the atrocities occurring, 60,000 people dead so far, to
report those to the international community and then the
international community could take action.
That is a role he suggested he would like to see Canada play.
That would be the best thing they could do to diffuse the issue
in Pakistan and India.
Maybe that is something the government would like to propose and
get the best information we can on. The second phase would be
speakers from each party would from a military and a foreign
affairs perspective present their party's opinion on sending
troops to wherever it is.
There would be all party input. We would not have to listen to
ten speeches, some of them written by researchers and simply
read. People would speak who have worked on the issue, are
knowledgeable about the issue.
Let us face it. We are busy enough in this place that members
cannot be specialists on everything.
They zero in on their little area of responsibility and that is
what they work on. Those are the people we would hear from and I
believe parliamentarians would listen.
1745
There has been an information session of two hours. There has
been debate for two hours. Now comes the most important part of
all. All members who have received the information, have heard
the positions of the parties would vote on whether we send our
young people to some unsafe place in this world.
We have a responsibility. We owe it to Canadians to give them
the opportunity to become informed and to know where we as
parliamentarians stand. Then in a free vote we stand up and are
counted.
To me that is a responsible way to decide whether we send troops
to foreign countries. I cannot see how any government going into
the 21st century cannot agree with that sort of approach. It
takes care of the accountability factor. It takes care of the
responsibility factor. We are responsible for every single life
that we put in jeopardy when we send people to those places.
I would imagine that we would get unanimous agreement once we
had gone through that process. I cannot believe that it would be
very controversial. All of us would feel better. Canadians would
be informed. They would know about what they are reading in the
newspapers. As a result of that we would probably have done the
best service that we possibly could.
Putting this in the form of a motion allows it to be transferred
to the committee and the committee can fine-tune it. The committee
can adjust and fix it however it wants.
That is the framework we are talking about. With that framework
I believe we have taken an approach with which everyone can
agree.
I truly hope that all parties will be in favour of that and will
speak in favour of that and not use the tired arguments that we
so often hear that it would tie the hands of government and that
government is responsible. We are all responsible. We all want
to share the information. We all want to share the pride.
We want to share the pride of knowing what our young people are
doing over there. I find it very troubling that we do not know
what they are doing. It is troubling that we have to hear all
the negative stuff about our troops when there is so much
positive out there.
A recent poll done by the government showed that 61% of
Canadians want to know more about foreign policy. This poll was
commissioned by the foreign affairs department and was tabled by
the minister. The minister's poll said that 61% of Canadians
want to be informed.
What better way to inform them than to start with peacekeeping
and to inform them in the House. What better way to raise the
profile of the House and of all its members, that we are really
taking part. I would challenge any party or member not to be
here for those take note debates. If they have young people in
the forces in their ridings, they had better be here. If they
have the parents or grandparents of those people in their
ridings, they had better be here.
Canadians are going to be looking at them and saying it is a
responsible way to make that decision. Canadians are saying that
is what they want. The minister's polls have shown that.
This would lend legitimacy to budget figures that many people do
not understand. There are budget figures of millions of dollars
for missions. This would lend some legitimacy to the spending of
that kind of money.
In conclusion probably the most important thing would be to tell
our troops: “We care. We parliamentarians are giving you an
endorsement.
1750
We have studied the issue. You have watched us on national
television studying this issue. We have spoken to the issue and
we have voted on the issue. We are saying to you that we are
behind you. Canadians are behind you. We do not care what that
media might do to you. We believe in you. We trust you and we
are giving you our confidence”.
That is what it is all about. That is why I hope all members
will see fit to support this motion. Adjust it, send it to
committee and work on it, but this kind of concept should be
carried through.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red
Deer has been a constructive and co-operative member of the
foreign affairs committee. We sometimes disagree but not in
terms of the general thrust of his positions. As I said
yesterday in the committee, his ideas are listened to and we pick
the best ideas out of them.
Let me say that there is a fundamental issue of constitutional
law. The hero of the persons case was really not the five
ladies, although they were magnificent, but the shy law lord,
Lord Sankey, who actually decided, and it was a revolutionary
decision, that women are persons. He also enunciated the concept
of a constitution as a living tree, not a frozen cake of
doctrine. One has to remember that with parliament. Parliament
is evolving.
It was very surprising for the people who were elected and
defeated before 1993 to come back to this parliament and realize
how much has changed. In 1994, 1995 and 1996, and the hon. member
for Red Deer was there, we changed parliament.
We instituted those debates on foreign policy and they went on
to the early hours of the morning. There were 20 to 30 people
staying until two or three in the morning to speak on these
issues. This is something that was started by this government,
continued by two foreign ministers, three defence ministers and
it is not reversible. It is a change in parliamentary practice,
the accessibility to ideas and the debate.
We have some problems with constitutionalizing in an American
sense. The Americans put rigid amendments into the constitution
and then spend their best time and best legal brains in evading
that. We all know the provisions in the American constitution
but we will remember that President Johnson with excellent legal
advisers literally turned them around. If one looks at the Gulf
of Tonkin resolution, one can see that it is a bypassing of the
constitutional provisions.
What we would rather see is the evolution and continuance of the
trends already established by this government and which have
opened up the issue of peacekeeping to parliamentary opinion.
There is a flexibility here that lends itself to problem solving
in a very concrete sense. I will cite a perfect example.
When I became parliamentary secretary in the foreign ministry in
July last year, there was an immediate issue of the extension, because it
was raised by the American president and others in response to an
emergency, of the mandate of our forces in Haiti. Parliament was
out of session. Could we convoke it?
I took the step in consultation with the foreign minister, who I
think was abroad at the time, of calling the porte-paroles of all
the opposition parties and telling them what we proposed to do
and asking them if they would agree while parliament was not in
session. They all replied they would and I thanked them for it.
I told them I thought we were making a precedent.
We have established in addition to the consultation of
parliament when it is in session, the principle of consultation
with the porte-paroles when it is not in session. If one gets a
strong expression of opinion that it cannot or should not be
done, then it goes back to the minister.
In a very real sense the Prime Minister and the foreign minister
are constitutional activists.
I look at the foreign affairs committee and it is astonishing
the changes in that very august body, somewhat conservative in
its approach in recent years before the new wave, of which the
hon. member for Red Deer is as much a part as I am, of new
members elected in 1993, the 208 new members.
I look at what we have done and at the report made by the
foreign affairs committee, its special subcommittee on
international trade, on the MAI, multilateral agreement on
investment. That is as good a report as one could get from an
American committee which is endowed with the power and with the
legal officers, minority and majority. It is an excellent report
and synthesis and breaks new ground.
In any other major problem of that sort coming within the ambit
of the foreign affairs committee, I hope similar studies will be
made.
1755
We have instituted travelling committees. One went to Bosnia.
The hon. member for Red Deer had been to Bosnia on a previous
mission. Another, headed by a minister to conform to the
exigencies imposed by the Algerian government, went to Algeria.
A third one has just been to Chiapas, Mexico. Three opposition parties.
That was an all-party group. It functioned as a team I am
assured by the chair and all those who took part in it. It has
reported back. It follows up our direct negotiations or
consultations with the Mexican government and we expect it to be
a standing concern of ours. There is a Mexican-Canadian parliamentary
committee formed now.
That is what I call law in the making in a very dynamic sense.
As the hon. member quoted today, we have had visits reciprocally.
An Algerian group is in Canada today and we hope there will be
another Canadian group in Algeria and one further following.
The committee is in evolution.
I would cite also the example of the special regional study
group, the foreign minister's proposal, the outer Middle East,
the area between the classical Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent, the unknown area. The foreign intelligence services
do not give enough information. We will study it and I am
delighted to have the co-operation and support of the hon. member
for Red Deer in that because if it is a go-ahead as a foreign
affairs study, we want all parties in it.
There is the change, evolution of parliamentary committees. That
is the example of the pragmatic, empirical, step by step, problem
oriented approach to constitutional development. It is not the
American way, but we think it is more effective. It has that
built-in element of flexibility. We do not have to hire a lawyer
to get around the constitutional provisions which I think too
frequently the Americans do that builds distrust and distaste for
the constitution.
I think we have picked up the substance of the hon. member's
idea. I will assure him that with his support and others, the
role of the foreign affairs committee will keep expanding. I am
very proud to have been associated with this committee,
vicariously in a sense as the connection between it and the
minister. The work is impressive and it represents a revolution
in the style of parliament of the sort that was unknown to those
whose parliamentary term ended before 1993.
If I may make to the hon. member a valuable suggestion, we would
prefer the flexibility that now exists, but I would say the
essential spirit of what he wants is there. The defence minister
and the foreign minister accept parliament's interest, all
parties' interest in the engagement of our foreign troops. There
is the very clear understanding that if parliament is in session,
parliament will debate to allow, under circumstances, 20, 30 and
if necessary 50 members to speak. It may exhaust the occupant of
the Speaker's chair from time to time, but I am sure the Speaker
would agree that is a small price to pay for the cause of
enlightenment.
This is law in the making in the Canadian way. I think the
substance of the hon. member's suggestion is incorporated. By
the way, there is absolutely no inhibition to the parliamentary
foreign affairs committee to study this and other issues of
constitutional change. It has already been suggested we examine
the issue of treaty-making power. I believe I had a discussion
with the distinguished member opposite on the subcommittee on
that. May I simply say that that is a somewhat inactive
subcommittee. I wonder whose fault that is.
Nevertheless let us face it. We like the idea of consulting
parliament. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has made the
changes. They are not reversible now and I expect a continuing
momentum.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this House to say that the Bloc Quebecois will support the
motion by the member for Red Deer in which the member wants
Parliament to play a greater role in the deployment of Canadian
soldiers abroad.
1800
The hon. member for Red Deer and I have, on a number of
occasions, during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, expressed concern over the process used to send
contingents of soldiers abroad to serve in peacekeeping
operations under the aegis of the UN or NATO. We feel this
process should be more democratic and involve elected
representatives to a greater extent than in the past in the
important decisions governments make and are asked to make
increasingly.
The number of these missions is increasing significantly and
requires today's armies, including the Canadian army, to play a
major role in maintaining international peace and security.
I think the revolution mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is far from over. While it
is true that, since 1993, there have been debates in this House
and in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on the issue of
sending troops abroad, they have been held either in this House
or in committee.
Those debates have had little impact on public opinion. They
include the recent debate on renewing the mandate of the
Canadian forces within SFOR, in which the Minister of Foreign
Affairs followed by his colleague, the Minister of National
Defence, spoke to a nearly empty House.
It is time to complete this reform. I think the motion by the
member for Red Deer today is very constructive in this regard.
The member added a few words of explanation concerning the new
three-stage process he is proposing in his motion, which provides
that members of this House be adequately informed of the issues
and intentions of the government and of the defence and foreign
affairs ministers; that a real debate take place between members
of all parties in this House; and that this House may express an
opinion, this question remaining a matter of prerogative.
I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, who gave us a crash course of sorts
on constitutional law, that this Parliament could change this
prerogative. It could even abrogate it, if it wanted to.
One may argue that the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Red Deer could have been broader. Indeed, if it so desired, this
Parliament could pass legislation, as other countries have, to
ensure that parliamentary approval is required before forces can
be sent abroad and expenditures made in this respect.
I therefore believe that the proposal of the hon. member for Red
Deer is one that meets democratic and transparency requirements,
which are not currently met, although we must recognize that
there has been more debate on the deployment of Canadian
contingents abroad.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly been asked to comment
on the way decisions have been made or announced, and debates
prepared, since Parliament reopened in September, to discuss the
deployment of Canadian contingents.
I said in this House before that, in my opinion, such a practice
is inconsistent, that it lacks consistency and uniformity.
Perhaps this lack of consistency and uniformity is what the
parliamentary secretary seeks to preserve in trying to maintain
the flexibility that all too often appears to suit the
government.
1805
We are therefore in favour of this motion, which I feel makes a
very useful contribution to the debate on the democratization of
government foreign affairs decisions and important decisions
such as those to send contingents abroad.
I would also like to add, since the parliamentary secretary
referred to this earlier, that the debate must be broadened to
include additional foreign policy issues. The parliamentary
secretary implied that the House, through its Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs, had been fairly closely associated with the
debate over whether to approve the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment.
This involvement or association is still too minimal. The only
reason the issue of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
came to the attention of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and its subcommittee was because there was a leak. The
text of the MAI, or the draft agreement, was made public by a
non-government organization that pointed out the problems that
could ensue if Canada or other countries signed this agreement.
Here, too, and the Bloc Quebecois and your humble servant intend
to follow up on this, it will probably be necessary at some
point to introduce a motion or a private member's bill requiring
the government to obtain the approval of the House before
ratifying agreements, a trend that is surfacing in other
countries and jurisdictions, such as Australia.
This trend toward involving Parliament in this will grow as the
number and importance of international treaties, regulations and
peace missions continue to increase.
What the hon. member for Red Deer is doing by tabling this
motion is calling upon us to respond to a true democratic
shortcoming, one which has the effect of giving the government
in the parliamentary system with which we are familiar the power
of common law, a power which has without a doubt become
excessive, and which it must now give thought to sharing with
the House of Commons, with elected representatives. These have
the responsibility to be answerable to their fellow citizens for
the government's leeway in setting Canada's foreign affairs
policy.
When it comes to such vital questions as sending military
contingents, the House must not only be consulted, it must also
be increasingly integrated into the decision-making process. One
day, without a doubt, it will want to take part in the process
of deciding whether or not to send contingents.
In conclusion, then, in a world where there will be an
increasing use of the armies, the military forces of nations,
for maintaining international peace and security, it seems to me
increasingly imperative for Parliament to be associated in such
decisions as sending contingents abroad. The motion by the hon.
member for Red Deer is, therefore, a most praiseworthy
initiative, and one that deserves further refinement. It has
the support of the Bloc Quebecois.
The hon. member for Red Deer can count on the support of the
Bloc Quebecois MPs, and our parliamentary assistants, in further
refining this proposal, and getting the government to share our
conviction that it is in its best interest to share its
responsibility with this Parliament.
1810
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak to the motion of the hon. member for
Red Deer and I congratulate him for bringing it forward.
This motion gives us an opportunity to debate something which I
think is very important for this parliament to consider and that
is the extent to which parliament is not properly consulted by
this government and in many cases by previous governments on the
occasion of Canada's armed forces being committed to military
missions outside our boundaries.
That is not to say that we have not had debates from time to
time with respect to various peacekeeping assignments. I can
remember some of those debates because I participated in them.
They take the form of “take note” debates. However, we do not
have a debate in which parliament gets to express itself, up or
down, yea or nay, with respect to a particular military mission
outside Canada's boundaries, to use the language of this
particular motion.
I would certainly want to speak in favour of the motion. I
would speak in favour of deepened and broadened parliamentary
consultation on the part of the government when it comes to
making these types of decisions. This is not just out of respect
for parliament. Something as significant as this ought to be
brought before parliament in a meaningful way and not simply in a
“let them talk about it for a little while” kind of way. It
should be brought before parliament in a way that allows
parliament to truly express itself.
By and large the types of things the government commits our
troops to are things that would receive the support of
parliament. Our military men and women could participate in
these particular assignments with the comfort and the
encouragement of knowing they did so with the full backing of the
Canadian people expressed through their representatives here in
parliament. That is the reason I speak in favour of this motion.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary, who outlined the
extent to which he felt the government was already in conformity
with the spirit of this motion.
Let me cite what I think is a glaring exception, that is, the
fact that this government signed an order in council with respect
to NATO enlargement, a major commitment of Canada's armed forces,
beyond our boundaries, without it being debated for a single
minute here in parliament.
Through NATO enlargement we are committing the men and women of
Canada's armed forces to the defence not only of the countries
which are already members of NATO, but to new members such as the
Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Was this ever debated in
parliament? We did not just commit our armed forces to the
defence of those three countries, we committed Canada, given
NATO's flexible use doctrine when it comes to nuclear weapons, to
a nuclear exchange with whomever would breach those boundaries of
the three new countries, in addition to the existing countries,
without so much as a sentence being uttered in defence of that
particular decision.
The shame and embarrassment of this is that we are the only
country in NATO to be in this position. Every other country in
NATO, and I have checked and studied this, with the exception of
the United Kingdom, requires parliamentary ratification of a move
like agreeing to the enlargement of NATO. But not Canada. Only
in Canada you say. Not in Canada. In Canada a decision of this
magnitude can be made by executive order. The United Kingdom can
do the same thing because it has the same tradition of the crown
being able to enter into these types of agreements.
But in the United Kingdom they had enough respect for parliament
that they had a debate regarding NATO enlargement in the House of
Commons at Westminster. Did we have such a debate here? Did we
have a ministerial statement that members of the opposition could
have responded to? No.
1815
So imagine the embarrassment if we were to think it through
given all the self-congratulatory rhetoric that we use about
Canada being a great democracy and wanting to export our
democratic values and culture to all these poor third world
countries that need to be more like us.
Yet here we are in Canada where a major decision like this can
be made without parliament's ever being consulted, without there
ever being a parliamentary debate. All other members of NATO
require some kind of congressional or parliamentary ratification.
I bring this up as a counter example to what the parliamentary
secretary said. The government should examine its own
parliamentary conscience with respect to how this transpired.
This major military and foreign policy decision could have been
made without the benefit of debate in parliament. It is one of
the reason I rise in support of the hon. member's motion.
Although the motion does not particularly reference NATO or the
enlargement of NATO, I think the member would agree that this is
an example of the kind of thing he might have had in mind when he
was framing his motion. I think he was probably thinking in a
more routine way about various commitments of forces but
certainly the enlargement of NATO involves a major potential
commitment and actual commitment of Canadian forces. This was
done without benefit of parliamentary debate whatsoever.
That is why I hope we would be able to pass the member's motion
or that the debate on this motion would lead the government to
examine its record in respect of this issue and others and
improve its procedures accordingly.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this motion because I will have the chance
to reveal some truths about both the Liberal Party and
the Reform Party, which put forward this motion.
While the Liberal Party has no interest in seeing parliament's
having a real role in the most crucial national decisions, those
involving sending young Canadians into danger, the Reform Party
by wording the motion the way it has chosen to demonstrates once
again it has absolutely no concept of foreign affairs or the way
the real world works.
I want to read the motion so the House is clear on what I am
speaking to:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek
majority support, through an official vote in the House of
Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian
military personnel to an active military mission beyond the
boundaries of Canada.
The sentiment behind this motion is good and I applaud the
Reform Party for that. Twice since this parliamentary session
began in September the House has met to debate the government's
decision to send Canadian troops abroad. The first instance was
in February of this year. I remember it well. Let me share with
the House the reasons why I remember it so clearly.
As tensions in the Persian Gulf grew because Saddam Hussein
refused to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to do their
job, United States and Britain continued to build up their power
in the region. The situation looked very serious. It looked like
there might be another war.
The Sunday before this House resumed sitting after the winter
break the leader of my party called the Prime Minister and told
him we were going to request an emergency debate. The Prime
Minister and this House refused my party's request for an
emergency debate. It was not until the following week after
President Bill Clinton requested Canada's help did the Prime
Minister concede that debate was needed.
He told this House that he had told the president that he could
not give him an answer until it was debated publicly in the
House. He told Canadians he would not give the President of the
United States an okay that Canada's troops could be used until he
checked with this House. That was not accurate.
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went on U.S.
television and told the world that President Clinton had Canada's
support. That was on the Sunday morning, February 8. The Prime
Minister did not tell the Canadian public that he had even spoken
to the president until Sunday afternoon.
1820
The same debate the Prime Minister said was necessary before he
made a commitment to the Americans was not until Monday evening,
February 9. By that chronology either the U.S. secretary of
state said she had Canada's support before she really did or the
Prime Minister gave the U.S. Canada's support before there was a
debate. Under the latter scenario the Prime Minister fooled
Canadians into thinking the debate had actual meaning. That is
disgraceful.
The second time this House met to debate sending troops abroad
was on April 28 of this year. That debate concerned Canadian
participation in Bosnia, now under the NATO banner, beyond the
current June 20 deadline.
The motion put forward that night by the government was that
this House take note of an intention of the Government of Canada
to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization force.
Take note of the government's intentions; that is all that was
accomplished on that evening. The ministers concerned in such a
decision, a decision to keep young Canadians in a dangerous
military zone, had the right under House rules to speak for 20
minutes. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of
National Defence split their time that evening. Keeping Canadian
forces in Bosnia was not important enough for this government's
ministers to take all the time available to them. That is rather
disgraceful. It is disheartening to Canadians and to members of
the Canadian forces who serve Canadians.
Let there be no mistake, when this government enters into a
debate of crucial importance it is not because the Prime Minister
is interested in the opinions of other parties. It has
everything to do with optics, the show, the media.
I made the point that it should not have been a
take note debate. I said that if this government had the courage
it would not have been a take note debate but a votable
motion. This government has no courage.
But just because this government has no courage, the Reform
Party seems to think there has never been a Canadian government
to show courage or that there will ever be a government that will
show courage.
I am in favour of the sentiment behind this motion.
Unfortunately the Reform Party as usual did not get it right.
The phrase “significant contingent of Canadian military
personnel” is not clear. The hon. member for Red Deer said it
was to give the government more leeway. If we give it an inch it
will take a mile, just as it does now. That is no change at all.
I suppose I should give the member for Red Deer credit. I am
sure he was under pressure from Reform leadership to include in
his motion a referendum. Is that not what the Reform Party would
like, a referendum to send a significant number of troops out of
Canada? Would the party of referendum not support that idea?
The Reform Party has no faith in Canada's institutions,
including the institution of the prime minister. To be fair,
this Liberal government does not provide much reason to have
faith. However, my party believes that the prime minister must
have the ability to act decisively in times of crisis. That
means sending troops at short notice when they are needed. Only a
fool would pretend to know what sort of emergencies a prime
minister will face. To say that there will never be a time when
national security depends on the prime minister's acting
decisively and immediately would not be prudent. I support the
intentions of the this motion and I am eager to discuss it
further with the member for Red Deer.
In my view one of the problems is that parliamentarians do not
have the information the prime minister and cabinet have needed
to make such a decisive decision. Most parliamentarians and, as
is sometimes evident with this government, some ministers get
their information from press and once in a while limited
departmental briefing. In my opinion that is the root of the
problem.
Earlier today we debated Bill C-25, an act to amend the National
Defence Act. During this debate and at other times I referred to
a report from the commissioner of the defunct Somalia inquiry
called “The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”. Its
recommendations included having a real staff of experts that
answered directly to the defence committee.
This would inform parliamentarians, keep parliament vigilant and
improve democracy.
1825
Although this government does not have respect for this place,
as was demonstrated earlier this week by not having members in
this Chamber, I am eager to discuss this with the member for Red
Deer and any other members in this House who are eager to make
this place more democratic.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to this motion because I believe that any
time spent by this House addressing the important work done by
the Canadian forces is well spent.
In 1996 a similar motion was debated and at that time we did not
support the suggestion that a vote be required before a
deployment of Canadian forces abroad. This remains the view of
the government.
Additional steps in the deployment process risk delaying our
ability to respond. This must be avoided.
In the 1996 debate government emphasized its desire to engage
parliament on troop deployments whenever possible. The government
remains committed to this principle. A full discussion of any
major deployment of Canadian forces is an important and valuable
activity and we have engaged parliament on these matters.
In February of this year parliament debated the possible
participation of Canadian forces in military action in the gulf
against Iraq. The majority of this House supported a Canadian
role if all diplomatic efforts were exhausted.
In April of this year the House debated the renewal of Canadian
participation in NATO led stabilization forces in Bosnia. After
thorough debate all parties agreed that Canadian troops should
remain and continue the valuable work they are doing in that
troubled country.
Also in April a special joint meeting of the committees on
foreign affairs and defence was held discuss possible Canadian
participation in a peacekeeping force in the central African
republic. This option was chosen because of the need to make a
decision and deploy troops as rapidly as humanly possible. Both
ministers attended the special meeting and a unanimous resolution
in favour of Canadian assistance was adopted.
This government has engaged parliament because that is what
Canadians want. Canadians are proud of the role Canadian forces
are playing abroad. They believe the world is a better place
because of Canada's willingness to participate internationally.
Canadians also understand these missions can be very dangerous.
As a result they expect their elected representatives to be
engaged when a potential mission is being considered or an
ongoing one renewed. We must take care, however, to ensure that
Canada can react rapidly and effectively to international events.
Why is this the case? It is because Canadians also demand that
we have a defence policy that meets the challenges of the
post-cold war era. This government has risen to that demand and
our defence policy recognizes the new security conditions that
shape the world of the 1990s.
It is worth noting that a special joint committee of this House
and the Senate made an enormous contribution to developing this
policy. The government rightly believed that the members of this
House would play a valuable role in helping define how Canada
should act in the new international security environment.
Canadian action in the new security environment includes
continuing our great tradition as the world's pre-eminent
peacekeepers. The peacekeeping contribution of Canadian forces
is second to none and Canada's commitment to peacekeeping has
never diminished.
By the end of the cold war 80,000 Canadian military personnel
had served and it is hard to devise a list of peacekeeping
missions, UN or otherwise, which does not include prominent
Canadian participation.
Many have suggested that Canada wrote the book on peacekeeping.
This expertise is still required in the post-cold war era. It is
true that this new security environment has much to commend it.
The end of the bipolar struggle between east and west was a very
welcome development. The threat of global war has diminished and
in this sense the world is a safer place.
However, in other senses safety is hard to find. Regional
security issues remain and in some instances are more threatening
than ever. Recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan are a good
case in point. As well, we have seen the collapse of states into
anarchy, and the cost in human terms has been staggering.
Conflicts fueled by ethnic nationalism have become a
depressingly constant story in the daily news.
These problems are demanding the attention of the international
community. They are too horrifying simply to ignore.
1830
By way of conclusion let me then say in most circumstances where
a mission is about to be launched or where the government is
considering renewal of an existing commitment, there will be time
to engage parliament either through debate in the House or
through the appearances of ministers and officials before
standing committees.
The government will continue to take advantage of the views of
the House. It is vitally important that the government retain
the ability to act quickly and decisively where needed and when
needed.
The now well established practice of consulting parliament in
this regard has served us well. We do not support the motion
because it risks delaying our ability to respond. I ask all
members to take note of that accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker: I have been advised that when this
order is next called the hon. member will have five minutes
remaining of the time permitted for his remarks.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin my remarks on the appointment of the new
information commissioner by saying a word of thanks and
appreciation to the outgoing commissioner, Dr. John Grace, for
the work that he has done and certainly for the final report that
he issued which contained a great many recommendations as to how
access to information in Canada could be improved.
The matter of who is to be appointed the new information
commissioner has been developing over the last few weeks. There
are a few issues that I would like to set straight with respect
to what has occurred over the last few weeks in terms of the
information commissioner appointment process, how Mr. Reid's name
came to be considered and how it came to pass that we are now
considering his nomination by the government for information
commissioner.
Before Mr. Reid's name came up the government had brought
forward to House leaders the name of a Ms. Gusella who, as I
understand it from being present at the meetings, said that she
was prepared and in fact thought it was a good idea to go before
a committee of parliament. However she wanted to know beforehand
whether any of the parties disapproved of her nomination. If
there was not this sort of prior approval she did not want her
name to stand and subsequently would not want to go before the
committee.
As it turned out, upon consultation people did have concerns
about Ms. Gusella's nomination, not about her competency or her
character or anything like that but just about whether or not,
given her particular history, she was the appropriate person for
information commissioner. I do not think it is correct to say
her name was withdrawn. Her name was never put forward.
Subsequent to that it came to my attention that the government
was considering Mr. Reid and that Mr. Reid had been suggested to
the government, not by the NDP and not by me but by someone else.
At a House leaders meeting I inquired as to whether or not it
was true that they were considering Mr. Reid and, if they were,
would they agree to allow Mr. Reid to go before a committee of
parliament and allow members of parliament to form their own
views of Mr. Reid. Not all members of parliament were in the
position that I was personally, that is to say in a position of
being able to remember Mr. Reid having sat in the House with him
from 1979 to 1984.
1835
Somehow my suggestion that if the government were considering
Mr. Reid I would certainly be open to having him come before a
committee to be questioned and examined by members of parliament
has developed into a spin earnestly repeated on the floor of the
House only a couple of hours ago by both the government House
leader and the official opposition House leader that in some way
or other Mr. Reid was nominated or put forward by myself and by
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. This is simply
not the case. I regret that this is so. I regret that even Mr.
Reid has this perception. I saw a quote from him to that effect.
It is true that I inquired of the government whether or not it
was considering him and suggested that it have him go before the
committee. It is true that given my recollections of Mr. Reid's
work in the House I was favourably disposed to the idea of having
him come before other members of parliament and being considered
for the post.
What happened was that the minute we asked that question the
government said “Isn't that a terrific idea” and at 9 o'clock
the next day Mr. Reid was before the committee. It is quite a
stretch to imagine that the government was not considering this
before I asked about it when he was before the committee the very
next morning. There was no opportunity for what I would think
was due process.
There should have been a day or two between the discussion of
the House leaders and some notice that Mr. Reid was to appear
before the committee so that groups concerned about Mr. Reid's
appointment for a variety of reasons would have had an
opportunity to communicate with members of parliament and with
members of the committee who were to have discussions with Mr.
Reid. This did not happen. As I understand, Mr. Reid acquitted
himself well at the committee meeting by all accounts from
everyone who was at the meeting. That is not the point. The
point is that the process was not adequate.
I agree with the Reform Party when it says that surely the time
has come, if these positions open up, for them to be bulletined,
advertised or made public in some way so that the wealth of
Canadians who may be qualified for such positions actually put
their names forward, instead of names kind of bubbling up through
the bureaucratic or the old boys parliamentary network or
whatever it is, all of which is not evil in itself. It is just
not adequate in a day and age when people should know that such
positions are open and how to put their names forward.
In the case of the information commissioner it is a question of
the person being an officer of parliament. We could have
applications. People appointed by each of the parties could sit
down, make a short list and bring it before a committee. They
could make another short list and eventually arrive at someone
who was the best person for the job. This would be far too
rationale a process for anything parliamentary. I think that is
too bad.
We have made some progress. The fact that Mr. Reid came before
the committee, albeit in an inadequate way, was nevertheless a
step forward. I commend the government for that tiny, baby step
forward. It needs to go a lot further than that. It cannot be
the kind of rush job it has been.
I regret very much the perception that somehow the government
was just sitting there with an empty mind, not thinking about
John Reid at all. Then along came the NDP and the Tories who
asked “What about John Reid”. “Isn't that a wonderful idea?
It never occurred to us before”. Then the government went on
to kind of give the impression that it originated on the
opposition side when we know that the government was considering
it after it having been suggested by whomever.
I wanted to clear that up. I also want to put on record that we
have concerns about Mr. Reid's appointment. One things that came
to light in the days subsequent to his name being bandied about
was his association with the nuclear industry.
1840
Members who know me will know that I do not think anybody in the
House has a stronger record of opposition to nuclear energy and
nuclear power than me. I have had many private members' bills on
this issue, some of which came to a vote. In the last weeks I
raised questions in the House about the sale of Candu reactors
and my opposition and the opposition of my party to them.
However, having said that, I still do not think that association
with the particular industry is prima facie evidence of some kind
of character flaw.
We can disagree about the role of nuclear reactors and nuclear
energy without making an ad hominem argument about the adequacy
or the values someone would bring to a particular job. It is a
legitimate concern on the part of a great many people that it is
not just any industry, that it is the nuclear industry.
I have dealt with the nuclear industry for over 19 years in the
House and before when I was an activist against nuclear power and
the nuclear arms race. It is one of the most secretive cultures
in the world. Trying to find out anything about the nuclear
industry is like pulling teeth. It will bury you in
inconsequential information. It will fill your home with
documents and memos which would take the rest of your life to
read. To find the one thing you want to find out, the one thing
that is absolutely critical, is very difficult.
Mr. Reid has an obstacle to overcome. He has to prove himself
to those who are suspicious of him because of his former
association that he can rise above the culture that he was
immersed in and be a good information commissioner. I hope he
will pleasantly surprise those people who are concerned about his
nomination and about his appointment. I hope the concerns that
many of my colleagues and I have about that association will come
to be seen to be unfounded.
Only time will tell and it is important for us to put those
concerns on the record.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask a question of the member who just spoke.
He indicated it was a misrepresentation that the name had been
put forward by him and the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Then a few minutes later he
said it was true that they did.
If the member does not mind, I would like him to explain the
mechanism. I am also terribly curious about who precisely he put
the name forward to.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I said
what the hon. member attributes to me. I did not say that we did
not and then we did. I said that we did not.
I explained the context in which I raised Mr. Reid's name in a
House leaders' meeting because I was under the impression that
the government was considering him and I wanted to know whether
or not it was willing to send him before a committee. That is
the context in which I raised his name.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate. I
am pleased as well to follow the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona as I often find myself in debate speaking on
the heels of his remarks.
He has quite fairly and accurately set out or chronicled the
events that led to the appointment we have before the House
today. I do not intend to delve into any great detail other than
to add that I think his chronology is quite accurate. I want the
record to show that the Progressive Conservative Party put
forward the name of Mr. Reid but in a very informal way.
It is important to note this was not a set in stone process.
Suffice it to say the name was very well received and received in
a very timely way by the government. As the hon. member
mentioned, the timing of his appearance before the committee
leads one to believe or at least be somewhat suspect that it was
not a new name or the suggestion was not the pivotal factor in
the government's decision to bring forward his name.
1845
Be that as it may, we have before us an individual who is
obviously very qualified, an individual who will fulfil the very
important role of information commissioner. The information
commissioner would be an officer of parliament and not of the
government. That is a key point. The commissioner will be our
commissioner, the commissioner of the Canadian people, the
commissioner of this place, this House, not the government's
commissioner. In light of that, I was pleased that I was a part
of the consultation and part of a process that resulted in this
nomination being before the House today.
Earlier speakers have touched upon the fact that we have seen an
improvement in the process of the selection of the information
commissioner. Although it is not perfect and some flaws still
exist, it is an improvement. The hon. member used the expression
of baby steps. It is perhaps a little more than that. At least
now we have a transparent process that allows members of a
committee to directly question the nominated candidate. I refer
to him as a nominated candidate but it was really not that
formal.
This name came forward as the result of a conversation between
myself and the government House leader. I presume a similar
conversation took place between the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona and the government House leader. The process
moved along somewhat differently than it had in the past where
the Prime Minister, on the initiative of a party suggestion I
would assume, appointed the commissioner.
I do not intend to go through the entire chronology of what
happened but there is a necessity in this debate to have a little
review of the history of the information act itself. It is a
proud history with respect to the involvement of the Progressive
Conservative Party.
The Access to Information Act is generally acknowledged as
having been sired by the late Ged Baldwin who sat as a
Progressive Conservative caucus member from the district of Peace
River. Mr. Speaker, you may remember the late Ged Baldwin. Mr.
Baldwin began his campaign for the freedom of information
legislation in 1969.
The Progressive Conservative government of the Right Hon. Joe
Clark introduced the first government sponsored bill for access
to information in 1979. Mr. Speaker, you would certainly recall
that, being the student of parliament I know you are. The bill,
which did not satisfy all of Mr. Baldwin's wishes, did go a long
way to setting up what we now have before the House in the form
of an information commissioner. Despite the casualty, the
unfortunate fall of Mr. Clark's government, this initiative was
continued by subsequent governments. The present statute was
sponsored and passed by the Hon. Francis Fox in 1982 and was
proclaimed into law in 1983.
A fourteen year struggle preceded the point we are at today. It
was a struggle to forge what Mr. Baldwin called an unholy
alliance of parliament and press and the public versus the
bureaucracy. Mr. Baldwin saw the existing statute as a
beginning. He placed great faith in the commissioner of
parliament to improve the existing law.
After 15 years of experience with the 1983 law, it is generally
recognized that the law needs review and improvement. The act was
drafted before the explosion of computers, including the
appearance of computers even here in the Chamber, and electronic
mail which is routinely in use in parliament, and the universal
use of the delete button that accompanies every computer. There
are certainly new conditions, new physical parameters, electronic
and technological advances that perhaps even Mr. Baldwin with his
great foresight and knowledge of the use of information could not
have foreseen in those bygone years.
These are important issues for us in parliament to address
today. I acknowledge in the name of Mr. Reid which is before the
House today, that who is better to advance this cause than a
former parliamentarian? Who better to understand the needs of
parliament itself than an individual who has been elected, a
person who understands the system and how parliament works with
the expectations and the pressures that come to bear?
1850
I am pleased and state uncategorically that we in the
Conservative Party support the nomination and the affirmation of
Mr. Reid to this position. The Hon. John Reid has demonstrated
an ability to achieve results within parliament. This will be
very important in his new role as commissioner and certainly very
important in the task he will take on to bring parliament into
the 21st century.
He has a record of integrity and independence, a person who has
shown he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in when
called upon to do so. He has told prime ministers and party
leaders that they were wrong on occasion, perhaps at a cost to
his own political career. He does bring a spirit of commitment to
access to information, as well as a distinguished history of
parliamentary service. I think this will serve parliament well.
Equally important, Mr. Reid is prepared to address the culture
of secrecy that sometimes surrounds this place and is ever
present in our public service. This challenge is formidable in
the sense that we know a great deal of bureaucracy exists. There
are times when the information is so extensive and massive it
seems it is almost impossible to sort through the volume of
information.
As the reports of the previous commissioner have pointed out, it
is going to be a very challenging task that awaits Mr. Reid.
In closing, I acknowledge the diligent work of the retired
commissioner John Grace. Mr. Grace served the Canadian people
well, served the post to which he was appointed very well, and we
are grateful to him. We in the Progressive Conservative Party
and all Canadians are grateful to the yeoman service he did as
the information commissioner. We are content that his vigorous
efforts will be continued and strengthened by the appointment of
Mr. Reid.
To put some finality on my remarks, I add the names of the
caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to the
list of previous speakers wishing Mr. Reid Godspeed and
congratulations for his well-deserved appointment. We hope that
he will bring great honour and integrity to his new post.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I am
pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments.
One of the reasons Mr. Reid's name moved forward so quickly—and
I do not know this through any inside knowledge—is that it was
very obvious to many of us on this side that he is a very good
candidate. It is not surprising that in informal conversation
when his name came up, leadership on this side immediately
latched on to it.
In speaking of Mr. Reid and the role that stands before him, it
is not just a matter of the media and the public versus the
bureaucracy. We must appreciate that the government has to keep
some secrets very necessarily itself.
What we are looking at in this new access commissioner is
somebody who will gain the confidence of both parties. It is not
just a matter of acting for the media and acting for MPs,
backbench MPs like myself or opposition MPs, it is also a matter
of gaining the confidence of the bureaucrats who are charged with
looking after the interests of the nation. It is not a matter of
advocacy or of confrontation; what we really want is someone in
that position who can win the confidence of both sides and make
the necessary decisions that are ultimately in the national
interest. In Mr. Reid we have just such a person.
I would also like to comment on Mr. Grace. Mr. Grace has been a
superb access commissioner. The reports over the past few years
have been superlative looks at the operation of government and
the need for openness. As Mr. Grace steps down, we are on the
threshold of a new era of access to information.
I hope, as with my colleague opposite, there will be new
legislation or amended legislation coming before the House.
1855
I hope my colleague will support that legislation. I ask him
whether he or his party is prepared to support some of the
private members' initiatives that are currently before the House
on access to information.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the eloquent
remarks that seem to be a common theme with respect to this
subject. I think they reflect the non-partisan nature which this
process has unfolded.
Certainly Mr. Reid has a lot of the qualities that I think all
of us are looking for when it comes to filling this important
post.
The question itself is as to the support of the Progressive
Conservative Party for individual private members' bills and
legislation that is currently before the House. Without knowing
the specifics of that particular type of legislation, I am
certainly not in a position to wholeheartedly embrace any
legislation without having first had the benefit of reading it.
Depending on each particular bill, we would have a critic
portfolio that would be assigned to look at that bill.
Any legislation tied to the Office of the Information
Commissioner in the furtherance of openness and disclosure and
transparency that is going to lead to greater confidence in
government and greater confidence perhaps in the bureaucracy that
surrounds us in this place would certainly be encouraged and
supported by members of the Conservative Party.
In light of the debate in the last few days, we have seen that
there needs to be a little bit of introspection as to the role
not only of government but of backbenchers and opposition and the
way in which we interact in this place. The information
commissioner may very well be called upon in very short order to
be an integral part of that process, when it comes to the
interaction and the exchange of information that takes place
between all members and other branches of the particular
parliamentary precinct that we work.
I thank the hon. member for his comments. I thank the Chair for
its indulgence.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned during his speech the impartial nature of
the information commissioner's job. As a former ombudsman and as
a person who was involved with responsibilities for freedom of
information, I would certainly concur that is one of the most
important elements of the information commissioner's job.
The information commissioner must not only be impartial, but
must be seen as being impartial. That is very important. I
would echo the concerns that were expressed by our House leader
in terms of the background of the individual being chosen. It is
crucial that the individual must be able to show very clearly
impartiality in dealing with these matters.
As a former colleague of Mr. John Grace, I would like to add my
words of commendation in terms of the job that he performed in
his role as information commissioner.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the
NDP member from the province of Nova Scotia. I congratulate him
on the work that he has done prior to his arrival in parliament.
I know that he is going to continue to do good work on behalf of
his constituents.
With respect to the information commissioner, he has a depth of
knowledge that may be of benefit to Mr. Reid at some point. I am
sure that if he does not know Mr. Reid, in very short order he
will become acquainted with him.
Again I think that the non-partisan commentary that has taken
place in the last moments of debate here and throughout the
process of selection of Mr. Reid is a very good and a very
refreshing start. It is something that we can learn from, to
rise above the partisan nature when it comes to these types of
appointments.
I am sure the hon. member would agree that we are very hopeful
and encouraged that the information commissioner role filled by
Mr. Reid will continue in that same vein. Although he once wore
the same red uniform of the government, I do not suspect that
this is going to factor into his decision making. He has proven
himself to be a man of great integrity and a man who realizes the
importance of arm's length from government when it comes to the
dissemination of information.
1900
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did not
expect to rise in debate today because my House leader gave a
fairly good summary of our stand on this particular issue.
However, because I have been involved since I first came here in
1993 with access to information and the integrity of government I
decided to say a few words. I was what was called for a while
the ethics critic for our party. I was involved in the joint
House of Commons-Senate committee, as you were, Mr. Speaker, in
looking at a code of conduct for MPs and senators.
I have just had so much to think about on this topic that I
thought I would take the time to share it. Normally I may not
have, but because of the great motion that was passed by all the
Liberals over there I have another nine hours to work today
because we are going to be sitting until 4 o'clock in the
morning. So I thought that I might as well make some good use of
that time by sharing some of my ideas.
I would first like to talk a bit about the process because I
think this is where the greatest flaw is in the appointment of a
new information commissioner and, I suppose, generally in these
positions. A phrase that I have heard is very appropriate here:
“We need to cast the net widely in order to get the best
possible candidates”.
It is the same as with the contract just recently given to
Bombardier. There was no tender. We have the government
ministers telling us that it was a great deal for Canadian
taxpayers, but we do not know if it is the best deal because
others did not have an opportunity to bid on it. Even though
there may be some validity to the argument given, it still has
its limitations because it was very exclusive.
I feel the same way about the appointment of the access to
information commissioner. There was a name put forward and after
a very short time that name was withdrawn because on a little bit
of scrutiny there were certain tests that were not followed.
This was the process that was followed. A person's name was put
forward and I think the government thought that maybe it would
just be able to slide this through and move a motion or maybe a
report that would be concurred in and, bingo, it would be done.
However, it happened that there were certain facts drawn out and
in a swirl of controversy the name was withdrawn.
Another name was then put forward, admittedly by a completely
different process. That particular individual seems to have the
approval of all of the parties. I know our House leader for the
Reform Party gave Mr. Reid a good mark in his interview.
Through my experience in personnel management and being involved
in interviewing and hiring people over the years, I found that
even occasionally when we did in depth interviews with a number
of candidates, checked references, looked at work experience and
everything like that, in the end we may not have made the best
decision. Most of the time we did, but sometimes we could have
done better. I think that principle applies here as well. We
should have cast the net wider and interviewed two, three or four
people and then chosen from among them the one best suited.
I think that is all I will say about the process. Now I want to
put out a personal challenge to Mr. Reid because it appears that
in a very short time there will be a vote taken in the House and
he will get the approval of the House and be appointed by the
House as an officer of parliament.
1905
I want to challenge him personally in this way. This might be a
strange venue in which to do this since he is not here right now,
but I am sure he will read this. It will impinge directly on his
function and his work. Perhaps we will make sure that he gets a
copy of Hansard.
First, the big challenge is to be fair. I understand that he is
going to try to do that. However, there is going to be a great
deal of pressure on him because he deals with situations in which
there is conflict. The information commissioner is not involved
if one of us in the opposition, or a backbench MP, or someone
from the media puts in an access to information request. If that
request is met forthwith in a timely manner, then the information
commissioner is not involved because the process worked. Most of
the time he will be involved when there is a conflict, when a
member of the press, one of the aforementioned people, or a
citizen who wants to know something about what is happening in a
certain department of government puts in a request and for some
reason that person is given the runaround. Perhaps delay tactics
will be used. Perhaps there will be an excessive amount of
white-out. Perhaps there will be letters saying that the
information was not available or that it was not kept. That is
when that commissioner becomes involved. He now needs to
arbitrate. His job will be, in a way, to act as an ombudsman for
the truth because that is what we are after. That is what
Canadians have a right to know. That is what government, that is
what business, that is what personal ethics are all about. They
are about dealing in the truth.
I want to give him a personal challenge on behalf of our party,
and hopefully on behalf of all parties in parliament, to be
excruciatingly fair so that when he does come to those situations
he will evaluate them based on the principles and laws involved.
Is the person entitled to this information? If so, he will
clearly and quickly order that it be granted. If it is not
available, his explanations will be clear and defensible so that
there is a build up of trust in that office and an increasing
credibility among Canadians on how government works.
I have another challenge for the new commissioner, soon to be
appointed by this House, and that is to avoid even the slightest
appearance of favouritism toward the Liberal Party. I say that
because he is a well known Liberal. He was a Liberal member of
parliament. He was a Liberal cabinet minister. He has the
Liberal label. For the next two or three years, unless the
Liberals all walk out of the House and there is a change of
government, we will have a Liberal government. Simply because he
has that label he needs to be extra careful. I predict, almost
with certainty, that in the next few years there will be charges
that he is protecting his Liberal pals.
I see the Liberal member opposite shaking his head and I have a
tendency to agree with him. I have a tendency to think that this
is a man who will be fair. I am ready to give him the maximum
benefit of the doubt. I am going to give him a fair chance. But
he needs to be very careful because he has that label.
He assured us that he has no close companionships within the
Liberal Party and that he will be fair. He told us that in the
interview. I attended the interview that was held by the
committee. It was refreshing to hear of his readiness to state
that he would be fair.
1910
I want to both warn him of the possible coming accusations and
tell him that he needs to be doubly sure that he does not favour
the Liberal government because, as the ethics commissioner is
sometimes accused, he will simply be called part of the damage
control team.
I have a few specific examples in which we were involved with
access to information where information was not given which
should have been given. We were not able to get it. We went
through all the channels. I am not going to bring it up again
because I dealt with it at length in the previous parliament.
Suffice it to say that we asked for information and what we got
were blank pieces of paper with a stamp on them. I do not
remember the number now, but it was the number of a section of
the act under which this information was withheld.
The information was withheld because it was personal. It should
not have been on that document because the personal attachment to
the individual involved should not have entered the government
documents.
There was a conflict. We argued, I believe correctly, that
having put that information into a public document it should have
been available to us, notwithstanding that it was personal in
nature. Our argument was that it should not have been there.
How will we get answers to that type of thing? I argued at the
time and I will argue again that when there is such a conflict
the way to answer it is to bare the truth. I remember being
interviewed by the media on this subject. I said that the only
thing that would clear up the controversy, which was not done,
would be to simply lay it all out on the table and say “Here are
the facts. Here is everything. What else do you want to know?”
That is how we should deal with our government and departmental
offices.
There has to be an accessibility to information that is clear,
that does not attempt to befuddle the person who wants to get the
information, that does not attempt to withhold the information
and that does not attempt to deceive or to throw off track the
road to the truth.
I have done two things in my little talk. I guess my role as a
teacher and an instructor for many years is coming out. First
you say what you are going to say and then you review it. I have
done two things. I have talked about the process. I sincerely
hope the government hears that message and, for functions like
this, makes sure that the process is one of openness. It should
be one where anybody can apply. A short list should be developed
and then they can nail it down to the best candidate, the person
best qualified for the job.
The second thing I talked about was the personal challenge to
truth and openness.
I would like to see the information commissioner, the auditor
general, the ethics counsellor and all such positions gain and
earn an integrity in their own right where they are truly seen to
be independent from the front bench of the government,
particularly the Prime Minister, so that the people of this
country can have the highest level of trust in their government.
That is what the Liberals promised in the last two elections. It
is slow in being delivered. We would like it to happen more
quickly.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the remarks of the
member for Elk Island because, as it happens, from the last
parliament I remember the interest he expressed in the Access to
Information Act and the initiatives he made.
He touches on a point that I do not think we can emphasize
enough in this House and that is for opposition MPs, for
backbench MPs, for MPs to do their jobs well, which is to
question government whether on this side or on that side. But to
question the operation of government we must have legitimate
access to the documents of government.
1915
We cannot have accountability without transparency. We are all
agreed on this side of the House that we are about to make the
correct move in the person we are putting forward as the new
access to information commissioner.
I know the member for Elk Island will agree with me that surely
the next step is to seriously review the current Access to
Information Act because it has become old. It has become
obsolete. There are too many ways to get around it.
I suggest to the member for Elk Island that the problems he has
cited as examples in his remarks on his experiences with the
Access to Information Act had nothing to do with the current
commissioner or the past commissioner. They had to do with
inadequacies in the act. The bureaucracy in interpreting the act
interpreted the act honestly and correctly, we presume.
Nevertheless the member opposite did not get the information he
needed to have to ask questions in the House which I presume were
relevant to all Canadians.
Does the member not agree that it is in the interest of everyone
in the House, on the government benches, the front benches, the
backbenches and in every opposition seat, to move now to review,
to correct and to renew the Access to Information Act?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I practised succinct speech for
many years, as I said, being an instructor and having to
communicate in hopefully a clear manner. I have great difficulty
now in the role of a politician in trying to give a long answer
to the question the member asked. The answer is yes, I agree.
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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-30, an act respecting the
powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the
Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, at third and
final reading.
This is truly a historic piece of legislation. Indeed, it is the
first time since Confederation that jurisdiction over education
is transferred from the federal government to First Nations,
where it belongs.
First, I want to thank the hon. members for supporting Bill C-30
at second reading. Education may be the single most important
investment a society can make, and members from all parties
recognized the need for young First Nations members to gain the
knowledge and skills required in the new economy.
It was also agreed that education should be the responsibility
of the parents and communities whose children are going to
school.
1920
I also want to pay tribute to the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia for
taking this unprecedented initiative, which could open the door
to many similar agreements with First Nations throughout Canada.
Participating Mi'kmaq communities have been determined, patient
and committed in negotiating the terms of the transfer. Their
efforts were guided by a single goal, that of ensuring a better
future for their children.
I also want to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development for its thorough study of Bill
C-30.
Many witnesses appeared before the committee and most of them
supported the bill and advocated its speedy passage. After
thoughtful discussion of it, the committee returned Bill C-30 to
the House.
Passage of this bill is essential to the implementation of the
final agreement on the transfer of education signed by Canada
and nine Mi'kmaq First Nations in February 1997. I would like
to describe for you the main points of the bill and indicate
their importance for the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia and native
peoples in other parts of Canada.
[English]
I found the comments of one witness who appeared before the
standing committee to be particularly insightful in explaining
the impact of the proposed legislation. Chief Lindsay Marshall
spoke on behalf of the Mi'kmaq band that opted into the transfer
agreement.
What struck me most about Chief Marshall's presentation was this
simple statement:
For many years everyone except Aboriginal people themselves have
been making decisions about Aboriginal education.
In a nutshell that is what we are trying to change
with Bill C-30. We are paving the way for the Mi'kmaq and other
aboriginal peoples to exercise real jurisdiction over education
and not just administrative control.
Bill C-30 will begin to reverse the historic trend of taking
local responsibility and accountability away from first nations.
By supporting the legislation we can recognize the capacity of
aboriginal people to take control over their own lives.
Through Bill C-30 the government will delegate jurisdiction for
on reserve elementary and secondary education to the nine
participating Mi'kmaq communities. These communities will also
assume jurisdiction for post-secondary funding support for
eligible residents living on and off reserve. Under the terms of
the final agreement the Mi'kmaq must also provide equivalent
education to non-members living on reserves. The level and
quality of education must ensure that students can successfully
transfer to any other education system in Canada.
To exercise this jurisdiction each Mi'kmaq first nation will
establish its own education authority with a constitution that
outlines its responsibilities, accountabilities and reporting
structure or process for passing laws in a transparent appeals
process.
Bill C-30 also provides for the establishment of a new Mi'kmaq
corporation that will provide collective services to the nine
first nations such as curriculum development, culture and
language initiatives, and special education.
[Translation]
This transfer initiative was in response to a recommendation by
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that the First
Nations be given greater control over education. It will
consolidate the communities involved, in keeping with the
objectives set out by the government in “Gathering Strength”,
our response to the report by the royal commission.
With the delegation of this jurisdiction, those First Nations
participating will be able to set up the school curriculum for
their children. Courses and programs offered will reflect the
customs and traditions of the Mi'kmaq, and, in some cases, will
be available in the Mi'kmaq language.
The First Nations will preserve their history as they prepare
their students for the future.
The result will doubtless be better education for Mi'kmaq
children and youth.
I would remind my fellow members of the broad public
consultation that was held at each stage of the negotiation of
the final agreement on the transfer of education.
In fact, this transfer initiative was inspired by the public
consultations.
1925
Over the five years of negotiations required to achieve a final
agreement, there has been a constant bilateral exchange of
information with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. Literally dozens of
public meetings were held in the 13 Mi'kmaq communities of Nova
Scotia. Presentations were made in First Nations schools, in
academic circles, at the Nova Scotia Association of School
Boards and before provincial education officials.
Information sheets were distributed to Mi'kmaq households, and
information booths were set up at annual pow-wows and other
events.
Several stories on the education transfer initiative were
published in The Micmac-Maliseet Nations News, the Nova Scotia
aboriginal newspaper.
[English]
At the conclusion of the consultations a community ratification
process resulted in nine Mi'kmaq communities opting to proceed
with the transfer at this time. Any of these first nations may
opt out of the final agreement in the future. Similarly the
other four nations may participate in the legislation by having
their names added to the schedule of Bill C-30 subject to a
similar ratification process.
The Government of Nova Scotia has been consulted extensively on
the Mi'kmaq education initiative dating back to early 1994. The
provincial government confirmed its support for the transfer by
signing a tripartite agreement with Canada and the Mi'kmaq chiefs
in December 1996. Provincial officials were also consulted
during the drafting of Bill C-30 as were the Mi'kmaq chiefs. As
a result the legislation before us today meets the needs and
expectations of all parties to the transfer process.
The government has received numerous letters of support for Bill
C-30. For example, the presidents of St. Francis Xavier
University, Saint Mary's University, Mount Saint Vincent
University and the University of King's College have all endorsed
the transfer as have the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, the
Nova Scotia School Boards Association and the Most Reverend Colin
Campbell, Bishop of Antigonish.
The Assembly of First Nations has written to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to express support for
this historic transfer of jurisdiction. The AFN sees Bill C-30
as a significant step in restoring Mi'kmaq governance. Most
recently a letter of support was received from Premier MacLellan
of Nova Scotia. The premier reiterated his government's
commitment to introduce companion provincial legislation to Bill
C-30 as soon as possible.
The most important statements of support came at the standing
committee's hearings on Bill C-30 from witnesses representing the
Mi'kmaq people. Rick Simon, vice-chief of the Assembly of First
Nations, noted that education was the key to opening many doors
that have been closed to first nations people for far too long.
I quote:
This bill sets out to change the course of education in a
significant way—now is the time for change.
Sister Dorothy Moore, acting director of the Mi'kmaq services
division of the provincial department of education, had this to
say:
As we move towards the 21st century, we the Mi'kmaq people more
than ever before realize that quality education for our children
is the priority. In order for this to happen, Mi'kmaq people
must take control of their own education.
The chairperson of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association
also appeared before the standing committee to endorse Bill C-30.
Marg Forbes told the committee:
Enabling the Mi'kmaq to be responsible and active participants in
the education process should make it a very positive exercise for
all.
The chiefs of the nine participating Mi'kmaq communities have
passed a resolution asking the government to proceed with the
legislation as expeditiously as possible. Quick passage of Bill
C-30 is needed to begin the implementation of final agreements in
advance of the 1998-99 school year.
With that in mind I ask hon. members to confirm their support
for this historic transfer initiative by voting in favour of Bill
C-30 so it can be sent quickly to the other place.
1930
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak to Bill C-30, which concerns powers accorded
the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in the field of education.
I know that many Mi'kmaq from Nova Scotia are probably listening
to our speeches, because this represents a vital step in the
right direction, in giving them control over their education. I
will report on this later. Native people have told us that
education was definitely a step toward self-determination, and I
greet them as a brother.
First reading of this bill occurred on February 6. It transfers
legislative and administrative jurisdiction over education.
This means that the Mi'kmaq education council, which will
comprise chiefs from the various signatory nations, will have
control over education. Matters in this area will no longer be
decided by officials in Ottawa. People in their respective
communities will say “This is how we are going to manage
education. This is how we intend to provide an education that
reflects our culture. This is how we will enrich education with
the Mi'kmaq language”.
So this is very important for them and for the nine of the
thirteen Mi'kmaq nations in Nova Scotia that have signed the
agreement already.
Usually, according to the bill under consideration, I say a few
words in a native language, but today I tried to highlight the
tales of the Mi'kmaq, the fabric of Mi'kmaq tales.
It seems to me it is always important to start this way to
provide a background on the way the Mi'kmaq react and view not
only education but life as a whole.
For those who do not know, the word “Mi'kmaq” has a particular
meaning. What does it mean? It means “people of the dawn” or
“those the furthest east”. The first people in Canada to see
the sun in the morning are the Mi'kmaq, the people of the east.
So the notion of the sun is very important.
For them, the sun links the creator, man and the environment.
It also provides an explanation of the origin of man and of the
earth. There is often a very vivid image of the sun giving off
sparks. The sparks give form to life.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is very interested
in what I have to say and I am delighted.
I now resume my comments. This spark takes three forms. There
is one that disappears and decomposes after death, and one which
transcends time, which ends up in the land and in the souls of
men. The latter is called mntu and is considered by the Mi'kmaq
to be the most important form. Finally, there is the spark that
drives life, the good spark that helps people during their time
on earth. All this is based on the concept that everything on
earth is living.
To us, animals, plants and people are living things, but their
belief goes further than that. People and plants are living,
but so are bodies of water and animals. For the Mi'kmaq, all
these entities have intelligence. That is why negligence is so
discouraged by the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, as it is by many
aboriginal nations.
Negligence and waste are not common among aboriginals, precisely
because of the great respect for all these sparks of life that
make up the environment around them.
They believe that the shell can disintegrate, but the mntu I
mentioned earlier remains alive forever.
1935
For them, a tree does not die. It will grow again on the spot
where it fell. For them, an animal does not die. Its blood
will seep into the ground and eventually bring about the
animal's reincarnation.
This is important to any explanation of the Mi'kmaq philosophy.
The legislation is perfectly consistent with the philosophy I
have tried to explain.
The federal government is transferring its jurisdiction over
education to the nine Mi'kmaq bands of Nova Scotia.
I will list them all: the First Nations of Eskasoni, Membertou,
Chapel Island, Whycocomagh, Wagmatcook in Cape Breton,
Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley, Acadia and Pictou Landing.
The convention leading up to this bill was signed on February
14, 1997 with the nine Mi'kmaq bands. Bill C-30 implements most
of it.
The agreement is subdivided into several parts. One part
addresses powers over education. What I said before still
stands. Everything decided in Ottawa for the Mi'kmaq
communities of Nova Scotia will, from now on, be decided by
them. This involves transfers at the legislative, administrative
and financial levels.
The financial aspect lends a degree of originality to the bill
we have before us.
Not only does it grant them full authority, but there is also a
five-year plan, along with a transfer of some $150 million, which
should have been a bit higher to include members who live off
reserve. I shall get back to that later.
I wish to congratulate the nine groups that have signed the
agreement and will now be associated in a school board on which
the chiefs will be represented. The originality of Bill C-30
lies in the fact that there is an option that allows the four
non-signatory communities to join the agreement at any time. If
the government manages to come to an agreement with one of the
four, that community can then join the agreement and be covered
by the bill we have before us today.
This being a tripartite agreement, education normally being a
provincial jurisdiction, the Government of Nova Scotia must pass
legislation. I know that it is in the process of drafting the
Mi'kmaq Education Act, and this should be in the final stretch,
so that these people can take over control of their education.
I described this before as one step toward native
self-determination. As we know, education is what enables all
of us to achieve our full potential in life, and it is truly the
gateway to freedom.
For the aboriginal people, education will open doors that have
been closed to them until now. Chief Lindsay Marshall of Chapel
Island, whose immense contribution I must acknowledge here, said
something most interesting when he appeared before the standing
committee on May 26.
I quote: “Jurisdiction of education is a basic right that is
enjoyed by all Canadians and a right that our Mi'kmaq nation has
not exercised since the time of colonization of this country,
500 years ago”.
Phil Fontaine said he agreed totally with the fact that
education was the path to self-determination. Generations of
native people necessarily grow up with a system of education.
It provides them with values, a culture and a language not their
own. These people can never and will never be headed toward
self-determination.
With the new reality before them, education will ultimately lead
them to greater self-determination and to the preservation of
their culture, language and heritage—all vital to native
culture.
1940
When these young people go to provincial schools, it is hard for
them to speak Mi'kmaq and to take Mi'kmaq courses, because they
are thrown together with non-native children. Now they can give
their own language courses, teach their own Mi'kmaq culture and
tales like the one I just told. They explain the origins of the
Mi'kmaq, what they do, where they have gone, at what crossroads
they may be.
We must not forget that, historically, we did all we could to
deny the Mi'kmaq access to their culture, just as we tried to
deny all aboriginal peoples the right to enjoy their own
culture, language and heritage and to control their own lives.
All that had been denied. Residential schools are a blot on
Canada's history.
They are the best example of the negation of native culture,
language and heritage.
There, as in other parts of Canada, children were systematically
taken from their families and placed in residential schools, all
in the interests of assimilation. The ultimate goal was to wipe
out native cultures and languages, to assimilate these people
into Canadian society.
Many aboriginals who appeared before the committee told us that
not only had this damaged their self-confidence, but it had also
left them ashamed of their own culture.
There is no denying that the residential system was created to
break the native culture, to assimilate it. In the end, it
succeeded in crushing an entire generation of natives.
With the help of God, the Creator as natives would say, we are
trying to reverse this trend and recognize that there is a
diversity in native communities and culture that will enrich
Canadian and Quebec society.
An entire generation of natives was wiped out. This is a very
shameful aspect of that era that was recently acknowledged by
the minister in her reconciliation statement. She acknowledged
that the residential schools were an appalling failure and that
this concept should never have been developed.
I would now like to turn to another concept. Yesterday evening,
during the infernal round of 80 votes that went on until 3 a.m.,
I read part of the royal commission's report. The concept of
resettlement is one that has been underestimated.
The Mi'kmaq now listening know their history well.
They are very much aware of how much they were victimized by
their resettlement in Nova Scotia. By this I mean that certain
communities were uprooted and moved elsewhere on all manner of
pretexts.
The one that was used in Nova Scotia was administrative in
nature. The public servants and Indian agents of the day said:
“They are too spread out. It costs too much to deliver services
all over the place”. In the early 1900s, complete communities
were shut down, often with the help of the churches and the
Hudson's Bay Company. The latter would more or less bring about
the automatic death of a village by announcing the closing down
of its trading post.
This forced the people to move elsewhere to survive. Native
people relocated to Eskasoni, on Cape Breton, and to
Shubenacadie, on the mainland. Both of these are signatories of
the agreement before us today.
Theirs is a tragic history. Even though the federal government
was involved at that time in an attempt to uproot the aboriginal
culture, we must congratulate the Mi'kmaq who survived all this
upheaval. Today at last, they are not only seeing the light at
the end of the tunnel, they have also taken a giant step toward
total self-government. When our education is in someone else's
hands, taking control of it must be the first step.
1945
Bill C-30 makes up to some extent for this past fraught with
meaning for them. Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois not only
listened to all witnesses but it also proposed a number of
amendments, which were unfortunately defeated yesterday. I think
it is important to address these issues at third reading.
For instance, clause 7 of the bill provides that all the
services I just mentioned will be available only to members
living on reserve. Those living off reserve will not be
admissible to the same education program, which means that they
must attend provincial schools.
Unfortunately, discussions on native culture, language and
heritage will not be as extensive as they would be in their own
education system. The government is discriminating against these
people to a certain extent.
Why are these people not living on reserve? Often for reasons
beyond their control. Let me read the provision which make the
existing program applicable only to members living on reserve.
Clause 6.(1) of the bill states, and I quote:
A community shall, to the extent provided by the agreement,
provide or make provision for primary, elementary and secondary
educational programs and services for residents of its reserve.
That means you can be a member of any Mi'kmaq nation, but if you
do not live on the reserve, you are not entitled to the same
programs as the people who do. We introduced an amendment to
include all members, but, for purely financial reasons, I think,
the government and certain opposition parties unfortunately
rejected the amendment. I was speaking earlier of the sum of
$150 million to provide all services, and this measure, in our
opinion, would have cost an additional $60 million.
I should point out that the figures we have for the Nova Scotia
Mi'kmaq are approximate, but some 30% of community members live
off the reserve. The government's decision is therefore
deplorable.
In introducing my amendment, I discussed the situation of
natives off the reserve, because it applies not only to the
Mi'kmaq but to all native Canadians. In some communities, up to
half the registered members live off reserve.
I find it deplorable that the federal government thinks two
ministers should be responsible for this question. The Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for
all natives on reserves and for the Inuit living north of the
60th parallel. Another minister is responsible for Metis and
native people living off the reserve, hence the discrimination
we mentioned earlier.
I remember the government member telling me in response to the
amendment that the federal government could not get involved in
this area, that it was now a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
That means that the debate over those not living on the reserve
and attending provincial schools was a matter for the provinces.
I cannot argue with that, but I think the government is quick
to dump its fiduciary responsibilities for these people. I
would even say that it is sometimes tempting to think that the
government encourages them to leave the reserve, because their
leaving would cost it less, and the provincial governments would
then be responsible for them.
So the issue is one of equity and non-discrimination in our
opinion. It is too bad that, in the end, the Mi'kmaq living off
reserve will not be entitled to the same services as those on
reserve.
There will be a much greater inclination to try to assimilate
off reserve members and include them in provincial programs that
take very little account of the realities they face.
It is easy to understand why people do not really have a choice.
There are also huge problems with respect to native housing.
1950
Right now, overcrowding on reserves is forcing people to leave.
The lack of jobs on reserves is also forcing people to look for
work elsewhere. As soon as they leave the reserve, the federal
government says that they are no longer its problem, that the
provinces must take over. Because of this, three or four
generations are sometimes forced to live under one roof.
Sometimes, there are 16 people in one three-room apartment.
Imagine how crowded that is.
For their well-being or in order to find work, people are forced
to leave the reserve. This shows the importance of band
membership.
Those who leave the reserve are cut off and will become
assimilated. We therefore have two classes of citizen.
It also has a negative effect on their culture. The more one
visits Mi'kmaq reserves, the more one realizes that, when
natives have their education under control, they can take back
their native culture and language. They are in a better position
to identify with their past, to have a clearer understanding of
their roots and therefore of where they want to go in the
future.
Some people will say that they do not want to see educational
ghettos on reserves either, and they are right. Those who
appeared before the committee told us that natives have been
careful to ensure that the native curriculum is in line with
post-secondary and university curriculums. They do not want young
people leaving the reserve to be unable to pursue their education.
The idea is not to create ghettos, but to give them the
opportunity to rediscover their culture, their language and
their heritage and to develop pride in them, even at the
post-secondary level. Those who are in the Nova Scotia school
system will be at greater risk of losing their culture, language
and heritage.
That was the reason for my amendment, to correct this situation.
I wish to thank my colleague from Halifax West, who is here
today, for understanding its impact and supporting it in the
House. Coming from Nova Scotia he clearly understands, I
believe, the Mi'kmaq dynamic in that province. I therefore
congratulate him publicly for the position he has taken.
The motion was aimed at putting an end to the business of
buck-passing between the federal government and the provinces. It
was a lost cause and the provinces will be the losers, along
with those living off reserve, who will pay for that loss with
their culture, their heritage and their language.
What I said before is true. The government rejected the motion
because it would have had to fork out another $60 million.
This is deplorable, when the government is patting itself on the
back for its zero deficit, for having a balanced budget, yet we
know full well it has done so by cutting EI benefits without
reducing workers' and employers' contributions. This is too
bad, because this government will definitely end up with a
surplus next year. It would have had the opportunity to redeem
itself for past mistakes, but it did not take that opportunity.
Another amendment I felt was important was the matter of the
treaty. The government has a number of possibilities once an
agreement has been signed. It can either do what it did here,
bring in a bill, or it can confirm it in a treaty.
The government opted for the bill.
I would like to read my motion, which was as follows: “No later
than three years after the coming into force of all the
provisions of this Act, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall convene a conference composed of the
signatories to the Agreement in order to determine whether this
Act should be converted into a treaty within the meaning of
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
I felt this was important, because when I asked the public
servants, their reply was: “You know, it was the Mi'kmaq who did
not want it”. When I asked the Mi'kmaq, their reply was “Oh no,
we did want it, but the federal government did not”.
1955
We cited excuses such as “If we set a sum of money in an
agreement and then have to enter it in a treaty the money will
be frozen”.
That is why the amendment I proposed aimed at giving the
agreement and the bill a chance to remain in force for three out
of the five years, at which time we would re-evaluate the
situation with the nine communities—or ten or eleven, if more
join—to see if we could convert it into a treaty.
The issue of a treaty is important. People who came to testify
from the four communities that have not signed told us that they
would be tempted to sign if it were a treaty or could become
one.
Even though the amendment was defeated, I encourage the
government to pay a lot of attention to that, because treaties
have a very symbolic value.
What does a treaty mean? Treaties are not just international.
The first Europeans to arrive here signed treaties with the
native peoples. For native peoples, treaties are solemn, almost
sacred, because they are signed between nations.
So I invite the government to give serious thought to converting
this agreement, now a bill, into a treaty. This would finally
ensure protection under the famous section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
The government preferred the bill approach. A treaty and a bill
are two very different things. Even if the current approach is
via a bill, perhaps the treaty approach a few years down the
road should be looked into.
To bolster my argument that some aboriginal people would be
interested, I would like to quote what Rick Simon, regional
Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, for Nova Scotia,
said when he appeared on May 26: “We did talk about the concept
of a modern-day treaty to education with protection under section
35, but the federal government was not willing to go that far.
In fact, we spent probably six months in discussion back and
forth to the point of a treaty not being the route to go.”
Naturally, the aboriginal people, being highly pragmatic, saw
that they were faced with having to continue their battle for a
treaty. In the meantime, the public servants in Ottawa would
have continued to administer all educational services in the
communities.
So they said to themselves: “Let us move ahead one step at
least. Let us accept conversion of the agreement of February
1996 or 1997 into a bill. Then later we will look into the
possibility of its conversion to a treaty”. The bill we are
looking at does offer that possibility, but my amendment forced
the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to call the
signatories together in order to examine whether it was
appropriate to convert the agreement into a treaty.
The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-30. I also want to wish
the Mi'kmaq good luck. I have no doubts about their ability to
control their own education.
I would even say that these people are capable of looking after
their own economy, culture and heritage. They are entirely able
to do so.
I have always thought that the way to end aboriginals'
dependence on the federal government was through education,
self-government, and land claims with a sufficiently large base
to ensure financial self-sufficiency.
I am convinced that this is the only way to end their dependence
on the federal government, which has led to a host of problems,
including drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide, domestic violence
and despair. These people must be given hope.
2000
This educational reform is one step on the road to
self-government and self-sufficiency, because it must not be
forgotten that a society's greatest resource is often not its
forests or its mines but its school children.
In closing, it is with great pleasure that I have accepted the
invitation from several aboriginal leaders to travel to Nova
Scotia this summer. At the end of July, I plan to go to Nova
Scotia and meet most, I hope, of that province's native
communities.
I think that the Mi'kmaq are one of Canada's greatest First
Nations.
I have been pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to help
them on their path to self-sufficiency and self-government. I
wish them all the best with their education program in Nova
Scotia.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with my
colleague, the hon. member for Bras D'Or.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is good news
and bad news. The good news is you have 40 minutes; the bad news
is you cannot split it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if there might be a disposition on the part of
the House to grant consent to allow the member to divide his time
with the member for Bras d'Or.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Hon. Member for
Burnaby—Douglas is requesting unanimous consent to allow the
hon. member for Halifax West to split his time. There would not
be questions and comments. It would be 20 and 20.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-30, an
act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in
relation to education. This bill would transfer jurisdiction for
education of band members to nine Mi'kmaq bands in my home
province of Nova Scotia.
Chief Lindsay Marshall of the Chapel Island Band, and chairman
of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education, stated to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Jurisdiction of education is a basic right that is enjoyed by all
Canadians and a right that our Mi'kmaw nation has not exercised
since the time of colonization of this country, 500 years ago.
This bill sets out to begin to undo that injustice and place far
greater control over education at the community level.
I speak on behalf of the New Democratic caucus and our leader in
support of Bill C-30.
While there are some concerns that need to be addressed, there
is nothing compelling enough to prevent this transfer of
authority from being supported by this House and becoming law.
I discussed this bill with many people in my home province of
Nova Scotia, as well as with numerous witnesses appearing before
the committee. I also have copies of letters of support for this
historic legislation from the executive director of the Nova
Scotia School Boards Association, the presidents of Saint Mary's,
Mount Saint Vincent, and St. Francis Xavier universities, and
from the University of King's College, as well as from the
principal of the Nova Scotia Agricultural College and from the
bishop of Antigonish.
This broad indication of support shows that we have come some
distance indeed from the horrors of the residential school
education that we are only beginning to confront and deal with
today. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples described the
premise of aboriginal education earlier this century as setting
out to “kill the Indian in the child”.
Chief Marshall in his remarks went on to say:
For many years everyone, except aboriginal people themselves,
have been making decisions about aboriginal education. This
decision making process has had devastating effects in our
communities. Some of these effects include social
disintegration, loss of cultural identity and a lack of
self-actualization. This proposed Bill C-30 will provide our
leaders with the autonomy that is required to develop and
implement culturally relevant curriculum that will promote the
language, customs and traditions of the Mi'kmaq people.”
2005
The chiefs of Eskasoni, Membertou, Chapel Island, Whycocomagh,
Wagmatcook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley and
Acadia on February 14, 1997 signed an agreement to transfer
jurisdiction for education on reserve. This bill set out to
bring into law the intent and principles of that agreement.
Over seven years ago the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs
approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and proposed that a Mi'kmaq education authority be
established to assume total program control of First Nation
education in Nova Scotia.
As a Nova Scotian and as aboriginal affairs spokesperson for my
party, I am pleased that this is not the first education related
initiative taken by Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. The band council of
Chapel Island Potlotek moved last year to declare Mi'kmaq the
official language of the reserve.
This bill represents not only a milestone in Mi'kmaq control
over education in particular, but a step on the road to
self-government. Bill C-30 sets out the powers, duties,
functions and structures of the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, or Mi'kmaw
education.
This agreement provides for these communities the ability to
pass laws for primary, elementary and secondary education on
reserve for band members only. However, the Mi'kmaq under this
agreement are obligated to provide equivalent education for
primary, elementary and secondary education to non-members.
One of the highlights of the agreement is that an education
standard is transferable between the Mi'kmaq nation and any other
education system in the country.
As vice-chief Rick Simon of the Assembly of First nations
stated:
One of the important aspects of this agreement is that education
standards are portable between the Mi'kmaq First Nation and any
other education system in the country.
With the impending development of the territory of Nunavut,
there have been many recent and disturbing reports of the
difficulties faced by those who will be elected to steer our
newest territory into being. While the national average of those
15 years of age or over who have completed less than grade 9 is
14%, for Nunavut it is 42%.
The more that education is made relevant to the life, culture,
history and language of aboriginal peoples, the more that
education will be pursued. Chief Simon notes that overall,
aboriginal education levels achieved are roughly half that of the
national average. These statistics are a testament to our
history of using education, and I mean using in the most callous
and exploitative sense, of using education to strip the cultural
and spiritual being of aboriginal youth away.
Instead, it should be the reverse. Rather than stripping away
the cultural identity of youth, education should be used to
inspire, develop and feed youth on the strengths and lessons of
their collective past in order to best achieve individual and
community objectives in the future.
Bill C-30 is a step in ensuring that education instead of
re-education becomes the norm.
For Mi'kmaq education is not a new idea, or a process that began
with the negotiations early this decade. As Sister Dorothy
Moore, acting director, Mi'kmaq Services Division of the
Department of Education and Culture of Nova Scotia said to the
committee:
Mi'kmaq education did not commence with the arrival of the
European visitors on this continent. It had been going on for
centuries. Education was the basis of survival for centuries for
the Mi'kmaq people. In the 20th century, the countless formal
education techniques utilized to integrate and assimilate the
Mi'kmaq students have met with failure, because these techniques
have ignored the culture, the language, the history and
philosophy of our people.
I recognize that there are many issues related to this effort
still requiring resolution. Mr. Don Julien, director of the
Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs, raised several important
concerns.
In particular is the issue of what lies in the potential void
beyond the five year term of the agreement. Mr. Julien notes:
There is no protection provided for a long term future of
educational needs of the communities or the right of
self-determination for the Mi'kmaq and the education of future
generations. There is no commitment in an educational regime
beyond the five year term of the agreement.
2010
I supported an amendment that called for a conference three
years after this legislation takes effect to determine whether
this act would be converted into a treaty. As has been mentioned
earlier by the hon. member for Saint-Jean, this amendment
unfortunately did not receive government support at report stage.
Mr. Julien and others have pointed out that this legislation
sets out geographic limitations of the reserve borders. Further,
while there is no provision for covering Mi'kmaq off reserve,
education must be provided under this bill to non-Mi'kmaq on
reserves.
I spoke out earlier on this issue supporting an amendment that
would extend the provisions of this bill to all members of the
signatory First Nations whether they lived on or off reserve.
Again that amendment, as has been mentioned already, did not
receive government support at report stage.
While there are indeed issues that need continued effort, the
provisions of this bill herald an important transfer of
authority.
This government continues only to brush the surface of issues
dealing with First Nations and other aboriginal peoples. If only
this government would give a full response to the recommendations
of the multiyear and multimillion dollar Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples. If only it would address the host of
recommendations and discussion outlined in that report on
education issues.
While this Liberal government does a serious injustice to
aboriginal peoples by refusing to respond to its own royal
commission, Bill C-30, this initiative by Mi'kmaq leaders and
community members in Nova Scotia deserves our support.
As I conclude, I would like to congratulate the Mi'kmaq elders,
chiefs, band councils, activists, community members, leaders and
negotiators who have been involved over the year in reclaiming
education for Mi'kmaq. I would also like to commend those in
government, both staff and elected officials, who have worked
co-operatively to bring this effort this far.
All of those who made representations to the committee have
played an essential role in drawing out the issues at hand
related to this initiative. The staff of the committee and the
Library of Parliament were invaluable in aiding with the process
and research on this bill.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy to rise in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-30
concerning Mi'kmaq education in Nova Scotia.
As we move through this final legislative obstacle on the way to
Mi'kmaq self-determination in the area of education, all I can
say is finally.
Finally we are moving away from the repression of our ancestors
who saw Mi'kmaq culture as a problem to be cured and not a
heritage to be celebrated.
Finally we are turning self-government into a reality that will
make lives better instead of words that make politicians feel
better.
Finally this House can be proud of its contribution to the
ongoing debate about the role of our First Nations in Canada's
past and future.
Finally this is a bill limited in scope. It will influence less
than 10,000 people in nine communities in one small province. In
terms of the impact that the passage of this bill will make, I
cannot overstate its importance.
This bill lays to rest once and for all the attitude expressed
far too long by Ottawa, that we know what is best for aboriginal
people, that we know how to provide the tools that they need to
succeed. It is appropriate that that attitude be laid to rest
for one simple reason. It was wrong. It was immoral and it
failed.
Canada's policies toward the First Nations are a list of
failures and crimes centuries long. More failures followed as we
tried to correct previous mistakes: residential schools, and
reserves that became ghettos.
Even when we tried to do good it turned bad.
2015
Is it any wonder that all of those great plans and schemes to
civilize the aboriginal peoples, to integrate them with the
mainstream of white western society collapsed. No, they
collapsed because they suffered from one central and
insurmountable flaw. They failed to involve the very people they
were designed to help.
In many ways the Canadian government is still guilty of behaving
in this fashion, of ignoring the concerns and ideas of aboriginal
people as it creates policies which affect them.
Look at the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that
submitted its huge and comprehensive report, only to see it
shelved and ignored by the government. That was a report that
had within it the voices of our First Nations and those voices
have again been muzzled.
The choices that our governments have made bring shame on them
and on the House. But Bill C-30 is a small light in the
otherwise dark history of aboriginal Canadian relations. Here we
see honest consultation among bands and among governments carried
over several years, but with a definite goal in mind, the
establishing of a uniquely Mi'kmaq education system for the bands
of Nova Scotia.
My party's critic on aboriginal affairs has done an admirable
job of presenting the New Democratic Party's position on the
bill. He has walked the House through the legislation in a clear
and concise manner, noting the flaws and the imperfections as
well as the positive elements I have mentioned again here today.
What I would like to address are the broader issues that
surround the package of Bill C-30, especially the often
ill-tempered attacks made upon it by the official opposition.
The official opposition has made much of the word equality and
painted a picture that has this bill as its focal point, a
picture of special interest and hidden agendas that lurk darkly
behind the facade of multiculturalism and fairness. Through
coded words and oblique suggestion, the impression has been
created by the opposition benches that Bill C-30 is a Trojan
horse for some unspeakable invasion force that will soon be
unleashed on the “Leave it to Beaver” world they would have us
believe is Canada. This is shameful and reminds me of the bad
old days I spoke of earlier. But worse than that, the impression
it creates is wrong.
Chief Lindsay Marshall from the Chapel Island Pudletek Reserve
located in my riding has been one of the principal aboriginal
advocates for this bill and has worked tirelessly to promote it
over the past years. In his testimony given to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development he
stated the truth about Bill C-30 and the truth about the Reform
Party's position.
The cornerstone policy of the Reform Party is equal treatment
for all Canadians. There is concern that Bill C-30 will
segregate the Mi'kmaq community from society. My response is
that Bill C-30 will provide equal treatment to all Canadians,
including Canada's aboriginal people.
For the first time since colonization, aboriginal people will
have the right to make laws regarding the education of their
children along with the rest of Canadian society. Furthermore,
with the passage of the proposed Bill C-30 our education leaders
will continue to work in close collaboration with the province of
Nova Scotia to bridge the gaps that exist between First Nations
schools and provincial school curriculum.
Significant milestones which contributed to the bridging of the
gaps were achieved during the implementation period of this
agreement. Among those milestones are: provincial legislation
for the establishment of a Mi'kmaq education council; Mi'kmaq
representation on provincial school boards; and the promotion of
the Mi'kmaq language and culture in the public school program for
both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students.
This is the truth of the origin and intention of Bill C-30. It
is a bill that will create and enhance equality, not diminish or
destroy it.
2020
Perhaps the problem the Reform Party has with this legislation
comes from the fact that this bill is grown from the very
grassroots that party loves to talk about, from consultations
with communities and individuals both inside and outside the
reserves.
Instead of that grassroots generating negative and destructive
impulses that divide instead of unite, this bill has proven the
official opposition wrong. It proves that when we talk to people
and respect their opinions they will often come up with solutions
that are inclusive, not exclusive, that look to the welfare of
communities and not simply the desire of individuals.
The strength of this bill can be seen in the diversity of the
bands in Nova Scotia. There are 13 Mi'kmaq communities and only
nine have signed on to the provisions that will be enacted by
this bill. The other four are reserving their options,
consulting closely with Chief Marshall and others who support the
process. They will wait to see. If they like the results they
will come aboard as equal partners with the other bands.
Again this speaks to the strength of the bill and the processes
that created it. If only the hon. members of the Reform party
could advocate such a system of tolerance and respect, if only
they could acknowledge that decisions do not consist of stark
blacks and whites, then the political culture of our country
would be better off.
It is often said that we have much to learn from our aboriginal
people. I hope some of the points I have raised will illustrate
that truth.
Bill C-30 is a flexible document that allows an experiment in
independence and justice that is long overdue. It is also an
example of what can be achieved when communities and governments
put aside their differences and work in the collective interest
because it is only when the collective is healthy that
individuals can thrive. Perhaps that is the ultimate lesson
which this debate will teach this House.
It is a truism to say that it is easier to destroy than to
create, but it is a truism worth restating. I hope that all
members of this House will take inspiration from this small act
of creation and take pride in having voted to create a better
future for at least a few thousand citizens of this great
country.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to the debate here this evening and I thought it was
fairly even-handed, except perhaps for a few points which were
made by a couple of members. I would certainly like to
congratulate the government for introducing this bill and for
steering it through the Parliament of Canada.
I agree with the bill. As the Progressive Conservative critic
for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it
has been a pleasure to support it.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of the
members of parliament and the DIAND committee who worked on this
bill and who participated in debate. I think most of them had
valid points. Sometimes we do not always agree in committee, but
hopefully instead of spending a lot of time trying to point out
everyone else's mistakes in this House we can also recognize that
because we do not agree it offers better debate and better
answers at the end of the debate.
This bill, without question, will improve education on reserve
in Nova Scotia. Without question there are a number of Mi'kmaq
and First Nations people in Nova Scotia who should be recognized,
but certainly above all Lindsay Marshall, the chief of Chapel
Island, of Cape Breton Island, which is known in the Mi'kmaq
language as Unama'ki. He certainly deserves recognition. He
stands out in his field and deserves to be congratulated.
I have spoken several times on this issue. It is not my intent
to stand here tonight and take the time of the House. I
congratulate the Mi'kmaq people and the Mi'kmaq Nation in coming
forth with this themselves, with pursuing this through parliament
and with keeping the political pressure on the government and on
all members of the opposition to support the bill.
They deserve credit. It shows political leadership in the
Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia. It shows their political
leadership as citizens of this country.
2025
The analogy that the hon. parliamentary secretary used when he
was speaking tonight was interesting because I wrote down exactly
the same analogy in my own words, except that I added a little
more flavour to it than he did. He used the analogy of education
being the key to success. I will read what I wrote down. I
smiled when he was giving his analogy because I wrote: “If
education is the key to the door of the future, then surely this
36th Parliament has helped to open that door for the Mi'kmaq
people of Nova Scotia”. I think that is true.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
raise an issue which is very important.
I listened to the speech of the member of the NDP party and,
very frankly, and I say this as gently as I can, it hurts me
deeply when they make accusations against me which are not
accurate. They accuse me of having attitudes toward natives
which are just plain false. I do not like that.
The Conservative member just gave a good speech which was
supportive of the legislation, and yet the Conservatives have on
their website a bunch of stuff which is really very negative
toward me as a Reformer and as a person. I wonder whether he
would want to comment on that.
I think we need to come to the place where as Canadians we work
together and we do the Canadian thing. We care for each other.
We look after each other. We make sure that all of these issues
are properly dealt with. I would like to see an end to this kind
of shooting of arrows that is only meant to harm.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty it is very
difficult for me to respond to those comments. I am not aware of
what is on the Progressive Conservative website.
I think I can say with a clear conscience, knowing our party's
positions, our stance, our reputation and our history for
even-handed and clear policy, that I would hope the member is
mistaken. I would assume that he is.
However, I would like to say that I noted that all members in
the debate on the Mi'kmaq bill, which is what we are discussing,
offered clear debate. We were not always in agreement and
probably will not always be in agreement. However, we have to
listen to other sides of the argument if we want to come up with
an answer at the end of the debate.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today with my colleagues to address the Mi'kmaq education
bill. We are now at third reading and still I find myself in the
position of being unable to support the bill.
As was pointed out, all members in committee made positive
contributions in the spirit of co-operation and respectfully
hearing one another out. There was not this bitter attitude that
seems to creep into this place all the time.
The fact that we did not manage to have the important amendment
adopted that my party and I thought was necessary to offer
support to the bill, which we would have liked to have supported
had our amendment been adopted, is regrettable, but that is the
way it is.
This bill would implement an agreement signed by the Government
of Canada and 9 of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia.
2030
Its purpose is to set up a corporation that has no share capital
called Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. It exercises control over primary
and secondary education. It is in effect more or less a school
board.
The purpose of the corporation is to support delivery of
educational programs and services under the proposed act. The
members of the board will be the chiefs of the nine participating
communities and are elected ex officio by virtue of their office.
They together will constitute the board of directors and will
ultimately be responsible for management and conduct of the
corporation.
The Reform Party cannot put its support behind this bill because
we have one major problem with the bill. The chiefs themselves
are automatically the members of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey
established by this bill.
In my previous speech on this I explained that we wanted to see
the bill changed in order that we may offer our support to it. We
wanted it amended so rather than the chiefs of the nine signatory
communities ex officio members of the board, they would be
nominated and possibly elected if that was the purpose of the
members of those communities. We wanted to open it up to other
people as well.
We have no problem with the view that chiefs are politicians. It
is their job to be visionaries, to see a position they can push
to improve the life of their communities. In this case control
of education for their communities was their vision. For that we
commend them, that they should want to move control over
education into the community. After all, it is their job to
promote, to protect and to provide a legislative framework for
things to happen.
It is my view also that politicians themselves probably should
not be involved in the daily delivery of programs, the delivery
of their own product. It just does not work that way in other
areas. Why in this one?
We feel this board could be consisting of qualified
professionals, experienced people who want to run for the board
who have an interest in education, who want to make a positive
contribution to their communities. This would be one way of
doing it.
It may be housewives, businessmen or workers who want to make a
positive contribution as grassroots people in their communities.
They are denied unless they run for chief with all the additional
responsibilities that being a chief implies.
For the chiefs being ex officio members, because they are
dealing with millions and millions of dollars to manage the
affairs of the board, it is another paycheque. We want to see
economic activity spread around. There is concentration of
paycheque. There is concentration of responsibilities on top of
an already busy job and in an area in which the chiefs maybe are
not necessarily expert. They will be involved in the delivery of
educational products and services.
This may result in overall poor management and results even if
the chiefs put in good will and hard work. It also makes sense
that the members of the education board should have to be dealt
with at the polls on the matter of education only and not on a
wide variety of topics unrelated to education.
Why should the voter have to decide on an issue that is
unrelated to their performance as chief whether or not they are
returned? Certainly the chiefs I met are good people.
I must say when we got to this standing committee meeting we had
quite a chorus of leaders from the participating communities.
They were all chiefs or people who worked with chiefs.
An elected board dedicated to one purpose we believe is in the
best interests of the people, in this case the people of the
community themselves.
They would want to deal with education boards on the basis of
education.
2035
The chief's have a broader outlook. It was their vision, as
those people elected to lead their bands, that developed a police
force and the education board. They should raise their sights to
other things important to their communities and maintain contact
with people on those issues. They should leave behind the
management of the things which they have established by their
hard work, initiative and vision.
We feel that it concentrates too much power and too much work in
the hands of the chiefs. That is why we want to see this bill
amended. Obviously it is not going to be amended but that was
our desire.
Our support on this bill was contingent on having this basic and
fundamental amendment passed. We know what happened in committee.
The Liberals voted it down. They lined up against it, as did
members of other parties who do not have the strong democratic
tradition the Reform Party is developing in this country and
which is attracting voters from coast to coast.
We asked why would they vote against such a common sense
amendment. They do not have the democratic and accountability
tradition that comes with being a Reformer and growing a party
based on those principles that the Reform Party is based on and
grew from. They would like things to continue the way they are.
We have a number of other problems with the bill. It does not
have the full backing of all the communities. Four of the
thirteen bands in the province did not sign on to the agreement.
During the committee stage these people came forward as witnesses
and expressed some serious concerns regarding this bill. It was
the grassroots people from the communities who expressed
reservations.
The chiefs and their people who were fully on side. There was a
major concern with the Nova Scotia board of education. It would
have liked to see this amendment.
Band members who are not in leadership in a band gave a much
different point of view. There was a concern with consultation.
People did not understand the implications of the bill that was
being put forward to them. Their concern also was too much power
in the hands of a small group of people.
Is that not what democracy is about, giving power to the people,
the people at the bottom end, the people who require and receive
the services on a daily basis for their quality of life? The
people who are affected are not certain they will receive the
benefits of the education programs the board will administer.
They do not want to see the chiefs constitute the members of the
board.
We have seen these cases before. Funding is put in at the top
but it does not seem to get down to the people who need it. We
do not have to look very far to see that happen. I am not saying
it will happen in this case but the potential is there because of
the concentration of power.
We think it would be wise for the government to pull back on
pushing this bill through and take time to investigate properly
some democratic amendments and see if they cannot be made to
work. The issue was raised in the House and in committee that
people will not listen to an elected person who does not happen
to be a chief. But we all know that if a chief did not seek
re-election or did not get elected he would not lose all his
standing in the community by that one simple election. He would
be considered an elder in his community forever. He would have a
lot of standing and a lot of status and people would look to him
for leadership, although not in a legislative sense.
We reject the premise that the people would not listen or care
what was said by an elected board. We believe there are enough
people in these communities who can provide leadership and are
willing to provide leadership, capable people who could take up
the leadership available to them if this bill is amended to
provide for an elected board of education.
2040
In this party we are great advocates of the equality of all
citizens and our ultimate goal is that all aboriginal people
fully participate in society, their own included, that they would
not be denied because they were not chiefs of a band.
Our party regretfully does not support this bill because it
grants special powers and rights to the chiefs rather than
spreading it out throughout the band. We have expressed concern
that the people who are served by the bill could be separated
further from mainstream Canadian society by retreating into an
education system set up particularly for native people.
We think all Nova Scotians should have the opportunity to hear
how the Mi'kmaq governed themselves, how they lived before we
came here, how they live now, how they have evolved in their
society, their governing structures, their families. All the
things that matter to Canadians and to Nova Scotians and to the
Mi'kmaq should be available to them through the regular school
system.
We are not opposed to the entire concept of the Mi'kmaq's having
control over their education. We just want to see that control
diffused a bit, not so concentrated in one group.
The bill has been referred to on occasions by the department of
Indian affairs and the Assembly of First Nations as important and
historic. Those words are important to burn into our
consciousness, this important and historic piece of legislation
that will establish a new relationship between aboriginal people
and the federal government.
When it is brand new there cannot be any excuse for rushing it
through to royal assent. We need to take the full time and if
people are raising legitimate concerns, we need to hear them. If
they said they had not properly involved themselves in the
consultation process, it is their responsibility to get there but
it is our responsibility to ensure they get there and that they
raise their concerns.
The reason this is important and historic is this is a blueprint
for further action by other bands. It will not be the end of the
road for this bill. While it was stated that this bill is sure
to increase educational opportunities for Mi'kmaq, it is really
only as we have concrete evidence that it makes a difference,
that we will be able to make those assertions. Otherwise they
are merely educated guesses at best and the proof will be found
out only when we have gone several years down this road. It is a
road that we cannot come back from, so I urge the government to
put some more thought into this thing and not rush ahead.
Let us get it right the first time and not have to go back and
try to figure out a way to amend a bill that we see is flawed in
such a fundamental way.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
find it extremely interesting to hear the views of the hon.
member, views which represent the Reform Party's position on this
bill.
I also found it very interesting that the hon. member mentioned
other parties are supporting this bill because those other
parties do not have the strong democratic beliefs Reform Party
has. Yet the views expressed to me seem so contrary to
democracy.
Here we have a situation in this bill where aboriginal people
have spoken out as to what they want, what they would like to
have, and yet we have a party saying “what we say is much
better, it should not be your chiefs, as you have decided, it
should be your populace in general”.
2045
When we talk about democracy, we have nine bands agreeing to it
and four that are not. We know one principle of democracy is
that majority rules. I do not know what kind of votes the Reform
Party takes when it exercises democracy, but certainly to me nine
out of thirteen is a majority. The fact that the other four
still have the option to opt in is a very important point as
well. We have to question the views surrounding the objection to
the bill.
We also hear questions and commentaries, and this is a
commentary. The hon. member indicated that he was afraid this
system would separate aboriginal people from the mainstream of
society. How much more separated can aboriginal people become
from the mainstream of society under their own system of
education and their own sense of control than has been the case
over the many years we have tried to make aboriginal people
similar to everybody else?
We have tried to “civilize”. We have tried to “assimilate”.
Efforts have been made by the Canadian government over the years
to do what it felt was right for aboriginal people rather than
allow aboriginal people to create for themselves what they know
to be in their best interest.
Now the same attitudes are coming forward again: unless it is
done our way it is not right. I find this to be very disturbing.
I urge very strongly members who promote that view to stop and
look in a mirror and have a second thought about what they are
actually saying. I urge hon. members in the House not to be
swayed by those arguments as we debate and as we consider the
passage of what is truly historic and important legislation.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the name
of the party of the hon. member who just spoke, we do not think
it is as democratic as its name might imply.
I said that there did not seem to be the level of consultation
necessary for a bill termed important and historic. Nobody is
denying that we can move power down particularly from the government
to the people. We want enough people to have a say and express
their opinions to be sure that is the direction in which they
want to go.
As to whether or not the current system has worked, in places it
does and in places it does not. A number of chiefs, their
executive assistants and education people appeared before us.
They were well educated, well spoken individuals under the
current system. To think that we could put all the people into a
basket and say they are poorly educated because they were
educated under a system that is foreign to what we experienced in
our past is ridiculous. People will flourish under a
multiplicity of systems.
This is one that may work very well for these people. When
something is as important and historic as the bill—and it may
well prove to be one of the more important ones when it comes to
how an entire generation is raised—it is surely not too much to
expect real consultation so that we are sure we have democracy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. 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
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2050
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly the
vote stands deferred until tomorrow at approximately 1 p.m.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, despite the late hour it is a pleasure to rise tonight
to address the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
Before I get into the thrust of the Senate amendments I would
like to address the process by which we find ourselves at this
point this evening. I feel very strongly that it is a faulty
process. We have seen that despite the pleas of western Canadian
grain farmers upon which the bill will impact tremendously their
concerns have largely gone unheeded by the government. The
process by which the legislation has moved through parliament is
very faulty.
If we look back to the early days of the 36th Parliament we find
a commitment by the hon. minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
and Natural Resources to bring forward the bill very early in the
new mandate following the last election, and he did so. I think
the bill came in, in early October. With the new process it
moved directly to committee stage rather than having second
reading debate, despite the fact that the majority of the
opposition members in the House of Commons received a substantial
amount of correspondence from western Canadian grain farmers
about their concerns with the legislation. Despite that the
government moved it directly to committee.
That process in itself is supposedly to allow more time at
committee, more time in which to consider substantive amendments,
more time in which to receive witnesses' testimony, more time in
which members of all the various parties can cross-examine
witnesses at committee stage. Yet what we found was an
accelerated process even at committee.
The government with its majority on the standing committee for
agriculture moved the bill very rapidly through the committee
stage and back to the House for report stage. Sensing this, the
opposition parties held back their amendments rather than put
them forward at committee stage and see them voted down with very
little attention paid to them and put forward at report stage.
2055
Unbeknownst to us what we saw, unfortunately for western
Canadian farmers, was that the government moved very quickly once
it came back to the House for report stage and brought in time
allocation to shut down further debate despite the fact that we
had not had substantive debate at committee.
We see a process that is deeply flawed and the government is not
listening to concerns of farmers. Despite the fact that there
were some 48 amendments brought by the four opposition parties at
report stage in the House of Commons, of which about 30 were from
the official opposition, they were voted down. They received
very little time in debate because of the government's move to
bring in time allocation.
We saw very substantive amendments such as Motion No. 1 which
would have amended the preamble to the bill to ensure that the
newly structured Canadian Wheat Board would act and govern itself
in the best interest of farmers. We saw amendments such as the
one put forward that would have removed references to the
president as a member of the board of directors so that the board
of directors would have the power to hire and fire the president
and CEO rather than that power resting with the minister as it
currently does in the bill.
We saw amendments to make the 15 member board of directors fully
elected rather than the existing 10 of 15 elected with the other
5 appointed by the minister voted down by the government. The
list goes on. Substantive amendments were brought forward not
only by the official opposition, by the Reform Party, but by all
opposition parties. It was noted at the time during the
abbreviated debate that probably nowhere else in the history of
agricultural legislation had a government managed to anger
everyone across the full spectrum dealing with the Canadian Wheat
Board.
We saw people from every aspect who were deeply upset with the
legislation and the fact that the government was not listening to
the concerns of farmers and forging ahead with it despite their
wish to see amendments brought forward. The amendments that were
put forward by the opposition were in direct reply to the
concerns we heard expressed both at committee and in
correspondence and direct communication with farm groups.
During the presentation of the member for Brandon—Souris on
Monday evening when Bill C-4 was before the House he expressed
his opinion that the Reform Party and I had contradicted
ourselves by criticizing the Senate amendments.
We have to look at what these amendments are to accomplish. The
official opposition as well as all opposition members as soon as
Bill C-4 went from the House of Commons to the Senate encouraged
the Senate to hold hearings in western Canada to hear directly
from western Canadian farmers about their concerns with the
legislation. The Senate to its credit did that.
When I was criticizing the Senate for the end result I was not
criticizing the fact that it undertook the process of at least
going out to hear from farmers. Unfortunately it did not listen
to them and bring forward the amendments that farmers are deeply
seeking.
I come back to the single biggest flaw in the legislation over
and over again. It is the lack of freedom of choice. Under Bill
C-4 farmers will continue to be heavily fined or even thrown in
jail if they cross the U.S. border to market their grain. This
is unlike options that will soon be available to Ontario grain
producers.
2100
One must question why the double standard. Reformers have been
doing that consistently and certainly western Canadian farmers
have been doing that consistently. Why is there one set of rules
for Ontario grain farmers and a totally different one for western
grain farmers?
This fundamental flaw with this legislation and with the
operation of the Canadian Wheat Board will result in the
divisiveness continuing. The elections this bill will put in
place for those 10 producer positions on the board of directors
will end up simply in a battle between producers who are pro
single desk selling, favour the present mandatory system, the
status quo, and those producers who favour greater freedom of
choice, democracy and a fully voluntary wheat board.
We will end up having elections whereby farmers probably will be
casting their ballots not for the candidate they believe brings
the greatest skills and expertise to managing a $6 billion a year
enterprise but rather for a single issue. Are they in favour of
maintaining the single desk selling structure of the Canadian
Wheat Board or are they in favour of greater freedom of choice
and looking at options that will allow farmers to market some or
all their grain outside of the Canadian Wheat Board? I think it
is unfortunate that farmers will have to make that choice when
they go to the ballot boxes, likely this fall, and vote for these
10 producer positions.
The standing Senate committee on agriculture and forestry tabled
its report on Bill C-4 on Thursday, May 21 after spending
thousands of taxpayer dollars travelling across western Canada
to hear what farmers thought of the legislation. I have referred
to that and I actually applaud the Senate's initiative to get
that feedback.
It became very clear throughout the hearings, even to some
senators, that the majority of farmers were unhappy with the
legislation. Farmers told senators they wanted more marketing
options outside the Canadian Wheat Board and that the inclusion
clause allowing for more grains to come under the Canadian Wheat
Board's jurisdiction had to go.
While some farmers were optimistic that the Senate would propose
substantial changes to reflect this testimony, the Senate proved
yet again that it is simply a puppet controlled by the
government.
I intend later in my presentation to move some subamendments to
the five Senate amendments.
Of the Senate amendments brought forward the first amendment is
consequential to the second and the second will really require
that the minister consult with the board of directors on the
appointment of the president and CEO. The minister still retains
the power to arbitrarily appoint the president for the first year
after the changes come into effect.
We believe, and we made these amendments when the bill was
before the House before, that it should be the board of directors
with total control of appointing or ultimately have the power to
fire the CEO and president if that person is not doing their job.
I will be proposing a subamendment to this that would turn this
thing around and ensure that it is the board of directors that
has that power and that it must consult with the minister before
it appoints the CEO, not the other way around.
The third Senate amendment deals with the auditor general. This
too was an amendment brought forward by the Reform Party to open
up the Canadian Wheat Board to audits by the auditor general and
to the Access to Information Act.
We have repeatedly demanded that the Canadian Wheat Board open
its books to the auditor general. We applaud this as a tentative
first step. Here too there are some great deficiencies in what
actually has taken place with the way this amendment is worded.
This amendment does not stipulate that the auditor general must
make his findings public. A report made simply to the minister
is ineffective and inadequate. This is a one time opportunity. No
further audits are stipulated. In addition, the amendment does
not specify which year or years of the Canadian Wheat Board
operations the auditor general is to audit. Conceivably the focus
of the audit could be 20 years ago and nothing more recent.
2105
When consulted by opposition MPs about this amendment the
auditor general's office wrote a letter to the minister for the
Canadian Wheat Board outlining his concerns with this amendment.
Legal counsel at the auditor general's office were uncertain how
this amendment would actually fit into the mandate and
legislation governing the operations of the auditor general. The
letter expressed concern that the apparent intent of the
amendment as drafted would not provide a great deal of value for
the money.
I too will be presenting a subamendment which will if passed
ensure that the auditor general has an ongoing role to play in
auditing the Canadian Wheat Board and ensure that he has the
greatest amount of flexibility in how he conducts those audits,
and ensure further that he reports as he should and as he does in
other cases to parliament and not simply to the corporation and
to the minister responsible.
The last two amendments the Senate brought forward deal with the
exclusion and inclusion clauses. The fourth amendment is with
the exclusion and the fifth the inclusion, and they are
consequential with one another. Here too what we see is the
Senate has merely reverted to basically the status quo and added
one small hurdle where the minister would have to consult and
hold a plebiscite were he to include any new grains.
We have already heard over and over again how farmers feel about
this prospect, as slim as it might be, that there would be
additional inclusion of other commodities under the Canadian
Wheat Board's mandate. It is simply unacceptable. Once again I
will be moving a subamendment.
I could go on to talk about some recommendations that the Senate
made in addition to these amendments, but I do not have the time.
Therefore I will get to my subamendments.
The recommendations are not binding whatsoever on the government
or on the minister. That is a great flaw as well. I think some
of the recommendations have some merit and I have said that
publicly. But they are merely that, recommendations. They are
not amendments. Farmers in particular in western Canada should
clearly understand that. The recommendations dealing with the
electoral process for dividing up the election of the directors
is on a geographic basis and the amendments dealing with the
contingency fund cap are just recommendations. They may or may
not be acted on.
That brings me to moving my subamendments. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following: “a message be sent
to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House agrees to
amendments number 1 and 4, made by the Senate to Bill C-4, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and this House agrees with
the principles set out in amendments number 2, 3 and 5, but would
propose the following amendment:
Amendment 2 be amended by replacing all the words in section
3.09(1) with the words “The president is appointed by the
governor in council on the recommendation of the board of the
directors and holds office during pleasure for the term that the
board of directors may determine.” and by replacing the word
“Minister” in section 3.09(2) and 3.09(2)(a) with the word
“board” and replace the word “board” in section 3.09(2)(a)
with the word “Minister”;
Amendment 3 be amended by replacing all the words in the first
paragraph with the words “Within two years after the day this
section comes into force, the Auditor General of Canada shall
commence auditing the accounts, financial transactions,
information management systems and management practices of the
corporation for such fiscal years as the auditor general
considers appropriate and reports of those audits shall be made
to the corporation, the minister and parliament”; and
Amendment 5 is amended by adding to section 5 the following:
“(c) producer participation in the Canadian Wheat Board is
voluntary”.
In other words, amendment No. 5 would not pass and it would not
be allowed under any circumstances to include more commodities
under the Canadian Wheat Board until such time as the Canadian
Wheat Board is voluntary.
2110
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is obviously the silly season. The Liberals did not listen to
the amendments initially when they were tabled by the official
opposition, by me and by other members of the opposition. It
seems they do not wish to listen to logical amendments at this
point in the debate of Bill C-4.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would request that you instruct the Liberal members opposite to
try to hold it down a little. I would be interested in hearing
what the member for Brandon—Souris is saying as he adds to the
debate on my subamendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a very
reasonable request.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, thank you. It is late
not only in this sitting but in the evening. As hon. members
across the way have suggested that perhaps I should give it to
the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, the only thing I
will give the hon. member is marks for perseverance. I will give
him marks for putting together an amendment that has been
discussed ad infinitum at the committee level as well as in this
august Chamber. It is an amendment that would make the
legislation better.
I had the opportunity to speak to the Senate amendments. I
spoke in favour and somewhat reluctantly to the Senate
amendments. Frankly, a lot of the amendments put forward by the
Senate were debated and discussed among the opposition members
during committee. I give the Senate credit for being able to put
a better piece of legislation forward. It is not the best piece
of legislation by any stretch of the imagination but it is a
better piece of legislation because it deals with a number of
very sensitive areas. It has assisted in putting forward some
not terribly major or substantive changes but minor changes that
would assist in this piece of legislation.
As we all recognize, the government is the government and it
will pass this legislation in some fashion. It is unfortunately
a fashion that will not solve any of the problems in western
Canada. When the legislation passes it will probably exacerbate
the issues and the problems now faced by western Canadian
producers.
2115
In fact I would suspect that with the faces in the House now, it
may well mean we will be dealing with this legislation before the
36th parliament is adjourned for good. I think it will come back
before the House within the next three years.
I want to speak to the amendments that were put forward. The
Progressive Conservative Party will be supportive of the
amendments that were put forward for the simple reason that we
have in general terms put these amendments forward ourselves in
the House and certainly at committee.
The first amendment, which is the president appointed by the
board, is not a new amendment. That has been discussed ad
infinitum and is the right way to perform governance in any
corporation. When the CEO and president is responsible for the
board of directors, it is an organization that is accountable.
When the CEO is appointed by a third party then there is no
accountability by the board of directors to that individual and
quite frankly, the responsibility and accountability of that
individual is compromised.
I am glad that I finally have an audience. It is nice to see,
after a little bit of a faux pas, that the whip of the Liberal
Party does have a bigger whip now than he perhaps had previously.
The second amendment is with respect to the auditor general but
it is not something new. This particular amendment was put
forward previously. The auditor general is the check and balance
that the public have, but in this particular case it is a check
and balance that the owners of the Canadian Wheat Board, who are
the producers, want. We are continually told that the ownership
of the Canadian Wheat Board is the producers but unfortunately
the producers do not have the opportunity of actually finding out
what it is they do own and how the Canadian Wheat Board is being
operated.
The Senate amendment that came forward is a better change to the
act than there was previously. Now at least the government has
agreed that the auditor general should play a role in the
Canadian Wheat Board. However, it did not go far enough. I
spoke to this and the amendment does take it to another level
which is a much better level.
The auditor general should have the opportunity and right to
audit the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian public and the
owners of the Canadian Wheat Board, the producers, should have a
right to have access to what the auditor general says.
The auditor general goes into government departments and tells
them they are doing the job wrong and tells them how they can do
the job better. It is an operational audit, not just a financial
balance sheet audit which producers are now receiving from the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The amendment is a legitimate and solid amendment. It would
make that particular organization much more accountable to the
people who own the organization, the farmers.
We have discussed inclusion and exclusion ad nauseam, not just
ad infinitum, that this is the most dangerous clause in this
particular piece of legislation. I stand on record in this House
in saying that if the government got rid of the inclusion clause,
we would reluctantly accept the legislation that came forward.
With the Senate change to the inclusion clause, which is a minor
change, it does have a protection and a check and balance. It
always deals with plebiscite even in the original legislation.
However, this now says that it is not just simply a decision of a
minister, of the board of directors, the plebiscite, but the
final resolution will have to come back to this House and be
passed as legislation.
I can assure members that if there was a piece of legislation
that hit the floor of this House that was going to include
another commodity in the Canadian Wheat Board, there would be
riots in the streets in western Canada. The producers would not
allow themselves to be put in a position where they were forced
to sell other commodities on a non-voluntary basis through the
Canadian Wheat Board.
This is a good amendment and I congratulate the member from
Peace River. It is a good amendment where it states that no
inclusion clause should take place until producer participation
in the Canadian Wheat Board is voluntary. It makes sense. We
should not add any more commodities until it is a voluntary
organization. However, add the commodities when it does become
voluntary so that the organization can compete on a fair market
basis with other competitors that are in the marketplace right
now. It makes sense.
2120
I hate to say it, it is the first time that the hon. member has
really made sense with the four very good amendments. However,
we will support the amendments as put forward. Unfortunately I
believe, and I am sure the hon. member from Peace River also
agrees, that these amendments, although very logical and will
make a better piece of legislation, will not be approved. It is
very difficult to stand and say that because they would make it
better they are still not going to be approved by this
government.
For the life of me, I do not know why the government will not
approve these amendments. It will not. A couple of members over
there are going to speak to it. They will tell us exactly why it
is such terrible thing to give people a choice; it is a terrible
thing to make an organization accountable; it is a terrible thing
that the chief executive officer should be responsible to the
board of directors. They are going to tell us why it is so awful
to do that.
I am sorry that these amendments will not go any further than
the vote tomorrow. These amendments, which have been tabled by
almost every member of the opposition with the exception of the
NDP, will come back to this House. We may not be here to deal
with them, but they will come back because this legislation is
flawed. It is not going to solve the problems that are out there
in the marketplace. It is going to exacerbate the problem. The
day after this legislation is proclaimed we are still going to
have the problems that exist today.
In saying that, I will also say that with the Senate amendments
and the legislation that will come forward, reluctantly we will
support Bill C-4. I would much prefer to have it supported as
amended but unfortunately, I do not think that is not going to
happen.
This has been a very useful exercise. I know the hon. member
from Peace River has given us the process, as have a number of
other speakers, as to how this legislation got to the floor of
this House. Even in that, I am a little disappointed that the
government did not listen more to the producers that this
affects.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the
Canadian Wheat Board and the amendments proposed is a very
serious one.
The memory of the member for Prince George—Peace River seems to
be short in terms of what happened and how we got from where we
were in the hearings to these amendments today.
There were very extensive hearings in western Canada by the
previous Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Members
of this House, myself included, attended hearings where extensive
information was put forward by farmers. It is too bad the member
was not there. He was in his own area. The standing committee
put forward quite a number of amendments to the bill in terms of
adopting what the producers wanted. They made the board more
powerful from a farmer's point of view and catered to what
farmers asked us to do.
I have said many times that without question the Canadian Wheat
Board is an agency that is respected around the world. It is
respected by Canadian farmers. It has done well for Canadian
farmers since its institution in 1935. During difficult years in
the grain industry it has been able to maximize returns back to
producers.
2125
When we compare our returns in net to those of the United States
producers, we have usually and nearly always done better in
maximizing net returns back to primary producers. It is not just
taking a spot market here or a spot market there, but what is
actually put back into the pocketbooks of farmers. The Canadian
Wheat Board has been able to do well for farmers over the years.
I want to talk for a moment about some tactics by the opposition
party and what it is really doing. The opposition members,
especially those from the Reform Party, are playing into the
hands of the major grain companies. In essence with the
amendments they put forward today that is what they are doing.
They would have the impact of weakening the marketing tools that
western grain producers have available to them in terms of
maximizing returns to themselves. They are really playing into
the hands of the likes of Cargill grain and others.
I have had the opportunity to travel to the United States
extensively in my experience over the years. It is interesting
to talk to American farmers. Many of them wish they had an agency
like the Canadian Wheat Board to give them the power that the
Canadian Wheat Board has given to Canadian producers.
I want to quote what Robert Carlson of the United States
national farmers union had to say before the House of
Representatives agriculture committee: “From a competing
farmers' perspective, we in the United States do not have a
vehicle like the Canadian Wheat Board to create producer
marketing power in the international grain trade. We basically
sell for the best price among our local elevator companies and
lose our interest in our grain after that point. Our export trade
is dominated by a few—”
An hon. member: They get higher prices.
Mr. Wayne Easter: If the member would listen, he would
realize from a competing farmer's point of view what the mistakes
of the amendments the Reform Party is proposing would do to
Canadian farmers.
As I was saying “Our export trade is dominated by a few large
corporations who were interested in buying low and selling
high”.
Maybe the members in the Reform Party just do not understand
that it is the lowest price that sets the price. It is the
lowest seller who sets the price in the international market. If
there is one primary producer from Canada wanting to sell low, it
brings down the price structure for the country as a whole. What
the Canadian Wheat Board does by selling through a single desk is
it tries to hold that price up and see that there is not negative
competition undermining the Canadian price structure.
Mr. Carlson goes on to say “Our export trade is dominated by a
few large corporations who are interested in buying low and
selling high to enhance the earnings of their owners who are not
generally the same people who produce the grain traded. The
stated goal of free trade proponents in agriculture is to have a
grain trade without national borders, without internal subsidies,
without quota or tariffs and without pooling or price enhancing
mechanisms like STEs. This would be a great world for grain
buyers but a grim world for producers who would be fully at risk
economically”.
He concludes by saying “If we destroy”—and this is what the
Reform Party is trying to do through its amendments—“the
various institutions that farmers in many countries have built to
help themselves survive economically, we will have nothing left
but producers standing bare among the ruins of structures that
once empowered and protected them in a marketplace dominated by
giants”.
That is where it is at. The Canadian Wheat Board does give us
considerable power.
Let me come to the audit for a moment. Those members talk about
wanting the auditor general to audit the books. The fact of the
matter is that the Canadian Wheat Board's duly appointed external
auditor chosen from the private sector is the well-respected
accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche. Fully audited financial
statements appear in every Canadian Wheat Board annual report.
Under Bill C-4 the producer controlled board of directors would
have the power to create their own internal audit committee just
like any other private company.
2130
The Senate approved an amendment to Bill C-4 which would
authorize the auditor general to conduct a one-time audit of the
accounts and financial transactions of the corporation and to
report back to the board of directors, which has a two-thirds
majority of farmers, and the minister. That should be all that
is required.
The fact of the matter is, this is the annual report, audited,
as I said, by a respected auditing firm. It is 84 pages of
financial transactions and information on the Canadian Wheat
Board. Do we have that information on Cargill Grain? Certainly
not. Do we have that transparency with some of the major grain
companies? Certainly not.
It is reported in the introduction to the 1995-96 annual report
of the Canadian Wheat Board that there was a performance
evaluation done on the Canadian Wheat Board. The performance
evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year showed that
Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as quality
of product, customer service, technical support and dependability
of supply.
Another study conducted by three economists showed that the
Canadian Wheat Board's single desk generates an additional $265
million per year in wheat revenue for farmers, thereby enhancing
Canada's competitiveness and, in fact, putting more money in
producers' pockets.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: You have made that point before.
Mr. Wayne Easter: The member said that I had made that
point before. Yes, certainly I have. The value of the Canadian
Wheat Board does not seem to have sunk in with the member for
Lakeland because he continues to attack it. He continues to talk
about dual marketing, and there is no such thing. We cannot have
single desk selling and an open market working at the same time.
They are a contradiction in terms.
If we have a dual market we have an open market system and the
open market system will undermine the very essence of what the
single desk selling system is trying to do, which is to maximize
returns to producers by preventing the negative competition that
obviously the member for Prince George—Peace River supports. He
obviously must support lower prices for grain producers because
that is what his amendment would mean.
The Canadian Wheat Board has worked on three pillars of
strength: single desk selling, price pooling and a partnership
with the federal government which guarantees borrowings and
initial prices.
The member for Prince George—Peace River was putting forward an
amendment, I believe, to go to a full board.
I guess the key question is, would the board of directors under
this new board have real power? I personally support an elected
commission. They have done well over the years. We have
appointed commissioners for their expertise in marketing. They
have done a great sales job in China and in other countries. As
I said earlier, the figures they have returned to producers are
some $265 million per year over and above what they would have
got if they did not have that board. I supported that system.
However, I clearly heard producers saying they wanted more
control on the board. Now they are going to have that control
with 10 or 15 directors. Will they have any real power? The
answer is clearly yes. Contrary to what members opposite are
saying, they will have real power. As in any modern day
corporation, all of the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board will
be placed in the hands of the directors.
2135
The legislation clearly states that directors “shall direct and
manage the business and affairs of the corporation and are vested
with all the powers of the corporation”. That is what the
legislation says. They are vested with the powers of the
corporation.
They would certainly carry a heavy load of responsibility being
in charge of a $6 billion enterprise.
The member opposite asks “What about the CEO?” The fact of
the matter is, the directors will select one of their own to be
chairperson. The Reform Party claims that the board should select
the chief executive officer.
There is tremendous financial support from the taxpayers of
Canada, from the Government of Canada, to western Canadian grain
farmers through the Canadian Wheat Board, so certainly we have to
have some say in terms of the appointment of the CEO.
It was backstopped last year to the tune of about $60 million,
in terms of guarantees on borrowings and initial prices. That is
a heavy financial commitment for Canadian taxpayers and we want
to ensure that we have some say in terms of who is appointed CEO.
But we also ensure in the legislation that the board will have a
lot to say and will be consulted in terms of the CEO.
As I said, the directors will select one of their own to be
chairperson. They will be consulted on the appointment of the
president and will determine the remuneration of the president,
the chair and the directors. If they do not like the CEO, they
just lessen the remuneration. It is that simple.
They will oversee the Canadian Wheat Board's management and
control and strategic direction.
If the directors were not satisfied with any aspect of the
Canadian Wheat Board operations, they would be able to make the
necessary changes. They would also be responsible for the
introduction of new marketing tools such as cash trading,
expedited adjustment payments and early pool cash outs.
The amendments put forward by the member for Prince
George—Peace River would undermine this powerful marketing tool
for western Canadian grain farmers. On this side of the House we
want to stand by western Canadian grain producers. We want to
ensure their prosperity in the future and one of the tools that
they will have at their disposal is the new arrangements, the new
powers, the new procedures granted to them by Bill C-4 which we
are putting forward with the confidence that it will do the job
we expect.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. I
would ask him to keep his intervention short.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how anybody could keep their comments
short after listening to that socialist rant from the hon.
member.
For any of the farmers who happen to be watching the debate
tonight, and I am sure there are some, that type of nonsense is
the very thing that people have struggled with and fought against
to ensure their freedoms throughout history. Throughout history
people have had to struggle and fight to get freedoms because of
that type of attitude. That is the simple fact of the matter.
Because my time is short I will just address one issue, the
issue of dual marketing, the issue of freedom of choice, the
issue of a voluntary wheat board.
Why is it that Ontario farmers have a fully elected board of
farmers to run the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board? They have a
fully elected board, not two-thirds. They are going to be able
to market their grain directly out of the country themselves.
They will not have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Why is it that what is fair and right and works in Ontario for
some reason cannot work in western Canada?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all stung by
being called a socialist.
Mr. Jay Hill: That is because you are one.
Mr. Wayne Easter: I do not know about my colleagues, but
I am not stung by that comment.
To me that means I stand with the people and I will admit that I
always have.
2140
I remember when the member opposite was a farm leader in Peace
River country, as I was a national farm leader across Canada
stationed in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. There is one thing about
the organization I stood for and still stand for today as I
continue to stand up for farmers in this country and the prairie
producers in the west.
I cannot understand why the member opposite wants to undermine
the ability of those farmers to be able to maximize their returns
on the international marketplace. I just cannot understand that
from the member opposite.
In terms of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board versus the
Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Wheat Board is given extensive
backup by the Government of Canada in terms of its designated
marketing area.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three short questions. I would like the hon. member to know
that I have been on the phone with a number of farmers in my
riding who are watching CPAC tonight and they have asked me to
ask these three questions and they want to hear the member's
answer tonight.
Question No. 1: There is an 82 year old grain farmer in my
riding who says “I fought for freedom. Why have I lost it?”
Question No. 2: One farmer says “Occasionally over the years
Revenue Canada has sent in auditors to audit my books that were
done by a private company. Why can't we send in the auditor
general occasionally to confirm this private company?”
Question No. 3: The last question is from a young farmer who
would like to know “Why aren't the Ontario and Quebec farmers
rushing to get on board this wonderful Canadian Wheat Board? Why
aren't they rushing to sign up if it is such a good deal?”
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, in response to the
question the member for Wild Rose had with regard to the 82 year
old farmer who claims he fought for freedom, that is true and
that is, in fact, why we are having this debate today.
There is freedom under the Canadian Wheat Board. There is
freedom in this country. We had the Canadian Wheat Board
advisory committee which was elected to advise the Canadian Wheat
Board. In all the recent elections to that board the
pro-Canadian Wheat Board candidates won. That is clearly showing
that support is there from the farm community in the west in
terms of electing pro-wheat board producers.
The member asked a question about Revenue Canada. In fact the
Senate amendment deals with that. I personally do not see it as
being necessary. As I said, the Canadian Wheat Board puts out an
annual report with audited financial statements. It is very
transparent, not like the Cargill grain company and other
companies. All the facts are very visible.
I will quote a portion of what farmers are saying in the west.
The president of the National Farmer's Union is Nettie Wiebe. I
believe some members know her. She had this to say: “The vast
majority of farmers want to see the Canadian Wheat Board
strengthened and expanded. They want to see it safeguarded in
the upcoming 1999 round of World Trade Organization talks”.
2145
Farmers value the savings and security provided by the government
guarantee on all prices. They value the government guarantee on
borrowings and operations and they want to see those guarantees
strengthened. That is what farmers said.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
cover later some of the comments the member made. My question to
the member for Malpeque is quite simple and straightforward. How
is it that he, a dairy farmer from Prince Edward Island, thinks
he knows better than farmers of Ontario who have opted clearly
for a voluntary and accountable wheat board?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, at least the member for
Lakeland is getting a little closer. The last time I stood in
this House he called me a potato producer and now he is getting a
little closer to the industry. I know what is going on in
western Canada. I spent 17 years organizing in western Canada.
I have been in more farm kitchens and town halls across western
Canada than he ever has. I stood in the streets demonstrating to
strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board powers over the years when
some governments tried to undermine it.
When a former minister of the Canadian Wheat Board, Charlie
Mayer, tried to undermine the authority of the Canadian Wheat
Board by taking barley out from under it illegally, I stood in
the streets and fought for it. Where the heck was he when we
needed to do that? I have every right as a Canadian and former
farm leader to stand in this House and express my opinions and
the opinions I know very well of western Canadian farmers in
their support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Nettie Wiebe, president of the farmers union said: “The vast
majority of farmers want to see the Canadian Wheat Board
strengthened and expanded in this country”. The amendments put
forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River would
undermine the very authority that farmers want strengthened and
expanded.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member
for Lakeland said a few minutes ago that it is an old speech he
had from the member for Malpeque. If new content were required
for all these speeches we would have been mute on this point
about October 15 because there has been nothing new on this
debate since about the first week of the debate. It has been
downhill every since.
We are here tonight again in part because of the amendments that
have been brought forward by the member for Prince George—Peace
River. The Senate has pronounced on Bill C-4. Following
hearings in western Canada earlier this spring senators have
proposed three amendments and made two recommendations.
The process as amended by the Senate has now returned to the
House. That the government is introducing it into the House
means it approves the bill as amended or that it at least accepts
its provisions otherwise it would have chosen not to reintroduce
it.
2150
The bill as amended will be debated in a package, one debate, no
splitting off to discuss and vote on each amendment separately.
There will be one vote only.
If the vote passes, and the government will ensure it does, the
bill will then be ready for royal assent. It will not return to
the other place for a further vote.
The Senate amendments include the deletion of the existing
inclusion and exclusion clause. There remains a mechanism for
having the inclusion or exclusion of a grain but the reality is
that it leaves the initial decision in the hands of the minister.
In the bill's earlier stage the decision to include to exclude
would have been triggered by a farm group or groups.
It is one more indication for us that the bill does not do what
the minister has been saying constantly that it was going to do
which was to put grain farmers in the driver's seat. Every time
they get into a narrow corner they say they have to give the
control back to the government or in this case the minister.
Instead of putting them in the driver's seat, as the minister
responsible for the wheat board has been saying, it really puts
grain farmers further into the back seat.
The minister has to consult with the board of directors and hold
a producer vote on inclusion-exclusion. In addition, parliament
will now have to pass specific legislation to include or exclude
a grain. We believe that essentially this is a capitulation of
the business and the right wing farm lobby which wanted both
clauses to be deleted from the bill. It did not really want the
exclusion clause deleted, but we are prepared to take that in
order to get rid of the inclusion clause.
From our point of view the inclusion clause was one of the only
redeeming features of the bill from the point of some wheat board
supporters, including the NFU as has been noted by the previous
speaker and the wheat board advisory committee.
With regard to point two of the Senate recommendations, the
Senate amendments stipulate that the minister consult with the
board before appointing a president. The minister did not have
to do this under Bill C-4 but said he would have anyway so in
reality it is not a big win.
On the auditor general and access to information point, the
amendment from the Senate says that within two years of the bill
coming into force the auditor general should commence an audit of
the corporation. The question of the wheat board's transparency
was a big issue for the Reform Party and wheat board opponents.
The minister responsible for the board was reluctant to allow the
auditor general in but has now obviously agreed.
The senators do not suggest that the board be open to access to
information laws. They say the new members of the board will
have access to all relevant information and they should decide
what is and what is not made public.
In addition to those three Senate amendments there are two
recommendations. Of the ten elected members of the board of
directors, Saskatchewan would have five, Alberta three and
Manitoba two.
Second, the regulations stipulate the contingency fund will be
no larger than $30 million. This is a small step in the right
direction but the CEO of the wheat board thought that the
contingency fund could be as high as $575 million.
Third is that the contingency fund be separated into three
accounts defined by their uses, guaranteeing initial payments,
providing for losses from pool accounts, and providing for
potential losses from cash trading.
The Senate also observed that farmers should vote for directors
on a one farmer, one vote basis rather than on the basis of
volume of grain delivered, which was a suggestion from the Reform
Party last fall. There should be spending limits in elections but
the senators came up with no suggestion as to what that should
be.
The senators noted the intense and bitter debate around dual
marketing. They took no position but said that the new board of
directors could make decisions on this in future.
For our part, the federal NDP caucus opposed the bill even with
the inclusion clause. We will oppose the bill with these
amendments which essentially removes this clause. We would
oppose the further recommendations we have heard tonight made by
the member for Prince George—Peace River.
Our caucus opposes Bill C-4 because it does undermine the
integrity of the wheat board and will continue to undermine
farmer confidence in it. We believe farmers cannot afford the
contingency fund is in the bill and they do not want it.
The senators have accepted the contingency fund although they
recommend it be limited to $30 million.
2155
One of the few positive clauses from our point of view was the
possibility for the board to either add or delete grains from its
mandate. The decision to include or exclude a grain would have
been triggered by requests from farm groups but would have
required a vote by all the farmers affected.
A coalition that included the Winnipeg Commodities Exchange and
other corporate groups lobbied hard against the inclusion clause.
To achieve their end they said both inclusion and exclusion
should be dropped and the senators have capitulated to this
aggressive lobby. In place of a democratic process to include or
exclude the senators offer an alternative that would make it
almost impossible to ever add a grain or delete one.
The inclusion clause was one of the few redeeming features of
Bill C-4 and it has now been gutted. We in this caucus have
always been strong supporters of the wheat board because it works
in the best interests of farmers. We must work together to make
sure that the wheat board has a healthy future.
On this whole business of secrecy about the wheat board I agree
very much with the comments made by the member for Malpeque. We
are talking about a $6 billion a year operation. I has been
accountable to parliament. Parliament has required that an
external independent auditor scrutinize the wheat board's books.
The auditor is Deloitte & Touche and each year the report is
filed with parliament. The last audit I saw was the 1996 audit.
That well recognized, well respected accounting company found the
wheat board's books to be in fine shape.
It is true that the wheat board is exempt from provisions of the
Access to Information Act and we feel that the overriding reason
for that is customer confidentiality and the conduct of the wheat
board's commercial activities. If customers big and small cannot
be assured that their business dealings with the board are held
in confidence they will go elsewhere with their business.
It is interesting that the same groups that frequently claim
that the wheat board does not get a good enough price for grain
would now like to undercut the board's ability to do just that.
The Canadian Wheat Board is probably the best grain marketing
organization in the world and it has served western farmers well
for more than 60 years. It is a great Canadian success story and
it is accountable to the people of Canada through parliament and
through an external audit.
We in this caucus have always supported the wheat board because
we believe, as I have said, that it works in the best interests
of farmers. We oppose Bill C-4 because it is flawed legislation
and will only serve to undermine the board.
Reform opposes Bill C-4 because Reformers do not think it goes
far enough, quickly enough to destroy the board faster. We are
not in support of Bill C-4 and we are certainly not in support of
the amendments presented tonight.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what I
will comment on in my presentation are the amendment presented by
the Reform agriculture critic under three headings, the ending of
the wheat board monopoly, more transparency within the board, and
the accountability to farmers.
I have to comment on some of the things that have been said by
members from other political parties. I will start with the
member from the Conservative Party who spoke earlier. He said he
would reluctantly support these amendments even though he agreed
with them wholeheartedly. I wonder why that would be.
I believe the reason is that member has Conservative comrades in
the Senate and those Conservative senators may be pulling his
string a bit. They are kind of saying support what they said. I
give the member some credit that he is not just going to have his
strings jerked completely by the Senate. I thought I would make
that comment.
I have to make some comments about what the member for Malpeque
said, and he is a dairy farmer, not a grain farmer. We have in
the Reform Party over 20 farmers.
2200
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been accused of not being a grain producer.
Besides being a dairy producer and a beef producer I also grow
grain. I have also grown barley, wheat and oats. How I wish we
had a Canadian Wheat Board in P.E.I.—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As you know, mares
eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy. It is now
time for the hon. member for Lakeland.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I did not
realize the member had grown any grain, but I do know he does not
market any of it through the wheat board. I wonder why that is.
I have not heard the member lobbying for the wheat board
jurisdiction to be expanded into his province. If he did he
would not last long as the member for Malpeque.
The member talked about how he was a spokesperson for a farm
group. He was. I remember well something he said about 17 years
as a member of the National Farmers Union. I would like to ask
him a question. I know he cannot reply, which is good. I know
the answer anyway. How did membership of the National Farmers
Union change under his presidency and beyond? The answer is that
it declined steadily, to the point that it moved from a fairly
substantial farm group to a very small farm group.
The member sings the praises of the Canadian Wheat Board. I
want to make a message very clear once again, which I have done I
do not know how many times, because it seems like the hon. member
for Malpeque and some of his comrades in the Liberal Party did
not get the message. The message is that the issue never has
been whether or not the wheat board functions well in terms of
providing a service for farmers. I do not think that has ever
been the key issue.
The key issue has been that the wheat board functions as a
monopoly and farmers have no choice. That is by far the most
important issue that has been taking up the debate regarding the
wheat board.
Again and again, in spite of my having clarified it dozens of
times in the House even while the member for Malpeque was here,
he still tries to say that the debate is about getting rid of the
wheat board. It is not about getting rid of the wheat board. It
is about giving farmers the choice either to market through the
board or somewhere other than through the board. That is the
issue. I wish he would not try to distort it. The issue is
choice, that it be a voluntary board.
He is someone who claims that he supports the wheat board. How
on earth can he go against the original principle of the wheat
board which was to be a voluntary organization? That was only
changed in 1942-43 under the War Measures Act when the monopoly
was put in place. It is interesting how the member conveniently
forgets that fact.
I will now talk about the three issues I mentioned before. The
first is the key issue, the issue of putting an end to the wheat
board monopoly. That is what the debate has been about for some
time in western Canada and in Ontario. It was fortunate enough
to have a vote on it and choose to sweep the monopoly aside and
give farmers a choice. That is what there will be in Ontario as
a result of the changes made. Why that cannot happen in western
Canada, why that vote will never be allowed, as is apparent under
the government, I cannot answer.
We need to end the monopoly to give farmers the freedom to
choose, to put in place a dual market or an opt out clause or
some mechanism to give them a choice. That is what the Reform
agriculture critic, the member for Prince George—Peace River,
stated in his amendment. It is crucial and it is in the
amendment. For that reason alone the amendment should be
supported.
As to whether that is what farmers want is not an issue of
debate any more. We have had the polls and we have indication
after indication in every province in western Canada and in my
constituency that says farmers want a choice. It is not an issue
any more.
I do not know why the member for Malpeque keeps saying that is
somehow the issue.
2205
The second issue is more transparency within the board. I say
within the board because I believe probably a majority of western
Canadian farmers want the wheat board to continue to exist. That
is not the issue. Most farmers would say they want the wheat
board. They think it is a useful body. They think they would use
it sometimes but would like the option not to use it if they so
choose. We need change within the board that will make it more
transparent and more accountable. I wish members would listen to
that.
The member for Prince George—Peace River, the Reform
agriculture critic, dealt with the issue of transparency and
accountability in his amendment, two more good reasons to support
the amendment. The Conservative Party which has not exactly been
supportive of Reform is to support these amendments. The member
who spoke knows that western farmers want these changes. He has
no doubt about it, just as I do not and just as the other 20 plus
Reformers who are and have been farmers know these changes are
wanted.
The Senate proposed to have the auditor general look at the
books. There are a few things wrong with that. First, we do not
know that the auditor general would have access to everything he
wanted access to. Second, would he report to parliament? No. He
would report to the minister or to the board of directors which
is partly appointed.
We are waiting for a ruling on what the auditor general said,
that it may not be legal. This amendment the Senate has proposed
and we support may not be legal. It may be outside what the
auditor general is legally mandated to do. That is another
concern. Parliament gets a limited report from the auditor
general which is not made public, and what have we gained? I
suggest probably not very much.
Another issue of accountability to farmers is to have a
completely farmer elected board of directors with real control.
If that is combined with a voluntary board as it originally
operated in western Canada and transparency so we know what is
going on inside the board, we will have a wheat board that will
be supported by western farmers. A vast majority of western
farmers would support and use the wheat board under the
conditions that it is voluntary, transparent and more
accountable.
Those are the comments. We are going through this debate again.
I do not think there is any need for me to comment further. I
look forward to questions from members of the other parties.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): It is a pleasure to
speak probably for the last time to this issue. I will speak
directly to you, Mr. Speaker. Being from the great province of
Alberta you will realize that what I am saying is absolutely
correct in the eyes and in the minds of the farmers, particularly
those from Wild Rose with whom I have become the most familiar.
I will make one comment in regard to the speech given by the
Conservative Party member. It was sort of a half-baked speech in
which the member overwhelmingly supported this or that but will
reluctantly vote. I am not sure what he meant.
I would like the member to know that I am quite proud of two
colleagues in my caucus, one from Prince George—Peace River and
the other from Portage—Lisgar. They were debating this issue a
long time before this member ever reached the House. In fact
there were only two members in the Conservative Party at that
time. I guarantee the fellow from Sherwood did not know the
first thing about a wheat board like most members on that side.
2210
I am as concerned as many farmers in Wild Rose with whom I have
been speaking on the phone for the last two or three hours. They
would like to know if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
campaigned on supporting the wheat board in his riding. I am
sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration campaigned hard
on the wheat board issue in her riding. I am sure that all the
Ontario MPs campaigned very hard in their ridings.
They support the bill but it does not reflect on their
constituents one iota. It reflects on western farmers and they
do not care about western farmers. If they did care they would
have recognized, as I recognize, that not too long ago in a very
legal referendum in the province of Alberta 66% of barley
producers voted in favour of a dual marketing system.
The other two Liberal members from Edmonton remember it. They
sure have a funny way of showing it when it comes to voting in
the House of Commons. They do not care about what the western
farmer is going through. They only care about what their
almighty front row bench tells them to do. The whip cracks and
they will do it.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the fellows who I know
are watching on TV tonight.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Myron Thompson: I apologize to them for the noises
across the way. They do not know any better. I hope my fellow
farmers will forgive them. They cannot help what they do. It is
getting awfully close to summer and it is nice to direct my
comments to someone I know is alive, sober and doing well. I
will not pay any attention to what is going on across the way. I
want the farmers in western Canada to remember that it was the
voters in this Liberal group who have forced this issue upon
them. None of their constituents are affected by what happens
with the wheat board bill.
I talked on the phone tonight to a farmer from Cremona whose
name is Gordon Reid. I know Liberals are not interested in
hearing what he said but I want to quote him. He would welcome a
phone call from any of the experts opposite. With unity being a
major issue in the country, he asked why we are treated like
second class citizens. His number is 403-637-2193. They should
write it down. He would welcome a call from them any time. He
has a few things to say to them on behalf of a lot of farmers. I
hope they call him up right this minute to say hello.
Also they would like to know what it takes to get an effective
Senate. The Senate went into the western part of the country and
talked to the farmers. I heard what farmers had to say. I took
in some of the sessions. All my staff took in the sessions,
recorded them, took all the information. Only a bit of what we
heard from farmers in western Canada is shown in the amendments
from the Senate. They are concerned about the Senate.
2215
If the member is a brave fellow like he thinks he is, I will
take him out back here and we will call him together. I would
not want him to lose the number.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are not going to
have another word about heart attacks from this side. We are not
going to have another word about going out back. Stay on the
topic.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to
where the phones are. We do not have phones in here.
I don't think they understand much. Maybe if a guy went over
and gave them a shot in the head they would understand something.
The Senate has been in the views of these farmers a failure to
them. They feel that the Senate is supposed to represent the
regions of the land and that they should not be exploited by the
bigger regions. They feel that is what has happened in this
case, and they are extremely disappointed with this government
for allowing it to happen. They feel they have been exploited by
the larger populations.
If the new member from British Columbia would finish yawning and
listen to what goes on out west, he would know what I say is
true. I would advise him to pay close attention.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you a good summer.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Obviously the member for Wild Rose has had a
few minutes of wild times. Last night in our debate the member
for Wild Rose at 9.45 stood up in the House of Commons and not
only on the record but off the record called us liars. A number
of my colleagues, including the member for Wentworth—Burlington,
heard him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Ottawa Centre approached the Chair a little earlier on this. It
had been brought up earlier. This is the first opportunity that
he has had when the member for Wild Rose was in the Chamber.
Knowing the member for Wild Rose, as we all do, and knowing what
happens sometimes in the heat of debate, the member for Ottawa
Centre has indicated that if the member for Wild Rose would have
the courtesy to remove any suggestion of calling that member a
liar, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Myron Thompson: First of all, I called no individual
a liar. That is false. I said it is too bad that people have to
lie to try to make a point. I never talked about any individual.
When an individual says that I take children and hold them by
the heels and whip them, I have to say something about that. Any
member who would make a comment like that should apologize to me.
I will not take back anything I said.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The word “lie” is
recorded in Hansard. It is not a word that is used in this
Chamber. The hon. member for Wild Rose has had his say. As far
as I am concerned, the matter is over now. Questions and
comments.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the member for Wild Rose, and I want to
correct something that I am sure he did not intend to say but
said it nevertheless.
He talked about the fact that 66% of Alberta farmers voted
against the barley vote in 1997, which is correct. But without a
blush he segued that 66% of Alberta vote into a vote by western
farmers against the barley vote when we all know that the overall
vote in western Canada was 62% in favour of retaining barley
under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
2220
I wonder if the member for Wild Rose would acknowledge those are
the facts.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct
because the vote he is referring to was an all or nothing vote.
That is not what the Alberta farmers voted on initially. The
Alberta farmers want dual marketing. Members should get that
through their heads. They want dual marketing, end of comment.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
never seen anybody who stretches the imagination as much as the
member for Wild Rose. We have somebody here from the New
Democratic Party who has shown once again how the member for Wild
Rose has stretched the truth to the limit.
The member refused to stand up tonight in order to apologize to
the House. He has disgraced the House one more time. If he has
the audacity and the true honour of a member of the House he
would apologize not to me but to the House of Commons and to the
taxpayers of this city and this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member cannot
answer since he is not in his seat.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of
evenings ago there was a dearth of Liberals in the House, in fact
an embarrassing dearth, and we all know the consequences of that.
I think that may be preferred over the drunken brawling group we
have over there this evening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask the hon.
member for Elk Island to withdraw that last remark.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, out of sheer respect for the
Chair I withdraw that remark unequivocally.
There is all this shouting, this disrespect for an issue that is
very important to western Canadians, to Canadian farmers in the
prairies and in British Columbia. It is absolutely incredible to
me that there is in the House a group of parliamentarians who
think that it is within their purview to impose on western
Canadians a system of marketing their grain which they themselves
do not subscribe to and which the farmers in the west do not
want.
I know that they can come up with this plebiscite that was held.
But as my colleague just said a few minutes ago, that plebiscite
was do you want the whole wheat board basically the way it is or
do you want it scrapped. Obviously I would vote in favour of
keeping the wheat board because there are a lot of small farmers
who do not have the ability or the capacity to get into marketing
their own grain and finding the best market.
On the other hand, there are now literally hundreds of farmers
who are very well able and who meet many opportunities. I appeal
to these members who have a power here which they are abusing.
2225
By a democratic system there are more Liberals in the House than
other members. That is true. I acknowledge that. The fact is
they got 38% of the vote across the country and they got around
20% of the votes in my province. They do not represent the wishes
of those people out there. It is that simple.
I say this as carefully as I can. I do not even like using this
term but there is a degree of arrogance. From 3,000 miles away
or whatever it is, it is a very great error to say that we here
know better than those out there what is best for them.
Let us reverse it. I am going to deal with the dairy business
right now. There are marketing boards. There are quota systems
and all that in the dairy. Let us just for a moment say the
system was reversed.
Let us say that parliament was in Alberta. Let us say that all
the wheat farmers in Alberta decided that the dairy farmers only
in Ontario and Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces could no
longer get their best prices for their dairy products. Most of
them sell the raw milk. They could no longer sell to that buyer
who gave them the best price. In all instances they had to sell
to someone else who gave them between 20% and 25% less.
I hope the members can now see what would happen to them. They
would say that is not right, that is not fair for those western
farmers out there to impose on us at a financial loss something
that we do not want to do.
That is what is happening here and that is why this is such a
serious issue. It is a very serious issue. We ask the farmers
in a fair question would they like to keep the wheat board the
way it is, would they like the wheat board reformed, would they
like the democratic right if an opportunity came to sell some of
the grain they raised at their expense on their own land. If an
opportunity came to sell a couple of truckloads at 25% higher
than what they can get through the wheat board, they would want
that right. The farmers are saying that.
They are prevented from exercising that right because of a law
made here in distant Ottawa. What I am doing right now is simply
appealing to this government. I know the whole democratic system
is skewed here. The minister for the wheat board who makes the
final decision and who gives the whip the instruction on how all
the other MPs are to vote on command, I do not know if that
minister is now hearing my appeal. I do not know whether he is
able to get to a television or whether he is going to hear this
appeal. He is the one who makes the decision.
In a way I might as well be debating with empty chairs since the
ones who are filling the chairs here tonight are unable to really
respond to what I am saying.
They have to vote according to the party line. Here we have
very fine subamendments from the member for Prince George—Peace
River that would correct at least some of the errors in the
present legislation and make it palatable to western farmers.
Yet what we are getting is resistance. What we are getting is a
lot of laughter and disrespect. Not anymore. I want to be
honest here. They are paying great attention. I appreciate
that.
2230
These subamendments which my colleague has brought forward
accurately reflect at least some of the changes farmers in the
west are pleading for. I appeal to members to talk to the
minister, get together, do what is right and pass these
subamendments. If this bill goes through in its present form
with these subamendments, maybe in the future we can make more
adjustments. I believe the prerogative of parliament is to make
amendments to laws from time to time. That is what we are here
for. It really should be done.
If it is not, there has been a failure of this government to
respond to the basic freedoms which these western farmers
deserve.
I have used the following example before, but per chance some of
the members here tonight were not here when I gave it previously
or perhaps have not read every page of Hansard since we got
here. I would like to refer to this one example of a farmer I
talked to who said a federal government agency, the Farm Credit
Corporation, is putting pressure on him. It wants cash. It is
threatening to foreclose. This was a couple of years ago.
Meanwhile he has his granaries full of grain, the finest grain
in the world because this farmer is a very meticulous farmer. He
farms well. He has excellent quality grain. It is the most
desirable durum wheat in the country.
He wanted to sell that grain but the wheat board at that time
was not issuing a quota, so the grain sat in the bins. He could
have put that grain on a truck and sold it because he knew
somebody who was ready to buy it, not only to buy it and give him
the cash so that he could make the payment which was being
demanded, but he could actually get in this instance around 25%
more than he could have expected to have received from the wheat
board even with the final payments. But the law prevented him
from doing it.
So he had to go to the bank, get on his knees and say please
wait until the wheat board gives him the freedom to market my
grain. The bank said it would put more liens on his property,
take all the buildings, take all the land, take all the grain in
the bins, his animals in the barn, all as security while it waits
for the wheat board to sell his wheat.
I am not saying by this that the wheat board does not sell
wheat. It sells a lot of wheat. There are a lot of farmers who
are well served by the wheat board. There are a lot of farmers
who do not get into these crunches. But when a farmer does hit
the wall like this and that farmer is able to find a solution to
the problem and is prevented by law from actually implementing a
totally obvious solution, taking the grain which he owns and
selling it to a person who is willing to buy it for a reasonable
price, surely that should not be against the law in this country.
It is a drastic limitation of one's personal freedom.
I appeal to members sincerely on behalf of western farmers to do
what is right for a change. I will not even say for a change. I
do not want to insult them. Do what is right in this case. Make
the decision to accept these subamendments. Make the
corrections. Let us look to the future. Our western farmers are
the backbone of agriculture production in the country, the wheat
basket of the world. We need to respond. We need to do what is
right.
The Canadian government should not be standing in the way of
keeping farmers in business successfully. It should not be the
case. So I appeal for more freedom. Let us work toward it,
accept the amendments now, and then we will change more later on.
2235
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to clear up a couple of misperceptions
communicated by the member for Malpeque earlier in the debate.
The first deals with the subamendment I put forward that would
grant the auditor general greater flexibility in how he would
conduct the audit of the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member
for Malpeque has suggested that this Senate amendment which calls
for this one time audit by the auditor general would satisfy
those farmers who are seeking greater transparency and
accountability on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board.
He referred to the fact that the very reputable auditing firm
Deloitte & Touche currently does the auditing for the Canadian
Wheat Board and I recognize that fact. The simple fact that the
member does not recognize and never has recognized in all the
debates that we have had on this subject is that the auditor
general goes far beyond a financial audit. He goes far beyond
just counting the beans, as it were, which another auditing firm
does, which accountants do.
The hon. member knows that. For him to suggest anything
different is ridiculous. One amendment I put forward, the
subamendment to the Senate amendments, deals with giving the
auditor general far greater flexibility in how he would conduct
his audit so that he would look at the actual efficiency of how
the Canadian Wheat Board markets wheat and barley in western
Canada and also ensure that he reports back to parliament, not
simply to the minister and to the board of the directors of the
corporation.
I wanted to clear that up and ask for some comments from the
hon. member for Elk Island.
As well, the hon. member for Malpeque suggested that this new
board of directors that will be comprised of 10 producer
representatives of the 15 will have lots of power to control the
operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is built into the
bill, he suggested. He went so far as to reiterate and echo the
remarks made by the hon. minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
which that minister has often made that the board could always
reduce the remuneration of the CEO and thereby have control of
the CEO.
I do not know whether the member for Malpeque has ever heard of
wrongful dismissal, but if the board of directors were to do that
I would suggest that the board of directors would be taken to
court by that CEO very quickly because it would be a breach of
contract. I am sure that would happen.
I would like the hon. member for Elk Island to comment on that
as well.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises these very
important issues and accountability is certainly one of them. As
we all know, the auditor general does more than just balance the
books. He also looks at whether the Canadian taxpayer is getting
value for his dollar, is the organization strong and properly
run.
The auditor general has a wider scope in doing the audits and I
agree 100% with what my hon. colleague said.
Then we have this smoke and mirrors thing with the board. There
are some elected members and some appointed members. It is
wonderful for the farmers to be able to elect some of their
members but it should be, as has been mentioned by my colleague
and also is contained in one of the subamendments, the
prerogative of an elected board to choose its CEO. It should not
be a political thing again from distant Ottawa.
I believe very strongly that western farmers are well able to
run their own organization. They are well able to hold it
accountable. There is no reason in the world why that board
cannot have the primary say, the initiation of the choice of the
CEO.
2240
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the hon. member for Elk Island but first I would
like to clear up an inaccuracy that has been perpetrated by the
New Democratic Party and the governing party.
They said that the member for Wild Rose in answer to a question
gave some incorrect facts. They are wrong. The numbers given by
the hon. member for Wild Rose are accurate. When the member said
that 66% of farmers from Alberta supported giving freedom of
choice in barley, he was correct. When he said a majority in
western Canada support freedom of choice, he was correct. There
was a poll done by the Saskatchewan government, which supports
the wheat board monopoly wholeheartedly, which showed that more
than 50% of Saskatchewan farmers support freedom of choice. That
is clearly supportive.
It is interesting to me that through this whole debate the
minister responsible for the wheat board has not been in this
House for one minute. He has not listened to a thing that was
going on.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the statement on
the statistics. But I see the minister is here now and we can no
longer say the minister has not been here for one second. He has
been here now for six. It is great to see him.
I think it is very important when we have a debate such as this
that we hear each other. It is not sufficient to simply schedule
time until 4 o'clock in the morning to make speeches. We must
also have people here hearing the arguments and who are open to
change because of those arguments.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I made a statement earlier that the minister responsible
for the wheat board was not in the House. In fact, he is not
again. But he was for about 30 seconds—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All members know
that we do not refer to the presence or absence of other members
in the House.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really should
have answered the questions from the member for Prince
George—Peace River because his comments were not directed to the
member for Elk Island, they were more directed at me.
In terms of the audit I have a question for the member for Elk
Island. The member for Prince George—Peace River in his
questioning the member for Elk Island talked about the audit. My
points still stand regarding what I said earlier.
Perhaps the member for Elk Island could explain to us the
procedure the Canadian Wheat Board goes through currently to
explain what is happening at the board in terms of its financial
affairs and in terms of its marketing. It puts out its annual
report. It has endless district meetings where it has a question
and answer period. In 11 districts across western Canada the
commissioners themselves go out—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Elk Island has one minute and thirty seconds to respond.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, of course the question is one
of accountability. The way it looks right now, the auditor
general will have a one shot opportunity and then after that we
will have the commercial auditors. This is not sufficient. We
are calling for the auditor general to look at this as a
government crown agency.
2245
Another thing that I think is so important is that farmers are
actually paying the bill and have the greatest vested interest in
the success of the wheat board. They should have the information
available to them. It is incredible that though they pay the
bill they cannot even find out how much is paid to board members
or to the staff an individual basis. That is not right and not
fair and should be corrected. I urge the government to correct
it.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am astounded at the amount of publicity I am getting
here tonight. There is a demand for me to speak. I thought I
had said everything the other day but I will oblige them and make
a few remarks on the amendments.
I hope the press is incorrect on some of the rumours that I have
been reading lately. I know we have no western Canadian wheat
farmers on the Liberal benches but we still have the wheat board
minister at least from the west. I hear rumours now that he is
to be moved to a different portfolio. I surely to God hope they
will not do that because we will miss him on the flight back to
Ottawa. We like to meet and greet each other sometimes even when
we are on conflicting sides.
I want to make clear, and I want to be corrected on it if I am
wrong, the position of the Liberals on the Canadian Wheat Board.
Just before the last election in Manitoba they organized a
committee to save the wheat board. I attended this meeting and
later a rally was held in front of the wheat board buildings. I
saw at least five Liberal MPs standing on the platform and saying
they were the protectors of the Canadian Wheat Board and that
they would save single desk selling.
When the Liberal convention was held just prior to the election
the workshops brought out different resolutions to put on the
floor. One was brought forward by the former MP from
Dauphin—Swan River, Marlene Cowling, a very well respected lady
in the agriculture community. She proposed a resolution that
they support very strongly the maintenance of single desk selling
in the wheat board.
Another resolution was brought forward on behalf of agriculture
that stated we should legalize the growing of hemp. There was
only one resolution allowed on the floor for debate. Which one
did the Liberal government supported? It was the one for
legalizing the growing of hemp. Where did its commitment to the
Canadian Wheat Board evaporate to? Am I wrong? Is that what
happened?
An hon. member: You are wrong.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I am wrong. What was the
difference? That was the way the press reported it. The motion
to support the wheat board never got on the floor for debate
because it would be too divisive in western Canada.
After the election we saw what happened. I was surprised this
evening when the member for Malpeque started speaking. He made
the comment that the government had held extensive hearings. I
thought that tonight we were finally going to hear something good
from the member for Malpeque. I thought we would get kernels of
truth and facts, but that is where it stopped. The next thing he
talked about was maximizing the profits. That kernel of truth
turned into ergots. Does anyone know what this is? We call it
smut in the grain industry. That is the way the speech went from
top to bottom. The kernel of truth turned into smut.
I will tell the House exactly why. It was the maximization of
profits. I do not have to tell the gentlemen on the other side
that when we held hearings I wanted the chief commissioner of the
Canadian Wheat Board to explain to us what his mandate was. I
was shut down. I was told I was out of order.
An hon. member: The court case was going on at the time.
2250
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: The court case has been settled.
The appeal board had ruled that the Canadian Wheat Board had no
mandate to sell grain for the best price. The only mandate it
had was to orderly market my grain.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Whatever that means.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Whatever that means. I was
prepared and I have sunk thousands of dollars into it to get the
truth out of that court case. We are still battling over trying
to get it before a judge so he can decide what the facts are. It
is to be appealed again, and the minister knows it. That
stubborn farmer from western Canada does not give up so easy. He
wants the truth. Farmers want the truth.
I heard the member for Malpeque say that the farmers were
playing into the hands of the major grain companies, those bad
rascals, those wolves or whatever they are. I have grown special
crops since 1957. I do not know for what reason but these
terrible grain companies, these terrible special crops
industries. have always made me more money than wheat board
grains. If I had not grown the special crops I would have been
bankrupt in the first 10 years. If these terrible grain
companies are that miserable toward farmers, why are they getting
more instead of less acres every year? Why are they selling a
bigger portion of western Canadian farmers' products than they
ever have before?
If we look at the price of canola today when we grew record
acres last year, it is still close to $9 a bushel. What would
people on the other side do if we did not have special crops?
They would be sending out subsidies to no end if they wanted to
keep the farmers on the land. They should realize that.
I just talked to the minister a few minutes ago to see whether
he received the phone call I received yesterday. About 10
o'clock when I was waiting to debate in the House the phone rang
and it was a gentleman from the States. According to the wheat
board minister the call was probably from Pennsylvania.
The caller needed three truckloads of organic white, hard wheat.
He said he had to have it because that wheat was not available
in Montana or Washington. When it comes into production it is
not the quality of wheat that we grow in Saskatchewan and
Alberta. He could not get it because the producer would not go
to the wheat board for an export permit because it wants an extra
70 cents to $1 a bushel to put in the pool, and it does
absolutely nothing with it. He is fed up with this malarkey. The
wheat board will not buy it, move it or market it, but it wants a
$1 a bushel for saying it is the wheat board. Does that make any
sense? It does not make sense at all.
We are taking money out of the western economy, money that could
be coming in.
Mr. Mac Harb: Rubbish.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: If the member does not want to
believe it, he can talk to every farmer from the Ontario-Manitoba
border to British Columbia. They will tell him that they will
need more funds. They cannot make ends meet. If we do not do
something to increase the prices of grain or the income of
farmers, the government will have a catastrophe on its hands like
it has never seen before. Why not let them market their grain if
they can get a better price?
I am astounded that as politicians we cannot listen to people
when they tell us what is wrong. We have been across western
Canada twice listening to the farmers. The Senate has been
across western Canada. The farmers want a choice. I can
guarantee the House that if it were a voluntary wheat board and
there was trust in the wheat board it would market more wheat
board grains than it would probably market special crops grains.
It has been proven in other areas. They do not have
accountability or trust. They do not want to listen to what
farmers tell them.
If the wheat board did the job like it is claiming to do, it
should have absolutely no objection to the auditor general
looking at the books.
2255
If there is nothing to hide why are we fighting tooth and nail
to allow the auditor general to audit the books? To me there is
something wrong. If Revenue Canada does not trust me it can
audit my books. Since I started criticizing the wheat board and
demanding accountability I have not had a five year audit but an
audit every year. Is that not strange? All my life I was never
audited until I started objecting to the practices of the
Canadian Wheat Board. Tell me what is the problem.
If Revenue Canada found out that I had violated the law I would
expect it to prosecute. Is that why the wheat board is hesitant
to allow anybody to look into its books? If it is honest and if
its books are in order it should have no problem with them being
audited.
An hon. member: What did Deloitte & Touche do?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Deloitte & Touche legs eggs and we
know what happened to what lays golden eggs. Who killed it? Who
killed the goose?
Deloitte & Touche is a tremendous firm. Nobody said that
Deloitte & Touche was not doing its job, but it can only audit
what it is given to audit. I would like to ask the hon. member
why, if Deloitte & Touche has done such a tremendous job, the
trading activities under the commodity exchanges were not listed
in that report? Why are they not in the report? For years the
Canadian Wheat Board has denied that it uses commodity exchanges.
I can show all sorts of records. There is no gambling or
speculating. That is too bad.
All of a sudden we hear testimony before the Senate hearings
saying that it is the biggest player on the Minneapolis Grain
Exchange. It plays as much as we can. It will not allow farmers
to do it. Why is that not recorded in its accounts?
I wrote the commissioner a letter asking for the annual
statement of the trading activities of the wheat board. I also
asked the minister for it. I have not received it yet. I would
like to see it. There are all kinds of speculation that things
are not quite on the level. The problem is that the suspicion is
there and farmers will not deal with suspicion any more. They
want facts and guarantees because they are not making enough
money from wheat board grains.
I have another little story about the last couple of months.
Farmers have been thrown in jail for exporting grain without
export permits. Suddenly last winter I got complaints left and
right that the Canadian grain companies were buying and milling
wheat as off board feed wheat and that it was disappearing. I
said that I could not do anything, that I needed facts, figures
and documents. One farmer came forward with documents in black
and white. There was a dollar a bushel premium for off board
feed wheat compared with ordinary off board feed wheat.
I said that was illegal. That was not just breaking the wheat
board act but the Canadian Grain Commission Act. It cannot
distort grains. It has to pay the price at which it is graded. I
said “Now I have something”. Then I got a phone call from a
farmer who said “Jake, please don't use the information”. I
asked him why. I told him that we could tackle the problem. He
said “I don't know what my neighbours are going to do to me.
They will burn me out”.
I took it to the assistant commissioner of the RCMP whom I had
contracted as a consultant and asked what I should do with it. I
told him the guy did not want to give me the information to use
and asked what I should do. He said that I had information to
start a criminal prosecution and then they would have to look at
it.
2300
What should I do? This is what grain companies are doing and
what farmers are being thrown in jail for. That is something.
That is the problem we have in our economy today. It is wrong if
you do it and right if I do it. That is why the country is in
such terrible shape.
White collar crime in organizations is unbelievable as are the
tax dollars we lose in government. Nobody is willing to do
something about it. We are all covering our own butts so we do
not have to do something about it.
That system has to change or we will go the same route as the
former Soviet Union and the other countries that have done it.
Let us look at what has happened in the Philippines, Indonesia
and other countries where white collar has taken over the
economy.
If we want that in our country we can sit quiet, do nothing and
let things be. That is not why I was sent to the House. I was
sent to the House to keep the laws and to make sure they were
enforced.
When I see things going on today in the business world it
astounds me that we are still running as a country because that
is not the basis on which the country was built. The country was
built on honesty, integrity and hard work. Today it is a matter
of how we do business and in what fashion we can rip off the next
guy for the most dollars. That is not my idea of a true economy.
I will fight tooth and nail to get rid of it because my children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it
some day. I do not want to be held accountable for it.
If that is not a warning I do not know what else I can do to
warn the House. I have done what I thought was right. When I
get a phone call in the middle of the night telling me I will be
dead in half an hour, I get fed up. The RCMP cannot touch it.
What is going on? I am not fooling when I say I will get to the
bottom of it one way or another. Those type of phone calls are
not made by drunks. Those type of phone calls are made by people
who want to intimidate and destroy. I ain't going to leave this
place on that basis. They will have to put a bullet in me before
I will leave. I hope they take that seriously because I am
finished yet. I hope the minister understands that.
Thank you and God bless during the holidays.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
sat patiently listening to the debate tonight. I am not a grain
farmer at all, but it struck me we have in the House a group of
people on that side with 38% of the votes in the 1997 election
and 100% of the power to impose their will upon the people. In
western Canada they had maybe less than 20% of the vote and they
still have 100% of the power to impose their will upon unwilling
recipients of their favours, shall we say.
It reminds me of the early 1980s when Francis Fox, another
minister who used to sit on that side, tried to impose his will
on the people of Canada when people were trying to install
satellite dishes to pick up free choice in television signals.
Francis Fox condoned the seizure of those dishes. In the
Vancouver area they went around seizing satellite dishes off
apartment buildings. In the end that minister lost the battle
because although he had 100% of the power initially the group he
was fighting was too big. That group wanted more choice than he
could prevent. In the end he lost that battle and we got the
freedom of satellite dishes.
Indirectly I relate that to what the Liberal government is doing
today. It has this compelling urge to impose its will upon
people who do not want that will imposed upon them. As I said, I
am a person who is not a grain farmer.
There are no western grain farmers on that side of the House. I
heard a group of western grain farmers on this side of the House
saying they want a choice like the people in the 1980s wanted a
choice in satellite transmission of their television signals. I
do not understand is why that group opposite wants to impose
something different upon them.
2305
I have a question for the member who just finished his speech.
What does he feel is driving these people on the other side of
the House to impose their will upon unwilling grain farmers?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for that question. I cannot figure it. I do not know why.
Politically what is being done is dumb. The Liberal caucus will
not gain any votes by doing what it is doing.
Some day it would be very wise, as I have said before, to have
free votes on some of these issues. They would understand
better. The Liberal MPs from Ontario do not object to Ontario
farmers having a totally elected board and having the option of
selling some or all of their grain to the export market in the
United States. They want it. Western farmers want it. Why do
they not give it to them?
If they can declare the Canadian Wheat Board voluntary its
business would pick up. It would handle more grain. Over the 35
years I have farmed people always supported the wheat board
regardless of whether or not they made money. They felt it was
an agency that could be trusted. All of a sudden they lost trust
in the wheat board.
When the farmers came to me I started looking into the
irregularities. I never expected in all my life that I would
have to deal with that issue as my first issue as an MP. I never
dreamt of it. The more we looked into it and the more
documentation we looked at, we found something was wrong. When
one farmer gets $1 to a $1.10 more than another farmer for the
same quality wheat something is wrong in the pooling system.
It did not happen to strangers. It happened in my family. It
happened to two of my brothers. They farmed 10 miles apart. One
actually had better quality wheat. He got a $1.10 less a bushel
than the other brother who had poor quality fusarium wheat. It
was because there was competition between elevators in one place
and in the other place there was not.
To all members on that side and to the minister I say to me that
is not honesty and not what the pooling system was set up for.
That is why I think these people cannot understand. We have 101
seats in Ontario. They satisfy their farmers but they are not
willing to give the same opportunities to farmers in western
Canada. It will backfire.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to make a comment because the member just said
that in essence what was wrong with the government's position of
this excellent bill was that we were not trying to earn votes.
This was precisely what killed the Conservative Party. It was
always introducing legislation and establishing policy that would
gain it votes.
The government introduces legislation that is responsible,
legislation that is right and legislation that is good for all
Canadians. That is what democracy is all about.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely
with the gentleman. The only thing I do not agree with is that
they are not buying votes in Ontario by giving farmers a
marketing choice. They have the votes in Ontario and they are
desperately trying to hand on to them. That is why they are
allowing their farmers to have these options.
If they want some votes in western Canada they better come clean
and give us the same opportunities, or they will divide the
country more than they have so far.
2310
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is 11.10 in the evening and there is a considerable
gallery of hecklers across the way who seem to be having grand
time contributing little to the debate, I might note, but a lot
in the sense of heckling members who are trying to debate a very
important western Canadian issue. Despite all this I would like
to get back to what my hon. colleague from North Vancouver was
asking the member earlier. Why is the government imposing the
bill upon western Canadian farmers?
In light of that I am pleased the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board is in the Chamber this evening at 11.10. I
would certainly welcome his comments on why they are doing that
if he would choose to rise following my colleague's comments.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I am running out of
answers. The questions are coming fast and furious.
I would put it this way. I have given my viewpoint as strongly
as I can and I think my colleagues have done the same. I must
say we have become very successful in this debate. Look at the
audience we have on the Liberal side. Look at the ministers
putting in some work or listening. After all it is close to
midnight.
We are doing something right on this side. I will turn it over
to the minister and ask him whether he would like to respond to
that question too. I would like to ask unanimous consent from
the House to have him reply.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Part of the order
that we made earlier for this debate precludes any unanimous
consent motions.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising on debate, pursuant to order made Tuesday,
June 9, 1998, the question on the amendment now before the House
is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed
demanded and deferred until Thursday, June 11, 1998 at 1 p.m.
It being 11.11 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 9,
1998, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 11.11 p.m.)