36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 77
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 19, 1998
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-35. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1005
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATOR SELECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-382. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Retirement Packages
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tax Exemption for Volunteer Firefighters
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1010
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Iraq
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Emergency Personnel
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Products
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-15. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1020
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1100
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PARKS AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-29. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1150
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1155
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1200
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1205
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1220
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1235
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1240
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1255
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1300
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1315
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1320
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1335
1340
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1400
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OTTAWA SUN
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SIMCOE NORTH FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACISM
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DONKIN MINE
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS OF HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIGHT STATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1510
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Second Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1605
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1620
1625
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1640
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1645
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1650
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1710
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1715
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1730
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1735
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1740
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1745
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1800
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1815
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1820
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Courts in Campbellton
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1835
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1840
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Atomic Energy Control Board
|
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1845
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 77
![](/web/20061116182317im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 19, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
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 responses to three
petitions.
* * *
SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an act to amend the
Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24,
1998.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
JUDGES ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
SENATOR SELECTION ACT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-382, an act to allow the electors of a
province to express an opinion on who should be summoned to the
Senate to represent the province.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as it presently stands, several provinces
have Senate selection acts. Alberta is going to use its this
fall to elect senators in waiting. However, there is no
requirement for the Prime Minister to recognize that elected
person.
The purpose of my bill is to ensure that the Prime Minister
looks at the will of the people of the province and appoints to
the Senate those people duly elected by a province that has a
selection act in place.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed my honour to present three petitions pursuant to Standing
Order 36.
The petitioners from various cities and towns in British
Columbia point out the need for a major reform of the Canadian
tax system. As this is the time of year when people fill out
their tax returns, I suspect that most people would agree.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition, a very lengthy petition and signed by members of the
city of Kamloops as well as, interestingly, Fredericton, New
Brunswick, points out a whole set of arguments against the MAI
and simply calls on Parliament to urge the government to reject
the current framework of MAI negotiations and instructs the
government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the
world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that
protects workers, the environment and the ability of government
to act in the public interest.
RETIREMENT PACKAGES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition concerns the retirement package that is being
contemplated by the government and will be introduced soon.
The petitioners point out a number of concerns they have in
terms of what this retirement package could include, going on
record early in opposition to a number of initiatives.
[Translation]
TAX EXEMPTION FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to lay before this House a petition
signed by 71 residents of the riding of Charlevoix, and the municipality
of Saint-Aimé-des-Lacs in particular.
This petition contains the signatures of the mayor, fire chief,
councillors, volunteer firefighters and citizens of the municipality.
Volunteer firefighters often represent a community's only
firefighting force. Not once since 1980 has there been an increase in
the tax exemption for expenses incurred in discharging their duties.
The petitioners therefore ask that the government double the tax
exemption on volunteer firefighters' expense allowance from $500 to
$1,000.
1010
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from scores of citizens in the Peterborough area who
are concerned about the continuing existence of nuclear weapons.
These petitioners believe these pose a threat to the health
and survival of human civilization and the global environment.
They pray and request that Parliament support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from some hundreds of citizens of the
Peterborough area who are concerned that the people of Iraq have
suffered untold hardship in the wake of the gulf war and
subsequent sanctions with an estimated death toll of a million
people.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to reject the
military option against Iraq and, in conjunction with those
nations already committed to the non-military route, to patiently
pursue diplomatic efforts toward solving the present impasse.
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including Canadians from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners 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 and
that when one of them loses their life in the line of duty, we
all mourn that loss. Often the employment benefits they have do
not often provide adequately for their surviving families.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of
duty.
[Translation]
NATURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I was starting to think I should wave a flag to get recognized.
I am tabling a petition signed by 1,298 citizens of the riding of
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans and elsewhere in Quebec, who consider
that using natural substances like herbs, plants, vitamins and minerals
should be a free choice made by consumers.
They also consider that health professionals such as naturopaths,
herbalists, phytotherapists, homeopaths and acupuncturists are trained
to advise their clients on these natural products.
These petitioners ask that the Government of Canada not restrict in
any way the quantity or dosage of plants, herbs, vitamins, minerals and
trace elements, so as to preserve the consumers' right to choose how to
care for their own health and prevent disease and to consult with any
alternative or allopathic health professionals they see fit.
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a number of petitions to present this morning from a number of
communities in my riding, Niverville, Steinbach and the Grunthal
area, all dealing with the same subject matter.
These people are concerned about amendments to section 43 of the
Criminal Code dealing primarily with the discipline of children.
It is their view that the rights of parents are to be protected
under these circumstances, that the best interests of the
children are protected by parents and not the state.
May I conclude on their behalf by saying therefore the
petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to
responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
CRTC
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in this Chamber today as a servant of the constituents of
Edmonton East. I am pleased to discharge my duties today by
presenting to this House a petition.
This petition asks for the very prudent review of the mandate of
the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission,
the CRTC, to discourage the provocation of pornography and rather
to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming to
support morality and wholesome family lifestyles.
The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.
* * *
[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 Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15,
an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
This bill will bring about much needed change to the principal
legislation governing the shipping industry. It is the beginning
of a two track overhaul that promises an up to date modern
statute to benefit the marine sector in this country.
The transportation industry is a vital component of our economy.
As we know, the marine industry operates in the context of an
international and domestic environment which provides
considerable challenges and opportunities for Canadians. The
industry and related services employ more than 400,000 Canadians
and contributes more than $20 billion to our gross domestic
product.
Every work day 2.3 million tonnes of freight are on the move in
Canada. A substantial amount of work has been done in an effort
to modernize the national transportation system to meet the
demands of a global marketplace and prepare this sector for the
coming century.
In order to achieve these objectives the government has pursued
a number of initiatives in all modes particularly in the area of
streamlining regulations and legislation. It will become
increasingly difficult for Canada to compete in the international
market unless we pursue transportation policies that are
consistent with other nations with whom we trade and compete.
This is a significant reality for the shipping industry.
The Canada Shipping Act is the foremost piece of safety
legislation governing the marine sector. It is also one of the
oldest pieces of Canadian legislation. It has not been renewed
since it was enacted in 1936 and is beginning to show its age.
When enacted in 1936 this legislation was based on 1896 British
merchant shipping law. Still today it contains outdated
provisions for such things, if you can imagine, as a $10 fine for
being drunk, or providing a ship's master with the authority to
auction off a dead sailor's belongings. That is in that
legislation. The Canada shipping community of course deserves
better.
The complete reform of the Canada Shipping Act is being
undertaken with the following three goals in mind.
One, to simplify the legislation by replacing outdated
terminology using everyday language, harmonizing with other
regimes and taking out excessively prescriptive details.
Two, to make the act consistent with federal regulatory
policies. These policies reduce reliance on regulations and
permit alternative approaches such as compliance agreements,
performance standards and voluntary industry codes which are much
more consistent with today's regulatory practices.
Three, to contribute to the economic performance of the marine
industry. By reducing prescriptive elements and the
administrative burden imposed by current legislation, industry
will have increased flexibility in maintaining the travelling
public's safety.
This government is committed to action. Our determination to
reform the Canada Shipping Act is heavily influenced by
industry's continued support for modern shipping legislation.
Previous attempts to revitalize this legislation during the
seventies were protracted and did not accomplish the necessary
changes. With industry support this time the government cannot
help but succeed in making these essential changes.
At this juncture I would like to take this opportunity to thank
those in the marine industry for their ongoing input and support
of this initiative. Their feedback during consultations not only
helped direct this project but also will go a long way to
ensuring the future success of this bill.
As I mentioned earlier our approach to reform is in fact a two
track process. The first track has evolved into Bill C-15 and
enables us to achieve desired changes by adding a new
introduction to the act and updating part I, which primarily
deals with ship registration and ownership.
A new introduction to the Canada Shipping Act will modernize the
statute and provide direction and focus for the remainder of the
legislation.
In addition, this introductory section will provide a general
framework for the rest of the act.
1020
The proposed introduction clarifies basic ministerial
responsibilities reflecting the reorganization of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada and provides
umbrella authorities for consulting with stakeholders, issuing
directives and responding to emergency marine situations.
A new preamble will make the Canada Shipping Act simpler and
clearer to understand. The minister and I have had the
opportunity to meet with many stakeholders. We have learned that
it is the marine community itself which requested that the Canada
Shipping Act contain a preamble which states up front the overall
objectives of the act, as is often done with other pieces of
modern legislation.
The changes in Bill C-15 begin the modernization and
streamlining of a statute that is in much need of an overhaul to
eliminate the confusion and complexity it currently perpetuates.
The proposed amendments in the bill will modernize the Canadian
ship registration system by allowing for the introduction of an
electronic ship registry system which can be more easily
maintained. This is a futuristic departure from the current
paper log system.
Since we have outstanding marine legislation on the agenda from
the last session of Parliament, we have included several
important provisions of former Bill C-73. Other provisions will
be incorporated into the second track of the reforms.
One of the urgent items from former Bill C-73 includes
amendments to the Quebec harbour pilots pension plan. In recent
years there has been an extensive overhaul of the administration
of pension plans. One plan not affected by this overhaul was the
pension fund administered by the Corporation of Pilots for and
below the harbour of Quebec. This initiative will bring some
recognition to this plan and improve the protection of rights for
members belonging to this plan.
These changes will make affected pensioners subject to recent
legislative initiatives rather than rules which predate
Confederation. It will also improve the corporation's ability to
manage the pension fund.
This two track approach is a beneficial way to proceed since it
shows immediate progress on reforms in the first track while
allowing departmental officials to continue the momentum in
completing the second track of the reform. This approach has been
taken to demonstrate the government's interest and competence to
make quick, genuine and responsive progress.
I would like to stress that the government is sensitive to
concerns raised by stakeholders and quite frankly, members of
Parliament on this side and that side of the House, pertaining to
small craft or pleasure craft licensing.
The Minister of Transport gives his assurance that he is open to
suggestions on improving the legislation at committee stage. In
fact, he has even gone so far as to say we are going to be
removing certain clauses in the bill at committee stage,
particularly those dealing with the pleasure craft or small craft
licensing.
The minister and I, having looked at the bill and these
particular clauses, feel that improvements can be made and should
be made. That comes to us from the stakeholders and members of
Parliament.
Transport Canada's legislative initiatives remain consistent
with the overall federal transportation framework which
emphasizes a national vision of safety, security, efficiency and
environmental responsibility. These are the changes that the
minister and I would like members' support in order to realize.
It is my belief that Bill C-15 will help ensure that Canada's
shipping industry has the necessary tools to operate effectively
in the 21st century.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this new legislation which is listed as an amendment to part I of
the Canada Marine Act is actually a replacement. Much of the old
act cannot be traced in the new legislation.
There is no question the existing act is obsolete. It was after
all passed in 1936 when Canadian vessels were defined as British,
when records were kept in ledgers and when prescribed fees for
certain documents and government services were in the 25 cent to
$1 range.
Reform cannot express opposition or support for this highly
technical bill until we have heard from industry representatives
in a committee. This is especially true since we anticipate that
the government has already drafted amendments which will be
introduced at committee stage.
It is our understanding that the government proposes to remove
some problematic changes proposed with respect to the regulation
of small vessels.
1025
The bill contains two and a half full columns describing things
which may in the future be regulated by governor in council with
no reference to Parliament. There was a lot of this in the old
act, but Bill C-15 confers wider ranging powers to the governor
in council to regulate registration, the marking of vessels,
fees, fines and licences.
This bill would give the governor in council almost unlimited
power over specifications for the manufacturing or modification
of small vessels. Hopefully that will be one aspect of the bill
which the government proposes to withdraw.
The replacement part I will modernize the ship registration
system. For example, the proposal to allow foreign owned vessels
bare-boat chartered to Canadian entities to be registered as
Canadian ships makes sense. Conversely, Canadian ships bare-boat
chartered to a foreign lessee will be barred from flying the
Canadian flag.
Bill C-15 gives Transport Canada full authority and
responsibility for ship registration and related activities
currently performed by Canada Customs. Another quaint Canadian
custom is being eliminated.
Of course it would not be a Liberal bill without bestowing upon
the minister another juicy patronage plum to be handed out. In
this case Bill C-15 empowers the Minister of Transport to appoint
a chief registrar who will be responsible for establishing a
Canadian register of ships.
There will be mandatory registration for all Canadian owned
ships exceeding 15 tonnes gross tonnage and not registered in a
foreign country. The register will record the name and
description of the ship, its official number, its tonnage, its
owner's name and address, and the details of all its registered
mortgages.
The chief registrar will have the authority to establish the
criteria for applying for registration and will be required to
approve the name of a ship. Canadians can rest easy because Bill
C-15 gives the minister the authority to order that a name be
changed if he believes the name would prejudice Canada's
international reputation. No risqué innuendoes will be allowed
in either official language.
The registry certainly needs updating. There are currently
45,000 entries on the ship registry, which is a physical
impossibility. There are not that many vessels in Canadian
waters. Bill C-15 will enable suspension and closure of registry
entries, so inactive and bygone ships can be taken off the list.
As well, there were no provisions in the antiquated Canada
Shipping Act for an electronic registry, meaning that the whole
thing had to be on paper. Now the nation's ships, like its
citizens, will be objects of computerized lists.
The registration of a Canadian ship could be cancelled or
suspended due to improper markings, expiration of the certificate
of registry and a ship's loss, wreck or removal from service.
Ships can be reinstated too. A certificate of registry will have
to be on board a ship in order for the ship to operate. Don't
leave home without your licence.
Under the current CSA certificates of registration do not
expire. Section 53(2) would keep certificates in place for up to
three years in order to provide a transitional period during
which ships can be brought under the new rules.
Bill C-15 continues the tradition observed in most maritime
nations, except the U.S., that a ship be divided into 64 shares.
The custom is variously attributed to the fact that ships
traditionally had 64 ribs or the fact that under Queen Victoria
shipowners were taxed 36% and were allowed to keep the remaining
64%. Now we have progressed to the point that in Canada millions
of ordinary folk have to hand over fully half of their incomes to
three levels of government. Under Queen Victoria they had
taxation; under king Jean we have predation.
The minister will continue to appoint tonnage measures to
calculate a ship's tonnage. Shipowners and shipbuilders will
continue to be allowed to mortgage their ships and have that
mortgage placed on the register.
When there is a change in ownership, owners of Canadian ships
will be required to notify the chief registrar. If an
unqualified person acquires a ship, an application for redress
could be made to a court.
For the record, a qualified person means a Canadian citizen, or
permanent resident, or a company incorporated in Canada, or a
province.
1030
The old CSA exempts from annual inspections ships not in excess
of five tonnes gross tonnage carrying more than 12 passengers and
are not pleasure boats. Bill C-15 would raise that limit to ships
not in excess of 15 tonnes gross tonnage. However, inspectors
will be able to conduct spot checks on these vessels. It is not
clear to me if this is an area in which the government now plans
to change in committee.
Bill C-15 grants the governor in council the power to make
regulations to prevent pollution resulting from the discharge of
ballast water, thereby reducing the risk of oil spills in
Canada's waters, including the Arctic. We already have zebra
mussels and lamprey eels in the Great Lakes. Perhaps these
regulations will be prevent future ecological disasters. The
current requirement for ships to have on board an oil pollution
prevention plan will be extended to shore based loading and
unloading facilities.
Retired members of this fund, the St. Lawrence pilot pension,
are subject to an act over 100 years old and to the antiquated
internal rules of the corporation of pilots. Bill C-15 would
redefine the pilot fund, recognize the plan as a registered
pension plan, make the Pension Benefits Standards Act of 1995
apply, define the status of the plan with regard to the Income
Tax Act and allow the governor in council to make regulations to
carry out this part of the legislation. Of course, these pilots
will continue to rip off Canadian shippers and grain producers
but that relates to legislation other than to Bill C-15.
On balance, this seems to be a good housekeeping bill but the
Reform Party will have to hear from the stakeholders before
passing judgment.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will start by saying that I am pleased to speak on Bill
C-15. I would love to start my speech, particularly since I have
40 minutes, by saying: C-15 at last!
Bill C-15 was first read on October 30, 1997. I am not going
to cry over spilt milk. I am pleased to see it back on the order
paper. But it took nearly nine months of gestation before the
government could produce a bouncing baby bill for us.
As it was presented for first reading, this bill contained
certain irritants as far as we are concerned, and I shall return
later to this point.
My speech will not have a negative tone—on the contrary. This bill
contains several worthwhile elements which the Canadian shipping
industry has been demanding for years, if not decades.
I do not want you to think that I am going to start off on a
negative tack, but one does have to be realistic. What I have to
say is based on what we have before us in Bill C-15.
I will return in a few minutes to certain commitments made by
the hon. member for Hamilton West, the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Transport, commitments which, if they ever
materialize, could make agreement in committee and during debate at
third reading much easier to reach.
With this bill, which is called an Act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts,
the Government of Canada has undertaken a total revision of the
Canada Shipping Act, which dates back to early in this century. It
ought, therefore, to be brought up to date and into line with the
way things are done in world shipping circles in this day and age.
1035
So, in this respect, Transport Canada showed us that it
considered this legislation out of date, too restrictive and
confusing as it stood and it initiated the current reform. As I
mentioned earlier, this law is no longer relevant to the needs and
modern development of shipping. Bill C-15 before us could be
described as serving essentially to modernize an old law.
We will work hard in committee, even though I said we would be
very co-operative. The Bloc Quebecois considers that the aim of
this bill is to simplify legislation.
Another aim is to make the law compatible with the federal
government's regulatory policy. A third aim we discovered involves
contributing to the financial performance of the shipping industry.
Shipping is vital to a country like Canada and to a future
country like Quebec, which have oceans as borders and navigable
waterways. We in Quebec have a road to the sea—the St. Lawrence
Seaway—which crosses the entire province. So it is important to
have legislation that reflects economic imperatives. In terms of
economic development, shipping is vital. I will come back to this
later, in any case.
Primary responsibility for this bill lies with Transport
Canada, although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has an
important role to play.
A few years ago, in 1995 or 1996, I believe, responsibility for the
Canadian Coast Guard was transferred from Transport Canada to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The fleets of the coast guard
and of the department were amalgamated. However, given that
shipping remains the responsibility of Transport Canada, the roles
of the two departments are very closely interrelated. We can see,
in the bill, that the role of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans is very important.
Let us now look at the main features of this reform. Among
other things, it sets out to assign responsibility for electronic
registration of ships and related activities to Transport Canada,
and responsibility for registration of pleasure craft to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I will return to registration
of pleasure craft later in my speech.
Another feature of this reform is the possibility of renewing
ships' certificates of registry. An additional feature is the new
optional registry for certain foreign ships subject to a financing
agreement and those that are bare-boat chartered, in other words,
that have no crew outside Canada.
The final feature of this bill, and one of the most important,
concerns a particular category of employees. I am talking about
the modernization of the administrative and financial frameworks of
the pension plan administered by the Corporation of the Lower St.
Lawrence Pilots serving the port of Quebec City and below. It was
partly for these St. Lawrence pilots that my “at last” was intended
earlier. As is well known, this professional corporation has been
waiting a long time for this reform of its pension plan.
Rapidly, the background to this bill, as the parliamentary
secretary and the Reform member for Edmonton mentioned, is that it
is an amended version of earlier Bill C-73, which made it only as
far as first reading, on December 9, 1996, and which died on the
Order Paper when the federal election was called in April 1997.
1040
As the parliamentary secretary indicated, this bill is part of a
complete overhaul of the Canada Shipping Act, in partnership with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. More specifically, Bill C-15 is the
first component of the first part. The second component, which will
parallel the first one, will consist in a series of amendments which,
based on our information, should be drafted and ready by the spring
of 1999.
Let us now look at the Bloc Quebecois' position regarding certain
parts of the legislation. As I said, the bill provides for a sharing of
responsibilities between Transport Canada and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
On the face of it, this idea does not present any problems.
However, there are certain parts—and hopefully this issue will be
resolved by the time the bill reaches third reading—which deserve
very careful attention on our part, and on the part of taxpayers and
certain groups. You will see in a moment to whom I am referring.
Why are we alerting public opinion about this legislation? Last
year, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans held consultations. We know
how this is done. The government floats trial balloons, but it has a
very good idea of what it wants to do.
Since its foundation in 1990, and including during the 1993 Parliament
when it formed the official opposition and since the new contingent of
44 members arrived in 1997, the Bloc Quebecois has demonstrated its will
to respect democracy on a number of occasions, and not just during the
recent flag incident.
But the government, in its desire to respect democracy,
undertakes vast consultations that cost tens and even hundreds of
thousands of dollars. However, these consultations are sometimes
a sham because—and this is what I started saying earlier, this
is what is good about democracy—whether we like it or not, the
government is elected to govern, which means it is there to make
decisions.
This does not keep it from making stupid or arbitrary decisions.
Such is our role in opposition, to act as watchdogs, to be
vigilant. I call upon the public to be vigilant as well.
When I referred to consultations, broad consultations, last
year Fisheries and Oceans, via the Coast Guard, carried out
consultations on instituting a fee system for pleasure craft.
This is serious. There is no longer any reference in Bill
C-15 to pleasure craft. In the second reading version of C-15 we
have before us here, there is a reference to “vessels”. I met with
Department of Transport officials who confirmed to me that the Bloc
Quebecois definition of this term, an extremely broad one, was
included in this bill.
There was a plan to include that definition in Bill C-15, which we
have before us, or in other words to institute a system of fees for
pleasure craft.
It was clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was
using Transport Canada to deliver the bad news. It was clear that
the government wanted to assume the right, give itself the
possibility of registering pleasure craft and charging registration
fees.
1045
At the present time, only those with motors of 10 HP or more
have to obtain registration and this is issued free of charge.
When I asked specific questions of senior Transport officials,
the government never denied this. The Bloc Quebecois is of the
opinion that the intent behind this measure is to impose mandatory
registration for all kinds of vessels. One can easily conclude
that such a measure will lead to a form of fee setting by
government, once again making some degree of cost-recovery
possible.
The Bloc Quebecois does not object to the logic of requiring
certain types of motor boat, big motor boats, what people call
cruisers—my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm should give me a
hand—boats with motors over ten horsepower—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Outboard motors.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Outboard motors. That's right. The Bloc
Quebecois is not opposed to having big boats registered. However,
with this provision—and that is where it makes no sense, and
they never convinced me otherwise—they wanted to force people to
license and pay fees for pedal boats, rowboats and the flat bottom
boats used in wildlife sanctuaries, in northern Quebec, northern
Ontario, northern Manitoba and the riding of my NDP colleague from
Churchill, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport.
They wanted to charge a fee to register pedal boats, flat
bottom boats, rowboats and sailboards. This is absolutely
scandalous. I said to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Transport and member for Hamilton West—he is here and cannot
contradict me on this “You are making a huge mistake. You will be
charging people for services they are not getting”.
In northern Quebec, around Mistassini, north of there, in
Abitibi, north of Schefferville and in all the little spots where
the coast guard has no jurisdiction, the government wanted to force
people to pay a fee. That is totally crazy.
I direct my remarks to all hunters and fishers in Quebec and
everywhere in Canada.
I tell them to watch out. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport and member for Hamilton West said in his
speech—I wrote down what he said—“We will be removing certain
clauses in the bill, particularly those dealing with pleasure craft
licensing”.
The Bloc does not criticize for the pleasure of it. When the
government uses its head and is reasonable, when it listens to our
arguments and accepts them and when it uses common sense, we are
obliged to recognize it and support its action.
1050
I took note of the commitment made by the parliamentary secretary
to the Minister of Transport. I hope he will act on this commitment in
committee and withdraw these provisions of the bill, which are an
absolute aberration.
You have come to know me since 1993, and I am the kind of person
who believes greatly in fair play. I have a background in labour
relations. I have worked with labour unions. We have been forced to sit
down and talk things out on a number of occasions, but when we were
done, we always concluded our meetings with a handshake.
This to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that, if he keeps his
word and does what he publicly committed to do, we will agree to
complete second reading, consideration in committee, and to pass this
bill at third reading. I give him my party's word on this. However, I
want to make sure that the parliamentary secretary will hold his end of
the bargain.
Earlier, I urged all hunters and fishers in Quebec and Canada to
watch out, as well as all recreational boaters and anyone who has a
cottage 15 or 20 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence,
has a small craft or canoe and enjoys a leisurely ride on the lake after
dinner with the wife and kids or the family mutt.
That is when the government realized I hope it made no sense to
charge a fee to these people, to start asking them to register a paddle
boat, a canoe or other small craft in areas not even patrolled by the
coast guard.
Investigators would have had to be hired to take an inventory of all
these crafts, which would have cost more than the fees collected. The
government acted sensibly and paid attention to our representations, I
am grateful for that.
However, people should watch out. The government may try again,
differently, under the cover of a different bill. This government can
hide things from any of us. As it stands, this fee has been lifted, or
so they said, but we must remain vigilant.
Furthermore I find it unfortunate that there is nothing in this
bill on shipping, an important industry, to encourage shipbuilding. The
Bloc Quebecois will have to think up a strategy in this respect.
As we know, Quebec is the only province that streamlined its
shipyards. Before the Conservatives came to power in 1984, we had three
shipyards in Quebec.
The Conservatives said we had to streamline our shipyards' operations in
order to be competitive.
Quebec closed two of Canada's three largest shipyards. It agreed to
shut down Canadian Vickers, in Montreal, and MIL, in Sorel, and to keep
only the MIL Davie shipyard, in Lévis, across from Quebec City, and some
other very successful shipyards that can compete on the international
market. These include the Verreault shipyard, in Les Méchins, and Mr.
Hamel's shipyard, on l'Île-aux-Coudres.
So, Quebec is the only province to have acted thus. Before the
Conservatives came to office, Quebec accounted for 50% of Canada's
shipbuilding activities. Following the streamlining exercise that took
place under the Conservatives, Quebec now accounts for only 33% of
shipbuilding activities in the country.
What is deplorable is that, while Quebec was streamlining its
shipbuilding activities, the Conservatives gave subsidies to help open
about 10 shipyards in the maritimes, including St. Mary's, in
Newfoundland. That shipyard could not even complete the construction of
drilling rigs, which it began some years ago, and it had to send them to
St. John Shipbuilding or to Halifax.
This is a double standard, with one treatment for Quebec and another one
for the rest of Canada.
1055
All this took place under the Conservatives. I could give examples
of things that happened under the Liberals, but 40 minutes is not long
enough to do so. The bottom line is: Conservative or Liberal, it is six
of one and half a dozen of the other.
We reserve the right to move amendments to encourage shipbuilding.
There are people in Quebec who have clear ideas on the issue. We already
had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Verreault, from the Verreault
Navigation shipyard, in Les Méchins.
We would have liked the federal government to follow the
Government of Quebec's lead. The Quebec government's budget,
brought down by Bernard Landry on May 9, 1996, if memory serves,
contained tax incentives for ship building in Quebec. But there is
nothing from the federal government.
Before wrapping up, I am going to go back to something I
mentioned earlier, something I am happy to repeat. This bill
modernizes the administrative and financial frameworks of the
pension plan administered by the Corporation of Lower St. Lawrence
Pilots for and below the Harbour of Quebec.
Pilots' groups had long called for this. Bloc Quebecois
members can only indicate our approval of this provision. I do not
think the pilots were asking for charity. Maritime pilots,
particularly those on the Lower St. Lawrence whom I know a bit
better, are proud folks.
They are professionals, people who like their work, who are
concerned about maritime safety and the environment. What they
were asking for was not charity. All they wanted was for their pension
plan to move into the next century. This was an old provision that
needed to be updated.
In conclusion, I note the undertakings given by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and member for
Hamilton West—now there is a long title—and I want to repeat that
we will co-operate in committee, if he does as he says. I have no
reason to think he will do otherwise.
I will even go a bit further. I offer the government the
opportunity to skip the recorded vote on this bill. If there is
agreement, we could, at the end of debate this morning, deem the
bill agreed to on division at second reading, which would move
things ahead more quickly and allow this bill to be referred to
committee as soon as possible.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak against Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts
brought forward by the Minister of Transport.
We in the New Democratic Party agree that it is time to bring
some clarification to the Canada Shipping Act. We have all heard
that the shipping act is second only in size and complexity to
the Income Tax Act and could use some updating. However, the
government is also taking this opportunity to bring forward some
amendments that have raised concerns.
As I said, the New Democrats believe it is time to reform the
Canada Shipping Act. Bill C-15 intends to do just that by adding
a preamble to the Canada Shipping Act to clarify its objectives,
definitions and interpretations, and to lay out the roles and
responsibilities of the ministers of transport and fisheries and
oceans. Currently there is no introductory part to the Canada
Shipping Act.
We understand that ministerial accountabilities must be
clarified. Reoganization of the departments of the coast guard,
fisheries and oceans and transport has resulted in a lack of
clarity within the shipping act regarding ministerial
responsibilities. There is need to clarify those
responsibilities, those of the Minister of Transport and the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and to provide clear
legislative authorities for the operation of their departments.
Questions have been raised with regard to that response. I will
note some of these questions and concerns. Why are the powers
divided between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of
Fisheries and Oceans?
These powers have already been divided.
1100
As it now stands, the Department of Transport is responsible for
ship safety, but the Canadian coast guard is in the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. The result is that when ship safety
officers from the Canadian coast guard have to board vessels, two
departments, transport and fisheries and oceans, have to be
involved, unless ship safety instead goes to the Department of
Justice and travels to RCMP vessels or goes to the defence
department and uses military vehicles.
It was brought to my attention that Bill C-15 replicates the
wording of a certain international marine centre. In a paper,
the executive director of that centre wrote about the primary
elements to achieve competitiveness in international shipping:
tax free status at the corporate level, a flexible manning regime
and the application of ship safety standards that are genuinely
international. I cannot help but feel worried that Bill C-15
could replicate the wording of this centre. A tax free status at
the corporate level sounds familiar.
Second, it calls for a flexible manning regime. What exactly
does that mean? I am almost afraid to ask. It is common
knowledge that sailors' human rights are often violated on
foreign vessels. We cannot accept in Canada the lowering of
working conditions for sailors. We do not want a system, as in
some countries of the third world, where sailors have no rights
aboard a ship and where they are at the mercy of the company they
work for.
Finally, it calls for the application of ship safety standards
that are genuinely international. This would be acceptable only
if those standards are higher than Canadian ones, and I doubt
that.
An article in the Montreal Gazette noted that federal
fisheries observers are afraid that some foreign ships they are
assigned to are in such poor shape they could break apart and
sink. We can expect that it is not only fishing vessels which
are in bad shape. We should not be compromising the environment
or sailors' lives.
The executive of the marine centre has suggested that Bill C-15
will allow vessels which are owned abroad to be transferred to
the Canadian registry. Operating in international trade, these
vessels would fly the Canadian flag but would not be taxed in
Canada. They would carry non-resident crews who would not be
covered by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. A Canadian
flag of convenience deep-sea fleet would be an inexorable threat
to domestic employment in the coasting trade. We need
legislation from the government to ensure this does not happen.
Under language in section 18 of the new act, foreign built
equipment could more easily be brought into Canada. The only
restriction on chartering a foreign vessel and working it in
Canada would be that it not be registered in another country
while it is being bare-boated in Canada. Why would domestic
operators use Canadian built vessels when they can charter or
purchase those more cheaply abroad?
Advocates of unrestricted trade would argue that Canadians can
compete with anyone, that technology and know-how are more
important to market success than cheap labour, but this does not
cut it in the shipbuilding industry.
This change would allow U.S. shipyards to build vessels for the
Canadian coastal trade, but the Jones Act of the United States
will deny Canadian shipyards the same opportunity in the U.S.
market. As it is, U.S. shipyards have the competitive advantages
that come from contracts for military vessels which effectively
subsidize the overhead costs of commercial boat building.
On the west coast, the domestic fleet relies on cross-border
trade for a significant portion of its revenue. Under the
proposed changes, freighters or tugs and barges could be
bare-boated from abroad, carry non-resident crews and compete for
this international business.
On the Great Lakes, the loss of cross-border business could have
even more dramatically negative consequences.
Has the government considered the implications for Canada-U.S.
relations? Do we believe that U.S. coastal operators and unions,
who aggressively defend their country's cabotage rules, would
happily accept price cutting competition from Canadian flag
vessels carrying low paid Philippine, Indonesian or Burmese
crews?
We have heard concerns about the fact that ships under 15 tonnes
will be exempted from mandatory registration under the act. Their
registration will be optional under section 17. The department's
logic is that registration of the large number of small vessels
is neither practical nor necessary.
However, towboats of under 15 tonnes tow equipment and fuel
barges as well as log tows, competing with vessels which are
registered and required to meet Transport Canada's vessel
standards.
The unregistered vessels not only undercut vessels which meet
standards, they are doing work which is hazardous to the
environment and to other marine traffic. Often their equipment
does not meet minimum standards. Their operators are often not
certified.
1105
Some of the major objectives in the Canada Shipping Act are to
protect the health and well-being of individuals, including the
crews of ships, promote safety in the marine transportation
system and protect the marine environment from damage due to
navigation and shipping activities. If the act is designed to
provide a level playing field then all vessels engaged in
commercial activities should be registered and inspected,
regardless of tonnage. As well, the act should require risk
assessment in standards of equipment and certification.
Registration should be required for all vessels towing field
barges or other hazardous goods. It is important for the safety
of our waterways. It has also been brought to my attention that
with the downturn in the fishery on the east and west coasts many
fishermen have turned toward tourism as an alternative source of
income. This has led to an increasing number of tour boats.
These boats might be under 15 tonnes. Are we going to put our
tourists at risk on boats that were not duly inspected because
they were less than 15 tonnes? Let there be no misunderstanding.
I am not suggesting the small pleasure craft need to be
inspected. I, along with my colleagues and the transport
committee, will have to work against this.
Now, the inspections. I strongly oppose the government
authorizing any person, classification society or other
organization to conduct the inspections. This section is
contrary to the stated objections of the new act. Privatization
of inspection will not encourage viable, effective and economic
marine transportation. What it will do is increase bottom line
pressures to cut corners to do things the cheap way rather than
the safe way. It is very worrying to think that the minister
will hand over the inspection of ships from Transport Canada
inspectors.
Were this amendment to pass into law, the job of inspecting oil
tankers and chemical tankers operating in Canadian waters could
become a patronage appointment. Even if the inspections were to
be handed over to classification societies, there is still some
cause for concern.
In 1996 Transport Canada marine safety branch inspected 1,184
foreign flag ships. Of these 10% were detained as being in such
poor condition that they were not allowed to sail until they had
done major repairs. Yet every one of these ships had valid
certificates issued by a classification society. It is no wonder
that each year statistically 10 bulk carriers sink without trace,
usually taking their 25 person crew with them. Yet, as the crews
are mostly from third world countries, we rarely hear of it.
It is very obvious that when classification societies are
allowed to operate without government supervision the market sets
the standards for safety with the job always going to the
cheapest, usually the least safe operator. Are we ready to
accept such a system in Canada?
We suffer from the cuts to airports. We suffer from the
privatization of port police. Are we now going to have to suffer
because ship safety will go down? We cannot put our safety and
our environment in jeopardy. The classification societies
include disclaimers of responsibility in all their documents and
several court cases over the years have shown them immune from
being sued, even where there is evidence of negligence.
A further point of concern is in section 317-1, inspections by
others. The revenues generated by Transport Canada ship
inspections will now be handed over to the private sector. A
figure of $12 million per annum has been stated. Canada must
compete with the United States and we are at a competitive
disadvantage.
The United States has the Jones Act. The act is extremely
protectionist. We do not have an equivalent act in Canada to
protect Canadian interests. The U.S. with its Jones Act ensures
the cargo that is carried between U.S. ports is carried aboard
U.S. ships that are U.S. built, U.S. registered, U.S. owned, U.S.
crewed and repaired and serviced by U.S. firms. So much for free
trade.
In many cases the trade in Canada has become dominated by
foreign flag vessels flying flags of convenience from low
jurisdictions such as Panama.
It is alleged by some in the industry that Canada Steamship
Lines, the company owned by the finance minister, has made use of
these tax evading measures.
1110
It is time to implement a Jones-like act in Canada that would
require minimum levels of Canadian content in shipping activity.
Furthermore, it is time we insisted that ships traversing
Canada's inland waters be Canadian built and Canadian flagged.
There are many needed changes in the bill, but we can do better.
To conclude, my party will not support Bill C-15 as it is today.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the
Canada Shipping Act.
The Canada Shipping Act is one of the oldest pieces of
legislation still in effect in Canada. It was enacted in 1936
and is the primary legislation governing Canadian ships in
Canada's jurisdiction.
With the reorganization of both the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Department of Transport, a reprioritization and a
clearer outline of the ministerial responsibilities of both these
department is needed.
The merger of the Canadian coast guard with the department of
fisheries was completed with responsibility for the coast guard
functions being transferred to DFO with the exemption of
harbours, ports, ship safety and pilotage and crown corporations.
Transport Canada has the prime responsibility for overseeing the
reform of the Canada Shipping Act. However, some of the sections
of the act will fall within the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, specifically those related to pleasure craft, search and
rescue, receiving, receiver of wrecks and pollution preparedness
and response.
The reform that is currently under way will help simplify the
regulatory framework and make the shipping act more consistent
with current regulatory policies. In the end, reforms should
contribute to better economic performance in the marine industry.
The government chose to carry out the reforms in a two-step
approach. The first step takes place with Bill C-15. Under Bill
C-15 there will be a new general part that will be added to the
beginning of the act, followed by a revision of the existing Part
I that will deal with ship registration, ownership and mortgages.
Part II of the reforms to the act will review the remaining
parts of the shipping act, specifically dealing with the areas of
safety, certification and conditions of work, accident
investigation, navigation, wrecks and salvage and economic and
environmental issues.
It is my understanding that Part II of the reforms is estimated
to be ready in early 1999. We anxiously await these reforms and
look forward to receiving and debating the issues that emerge at
that time.
Bill C-15 will enable Transport Canada to assume complete
responsibility for ship registration and related activities. The
Minister of Transport will be permitted through the act to
appoint a chief registrar who will be responsible for a register
of ships. The register will deal with specific information such
as the name and description of a Canadian ship, the official
number and its registered tonnage, the name and address of its
owner and details of all mortgages registered. This gives
Transport Canada responsibility for ship registration that is
currently performed by Revenue Canada's Customs and Excise.
The legislation will require that every ship that exceeds 15
tonnes gross tonnage, that was owned only by qualified persons
and was not registered in a foreign country, would have to be
registered. Proposed in this bill for the first time, certain
foreign ships will be allowed to register in Canada.
We are in favour of many of the reforms included in the bill. It
is important to point out that Bill C-15 was introduced in
October 1997. However, it is essentially the same bill as C-73
that was introduced in December 1996 but unfortunately died on
the Order Paper when the election was called.
Reforming the outdated shipping act is important and provides
significant benefits for Canada such as more employment and
business opportunities for Canadians and, above all, a
rejuvenated marine infrastructure and a better service for
Canadian exporters. This is particularly important as our
country is an export-driven economy and we need to ensure that we
have cost competitive mechanisms to get our product to market.
1115
We only wish these reforms were of greater priority for the
government and were introduced earlier. We are still pleased the
bill is here now and that it will be dealt with in committee. We
look forward to looking more closely at certain issues and
concerns.
Under clauses 35 and 36 of the bill the minister can appoint
tonnage measurers to calculate a ship's tonnage. A tonnage
measurer may withhold a tonnage certificate until the person
requesting it pays the tonnage measurer's fees and travel
expenses. The minister may set limits on the fees and expenses
charged.
Although tonnage measuring is obviously important, we hope the
fees and expenses remain reasonable so we limit possible
additional costs being passed on to shippers and we can have cost
competitive access to our own markets. This is something to
consider and watch for in the future.
The current part I of the Shipping Act will be replaced with a
new part I that will modernize the registration of ships.
Certificates of registry will have an expiry date. The subject
of expiration is understandable in the context of a transitional
period, updating the registration of ships under the old act to
registration under the new act.
However, section 48 outlines many sweeping changes the governor
in council may make. One area of concern under this section is
the issuance and renewal of certificates of registry. Although
it is important to have updated registration information about
all ships, we hope future changes that may be made will not mean
more bureaucracy and excessive costs associated with too frequent
registration requirements.
Also under the bill the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will
be provided with greater authority to regulate pleasure craft. In
this regard we are somewhat concerned that the government not go
too far and have too much regulation of pleasure craft. If there
is a safety risk we are certainly in favour of it. However let
us not have regulation for regulation's sake. We would encourage
caution here. The parliamentary secretary stated that they plan
on making amendments to pleasure craft at the committee level. We
are very pleased to hear this.
We are pleased with certain aspects of the legislation. Clauses
pertaining to definitions are important. Passenger safety will
be enhanced by eliminating the specific reference to owner or
charterer in the current definition of passenger, which in the
past has possibly permitted some charterers to get around meeting
specific safety regulations. Therefore we think this is good.
Another area we believe is good is with respect to small
vessels. Presently the legislation deals mostly with large
vessels and has not taken into account that small vessels are
often built by manufacturers or individuals that may have fallen
outside regulations that apply to larger vessels. It is
important for these manufacturers to comply with construction and
manufacturing standards as manufacturers of larger vessels have
to do.
We support the bill. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate the
legislation was not passed when it was originally introduced in
the previous parliament as Bill C-73. However, it is here now
and we support most of it. Certain parts of the bill warrant
further analysis at committee. We should look more closely at
the area of pleasure craft and how much further regulation is
required. The parliamentary secretary referred to the point that
they would be making amendments concerning pleasure craft at the
committee level. We think this is very good and we are pleased
to participate in a constructive fashion at committee.
We look forward to phase two of the reforms that will be
implemented in 1999.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments for the hon. member for Fundy—Royal, I
made a mistake by going right to debate. The member for
Churchill was entitled to 10 minutes of questions and comments.
If the member for Churchill re-enters the Chamber, at that time
I will ask for the indulgence of the House to allow 10 minutes of
questions and comments because it was my mistake. We will now go
to questions and comments for the member to the member for
Fundy—Royal.
1120
Before putting the
question, I had better put on record that because we are now
putting the question we will obviously not open it up again if
the hon. member for Churchill comes back. It was my mistake, I
say for the hon. member for Churchill to read in Hansard. I
am sorry.
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.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN PARKS AGENCY ACT
The House resumed, from March 18, 1998, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks
Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-29, known in brief as the Canadian
Parks Agency Act and introduced by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
The aim of the bill is to turn Parks Canada, one of the three
programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage, into an agency
separate from the department, to be known as the Canadian Parks
Agency.
At the moment, Parks Canada has 5,000 employees, more than a
third of whom work seasonally. It administers 38 national parks
and national park reserves, three marine conservation areas, 131
national historic sites, seven historic canals, 165 heritage train
stations and 31 heritage rivers.
In addition, Parks Canada works with 661 national historic
sites it does not own. It administers policy on some 1,000
heritage federal buildings and shares responsibility for eight
world heritage sites with UNESCO.
The government gives three reasons for the creation of a new
agency to replace Parks Canada: to simplify structures, improve
administrative efficiency and establish more flexible staffing and
financial procedures.
In order to achieve these objectives, the agency will have new
or revised financial, administrative and human resource management
powers. To this end, the agency will become a separate entity, a
public corporation as defined in schedule II to the Financial
Administration Act and will become subject to part II of schedule
I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
In terms of responsibilities, the agency will report directly
to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who will be accountable for
the agency's activities to Parliament.
The Agency will report to Parliament by tabling the following five
documents: an annual report on the agency's operations; a summary
of the five-year corporate plan; management plans for the national
parks, national historic sites and other protected areas; a report
every five years on the human resources management regime; and a
biennial report on the state of protected heritage areas.
In addition, the agency's financial statements will be
examined by the auditor general, who will report to the government
and who will also assess the agency's performance against its
mandate, its objectives and its corporate plan.
The Canadian Parks Agency will remain subject to official
languages, employment equity, human rights, access to information
and privacy legislation.
1125
As for financial provisions, the bill will give the agency
several new financial powers, including; a two-year budget better
suited to the investments made to develop parks and historic sites;
the power to keep and reinvest all revenues, except fines; the
creation of a standing dedicated account funded through
parliamentary appropriation and the sale of excess property.
This account will be used to finance new parks and national
historic sites. Finally, the agency will be able to make advances
for unplanned land acquisitions when the context is favourable. It
will have to repay these advances subject to current interest
rates.
As for human resources management, the agency will be a
separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The CEO will have the authority to appoint employees and to define
the conditions of employment of agency personnel, including
collective bargaining, and the implementation of classification and
staffing regimes.
These changes will give the agency the necessary flexibility
to develop the human resources management regime best suited to its
operating context. The parks and historic sites network spans the
country, operates around the clock in several different time zones,
four seasons a year, and employs many seasonal, temporary and part
time workers.
All employees performing duties that will be transferred to
the Canadian Parks Agency will receive a job offer. Their present
job is guaranteed by Treasury Board for two years.
The federal government claims that the establishment of a Canadian parks
agency will allow it to fulfil more efficiently and at a lesser cost the
mandate currently held by the Parks Canada program, under the Department
of Canadian Heritage.
Let us not forget that, in the last four years, the government
reduced Parks Canada's budget by $100 million. That budget is used,
among other things, to develop the network of national parks and marine
conservation areas, and to maintain and promote national historic sites
and monuments.
The financial constraints imposed on Parks Canada led the
government to consider a restructuring of the program's operations. The
bill before us is the result of that exercise, and the proposed change
is the creation of a Canadian parks agency.
The Bloc Quebecois has long been asking the federal government to
streamline its operations wherever possible, and to fight waste, instead
of cutting in social programs and education. This is why we support the
principle of the bill, provided it will truly improve the effectiveness
of the parks' management, without jeopardizing the mandate to preserve,
protect and develop Canada's national parks and historic sites for
future generations and for all Canadians and Quebeckers.
At a briefing, government officials gave us the assurance that this
bill is not the first step toward the privatization of our parks.
In fact, when he appeared before the Canadian heritage committee, on
November 20, the Secretary of State for Parks Canada said “There's
something I have said over and over again, and I will take an
opportunity to say it here when we are talking about finance. It is not
the intention of this government to either privatize or commercialize
Parks Canada. We believe the maintenance of our special places in Canada
is an important trust given to us by Canadians. That stewardship
Canadians want to see exercised publicly, and we will continue to do
that through our agency and through the oversight of Parliament”.
1130
An issue of major concern to the Bloc Quebecois about this bill is
to guarantee that, once in operation, the agency will ensure continued
accessibility of parks to all citizens. This bill reflects an
unequivocal desire on the part of the government to raise fees on park
users.
Given that taxpayers already contribute to funding parks through
their taxes, fees imposed on visitors should not be increased beyond a
reasonable limit.
In addition, extra revenue from user fees, royalties or the sale of
assets should be used to provide more services, better fulfil the parks'
mission or expand activities. This increase in revenue should not be
used as an excuse by the government to further cut appropriations
allocated to the agency.
In the same vein, we want to ensure that the agency's fiscal
targets and the federal government's stated wish to see the number of
visitors increase in order to maximize economic benefits do not lead to
an overuse of parks and historical sites.
We would like this bill to state that the agency must balance the
need to preserve and maintain natural or historical sites against the
increase in the number of visitors and the related expansion of tourist
and commercial activities.
The Bloc Quebecois' concerns are shared by many. In November 1996,
the auditor general presented a meaty report to Parliament on the
protection of national heritage in Canada. The auditor general had
examined the systems established by Parks Canada to maintain and enhance
the ecological integrity of national parks.
At the time, the auditor general pointed out that park management
plans focus mainly on economic and social factors and little on
ecological factors. He noted also that Parks Canada should upgrade its
knowledge of the condition of natural resources in national parks in
order to be able to select a sensible management approach, based on the
ecosystems.
Following this report, Parks Canada took a number of corrective
measures and, last fall, the secretary of state forwarded to us Park
Canada's response to some criticisms made by the auditor general.
The bill calls for measures relating to the creation and
implementation of park management plans.
Much still remains to be done, however, before all the auditor
general's recommendations can be implemented. The data on park
conditions still needs to be updated, and the policies on
ecological conditions need to be applied on an ongoing basis as
well. The ecological objectives set out in the legislation must be
translated into concrete actions if they are to become reality in
spite of budget restrictions.
Parks Canada has drawn up some ambitious development plans
aimed at completing the national parks system, expanding the
network of national historic sites and creating a system of
maritime conservation areas.
At present, 24 of the 39 natural regions defined by Parks Canada
are represented in its system, and its objective is to develop the
remaining 15 by the year 2000.
The federal government claims these objectives will be
attainable because of the enhanced efficiency resulting from
reorganization, which will enable it to do more with less. As
well, the government is committed to not decreasing the
parliamentary votes allocated to the agency.
1135
Nevertheless, we question the new agency's ability to
consolidate and fully develop the existing sites, while maintaining
its objectives of expansion in today's context of budgetary
restraint.
What we do not want to see happen is for there to be a very
vast but badly maintained system, with insufficient services and no
ecological integrity. We wish to ensure that the development of
the system of national parks and historic sites is durable and
sustainable.
Our support at second reading of this bill must not be
interpreted by the government as a blank cheque, however.
We have let the government know that, when this bill is studied by
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we want the committee
to call as witnesses representatives of all groups of employees,
including seasonal and part time workers, whose status might be
changed as a result of the bill's planned changes. We want to ask
them to tell us about their concerns with respect to this bill, to
check what guarantees they have been given with respect to job
security and working conditions, and to see whether these
guarantees are contained in the bill.
In addition, we want the committee to hear from
representatives of environmental protection groups, in order to
find out where they stand on the bill and the creation of the
agency.
Among other things, we would like to know whether environmental
groups feel that the reorganization proposed in the bill will allow
the new agency to fulfil its ecological mandate.
We also want to ensure that the bill will provide a means of
controlling contracting out, and ensuring impartiality and
transparency in the tendering process for all contracts awarded by
the Canadian Parks Agency. The new structure and wide-ranging
authority of the agency's CEO in the management of human resources
must not pave the way for arbitrary decisions and patronage
appointments.
The government can count on our support in principle for Bill
C-29 establishing the Canadian Parks Agency.
We will, however, be vigilant during clause-by-clause study of
this bill in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in order
to ensure that the bill makes it possible to deliver services more
effectively, while respecting the existing mandate of Parks Canada.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am rising to speak against Bill C-29, an act to establish the
Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.
The Liberals would have Canadians believe that the purpose of
this legislation is to improve Parks Canada. In fact, the
Liberal background papers for Bill C-29 speak of organizational
simplicity, administrative efficiency, human resources
flexibility and improved financial procedures. Quoting them,
they use words such as business-like manner.
Their language flows pretty in its terms, in its fancy window
dressing which hides the real reason why Bill C-29 is coming into
effect. The real reasons are financial and fiscal and that is
why the bill is in the House today.
Canadians will be outraged when they finally realize that the
details of this proposal will be understood in the near future.
Words like program review are hidden. These are the reasons
given for cutbacks resulting from our financial situation in the
country.
But the Liberals are quick to state that Bill C-29 has nothing
to do with privatization. No, the Liberals know a lot better
than that. It will create a lot of trouble. Whisper
privatization in anybody's ear, especially dealing with national
parks, and there will be a major outrage. The repercussions will
take several years to recover from.
1140
Canadians voiced their opposition loud and clear when the
Liberals originally tried to take this approach. Our parks are a
sacred sanctuary. Our parks are a part of our national identity.
Our parks help us define what it means to be Canadian. They are
very special and distinct places in our country that reflect the
ecological, cultural and geographical integrity for the
generations to come.
Our parks are a legacy, a legacy which began in Banff in the
mid-1880s and which continues to this day. Bill C-7, the
Sagenuay-St. Lawrence marine park, was the latest legacy which
was introduced and recently passed in this House. The New
Democrats supported it wholeheartedly. From Banff to the St.
Lawrence these parks are alive into the next millennium; a
century of noble effort and honourable intentions to be laid
waste for short term plans and misguided Liberal fiscal policy.
The reason this bill is being introduced is for financial
deficits and cutbacks. It is to control the financial roller
coaster that nobody seems to be in control of.
The finance minister stated several weeks ago that we have
reached a balanced approach. But we never know where this roller
coaster is going to go. We are putting our parks in jeopardy by
continuing to look at a cherished institution for the sake of
expediency, financial accountability, transferability and
transparency.
During the deficit battle, like many other programs, departments
and services, Parks Canada was attacked. It lost hundreds of
millions of dollars, it lost jobs, services were reduced and user
fees were increased. If we continue to operate it in
business-like manner pretty soon it will be like a hockey game.
How many people can afford an NHL hockey ticket today? Who will
be able to afford to a part of this legacy for all Canadians, to
go to a national park, to experience the beauty of Banff and
Jasper, of the polar bears, the marine parks, the heritage sites?
User fees will skyrocket. There will be contracting out, pay per
person, private companies, loss of dedicated staff and plenty of
complaints.
Canadians are angry that our national legacies are not being
protected. Canadians are angry that our heritage is disappearing
bit by bit, service by service, program by program. The New
Democratic Party shares these concerns and is fighting for the
very principles that this government and other parties are
willing to squander for the sake of business-like practices.
Principles are being squandered when it comes to the dollar. The
legacy of national parks needs to protected. It cannot be
measured by dollar value.
Bill C-29 does not seem to be the answer. If this nation has met
the deficit challenge, why are we considering packaging Bill
C-29, gift wrapping it for an organizational corporation like
Walt Disney to purchase? Why should we consider something like
that? The mentality for the last few years has been to axe
policies and chop programs. That has to stop. Let us stop it at
the national parks. Close the gate, as the Reform leader did at
Stornoway, create a gate and stop it.
We should not continue the dismantling of federal
responsibilities, especially not our parks and our historical
sites. I call on my colleagues to stop an enabling legislation
that will impact 38 national parks and 786 historical sites.
These are important symbols of our identity. We must think long
and hard before we embark on this path.
We will have a Canadian parks agency, a crown agency, reporting
to the minister. Why is this necessary? Can we not fix the
current problems identified by the recent round of consultations?
Can we not fix it by having the employees labour, the service
industries and the communities around the national parks
addressing these issues with the existing structure?
What is stopping us from implementing these changes and keeping
Parks Canada intact?
1145
Canadians have witnessed the spins and angles which the Liberals
have used to damage our country. The Liberals did not say
anything about scrapping the GST, did they? They did not mention
anything about the BST in Atlantic Canada and how it would reduce
cost and impact Atlantic Canadians. No, they did not mention
anything like that. Again they are not mentioning that the
agency is not for privatization.
Bill C-29 will save the parks and the heritage sites. That is
what they are saying.
When I received my brief from department officials, I
immediately felt something was wrong. It just could not be
right. The bottom line was to be financially accountable and to
make things affordable. However, if they make things affordable
and business-like, it will be at the cost of employment services
and program services. Services will be eliminated and there will
be user fee hikes. That is the mentality of business-like
corporations.
The Disney corporation is more than happy to raise their costs
to give us a much shinier project or a much shinier concept with
a futuristic approach. If they get their hands on this, like
they did on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the commercial
rights will be owned by a foreign corporation. That is exactly
what is happening.
Canadian parks are not being privatized, but they are on the
road to being commercialized. A Reform member yesterday agreed
wholeheartedly that it was the right way to go, to do it in a
business-like manner. He said that if he was the minister of
Canadian heritage he would do it that way. I think he was
dreaming. It is a right wing, capitalist approach.
Let us keep the national parks as a Canadian entity. Let us
keep them for all our children. Let Canadians continue to
operate them in the generations to come.
The outcry, which is a whisper right now, can be compared to
what happened with our national railways. They are now operating
on American soil, on American rail lines. The Canadian dream of
uniting our nation has been abandoned.
We had the experience with NavCan. It was packaged by the
government to be sold to a private organization. Is that where
our parks are going?
As well, a fine patronage plum will be created. Under Bill C-29
a new CEO position will be created. That person will oversee the
agency responsible for our parks and heritage sites. The CEO
will have exclusive hiring and firing powers. The CEO will be
able to dispose of and acquire crown lands and assets, following
the rules of course, and we know the kind of track record the
Liberals have on following rules.
The CEO will also have the power to negotiate employee
contracts. The contracts which exist for Canada Parks employees
will be negotiated over the next two years. We do not know what
kind of contract they will have. We do not know—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but could the hon. member for
Churchill River advise the Chair whether he is splitting his
time?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In that case, the
hon. member is going to have to wrap up his remarks very quickly.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe there is an absence of government members on the other
side. They are few and far between. I would like to call for a
quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All right. I will
ask the clerk to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am advised that we
have a quorum.
The hon. member for Churchill River will have one minute to
complete his remarks.
1150
Mr. Rick Laliberte: As I mentioned, the impact that it
has on the 5,000 employees that the parks employ as seasonal
workers, summer student employment in the summer, their first
work experience at the park creating a natural, historic and
cultural legacy for other generations, is truly an honourable
process of how our parks have been utilized in creating
employment and creating education for our biology, ecology and
our culture and geography students. We also look at the fate of
agencies and the government's role with regard to DND employees
and privatization. A British company is now operating employee
status which will have a major impact throughout Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member will
have a chance to make a few more points in questions and
comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested to hear my NDP colleague's analysis. I would like to
know whether he has seen what I have.
The former section 4 of the National Parks Act reads
essentially as follows “The National Parks of Canada are hereby
dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and
enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations”.
This section does not appear in Bill C-29.
It is also closely related to the former section 7.(f), which
provides that the government may set fees for the use of the parks.
Now, fees will be set, it appears, by the administration of
the new parks agency. Its only obligation will be to publish them
in the Canada Gazette, but that remains fairly haphazard. Will the
fees be the same across Canada—a mari usque ad mare—or will
they be set according to the clientele or the amount of traffic?
Will there be different fees, for example, at Forillon National
Park and at Banff National Park?
Could the member enlighten us on that?
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I thank the hon. member for raising
that point. I have no idea about the future of this parks
agency. Nobody has any idea. We are opening the door to an
insecure future. There is no vision of what our national parks
will be. It will be up to the chief executive officer of the
agency that will be created.
It is said a percentage of 80% to 85% is government transfers
and about 15% is user fees. Who is to say that in the middle of
this century it will be 50% user fees and 50% government? By no
means has Canada achieved the percentage of national parks that
should be created. I believe it is a 12% commitment that has been
made to Canadians that would be set aside as national parks. We
have not achieved the percentage of lands to be set aside.
As the number of national parks increases in the future, the
amount of transfer dollars available from the federal government
will dwindle. Will that be decided through the corporate or
management plan which will be one person planning to decide to
raise the fees? It is uncharted waters and it is a scary
thought.
Once you put a big bow tie on an agency such as Walt Disney, it
could take over the administration of the parks and make it a
truly business-like plan operating at arm's length. The
government says we can raise the issue with the minister every
two years for a review. It will be designed like an umbilical
cord from the minister to the parks agency. Some day it could be
severed and that is the scary thought. I would hate to see the
national parks depart from that.
In my riding we have the Prince Albert National Park.
1155
Another legacy that Canadians should be aware of is potash
heritage sites in my region, as well as Jasper, Banff, Terra Nova
and the Cape Breton Highlands. All of these parks will be
impacted as well as future parks. But at what cost? Who is
going to design and manage them? It will be the chief executive
officer. He will be negotiating contracts with the staff. We
are giving him two years to come up with it.
What if they do not come up with a contract in two years? What
happens to the employees? They will be operating without a
contract. Who do they fall under? Who is going to be
responsible for parks like Jasper National Park or the Cheviot
mine that will be right next door to a national park which is a
world heritage site? Who will decide how to procure these lands?
One individual could decide to sell the parks or have an
ecological impact on them. That is a scary thought.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-29, since I am very
close to it as a result of my past experience.
My first job was with Parks Canada in P.E.I. in 1981, and my
last federal government job was at the Kouchibouguac National Park.
So I have seen a lot of things first hand, particularly the
developments between 1981 and 1997. I saddens me to see the
direction our parks are taking today.
The first reason to create the agency is, as my colleague has
said, downsizing, or job cuts.
It is privatization. When the announcement came a couple of years
ago that an agency would be created, I can still clearly remember
our conference call with Mr. Tom Lee. It was clear that jobs were
going to be lost.
We were also headed toward alternate service delivery, which
means people get shown the door and then hired again on contract at
a considerable loss in salary, from $15 to $5.50 an hour. When
that first teleconference was held we were not fully in agreement,
and those same concerns are still with us today.
I am giving you the real facts, for I lived them. If one
looks at exactly what is going on in the parks today it is true
that some have already got to another stage.
If people wonder what my job was, I was a cashier. I was the
person who took money at the entrance.
Often, families would turn up who did not have the $7 needed to get
in and use the beaches, the bike paths, the walking trails. They
had to turn their cars around and leave. We would have paid the
fee out of our own pockets if we had been able to afford it, so
that their kids could get to the beach.
That is where things have got to today. That is what the bill
will bring in, a continuity of the process of making national parks
accessible only to those who can afford the high fees to rent a
camp site, use the bike paths and our beautiful beaches, enjoy
nature. The national parks are very lovely, and they exist for a
reason.
Today, they are in the process of being destroyed. Today,
there is a charge for a little bundle of wood for a camp fire.
Before people had to pay for wood, we had no problems with our camp
sites.
Now people are cutting down the trees in our national parks because
they do not want to pay the $3 or $5 extra for firewood. Our parks
are now being destroyed.
This agency cannot offer any guarantee that this is for the
good of our parks, because that is not true. It is absolutely
false.
1200
We must also look at the reasons why national parks were
established. They were estaablished to protect nature and to make sure
these places would still be there for future generations. Many national
parks are located in high unemployment areas. Often, they are the main
employer.
Back home, I was one of the best paid employees in the region at
$13 per hour, because the park was the main employer. Just think that
people in these regions have to accept seasonal jobs that pay $5.50 an
hour.
There are other reasons that explain what the government is doing.
As my colleague pointed out, the government wants the parks to become
self-sufficient and self-financing eventually.
I can see it coming. I can also see how the human aspect is absent
from our parks. When I started with the parks, in 1981, the focus was on
client services. Clients came first. By the summer of 1996, the priority
had become “give me your $7”, or “give me your $18”. Fees are
unbelievably high and they are not consistent across the country. In
some parks they are very high, compared to other places.
Those who cannot afford such fees have no way of seeing, of
discovering the natural resources of our national parks, and the
situation will only get worse.
As a former regional vice-president of the public service alliance
for the Atlantic region, I have a pretty good understanding of national
parks in that region.
I heard people's concerns. At one time, people were given this
alternative: either we create an agency, or we make this cut and that
cut. People have no choice. No one likes this system. People have to
choose the lesser of two evils.
The New Democratic Party clearly will not support this bill. It is
unacceptable. It goes against what we believe. All Canadians should have
access to our national parks. This access should not depend on their
income.
The more the government increases the cost of services, the further
it is pushing in the same direction. The philosophy is “if you do not
have money in this country, too bad. We changed the rules and you will
no longer have access to anything”. That pattern can be seen in health
care, education and the national parks.
It is very obvious that the government wants to follow the Reform
Party's philosophy, which is “if you do not have money in this country,
too bad”. I have a problem with that, because at one time I was among
those who do not have money. I was also one of those who were
expropriated from Kouchibouguac national park. I am very familiar with
national parks, and I know why we pay for parks. Today, I can see that
the government is changing direction, and this is not acceptable.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I congratulate
the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac on a very caring speech.
Knowing that there are 500,000 poor children in the Montreal area,
I wonder whether they will ever be able to set foot in a national park,
given the new parks policy.
I raised this issue earlier with the NDP member. I am concerned
that under the bill—I had a quick look at it—the Canadian government
is turning the responsibility over to an agency.
For example, the agency created by the minister will develop
policies, but the minister will not get involved in the areas listed
under clause 13, which is at the heart of the way the agency will
operate. Does this mean we might see the same situation as with Montreal
airports where the transport minister can no longer get involved and has
no say in the way airports are managed?
1205
Will it be the same with the new agency? Could it be that once a
given area has been shown to be profitable, contrary to section 4 of the
old act, which said that parks were for the use and benefit of all
Canadians, the minister will bring in an agency specializing in
entertainment, or a huge corporation such as Walt Disney? This
organization will then become responsible for the administration of the
Banff National Park, for example, in return for a small fee and will be
free to charge whatever prices it wants and to go after its usual
clientele, namely the rich, the upper crust, while the poor, for whom
national parks were designed and created in the first place, will no
longer have access to them.
We are standing on a slippery slope. This seemingly innocuous bill
has huge flaws and needs rethinking. I urge the minister to retain at
least his power to get involved, especially under clause 13. It is at
the heart of Canada's national parks management system. Without it, we
might as well sell them to for-profit corporations. In fact, this is
where we are heading.
I would ask the member, who gave such a good speech, to reassure me
in this regard, if at all possible.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Madam Speaker, I must say that I cannot
reassure my hon. colleague because he told it exactly as it is. The
chief executive officer has exclusive authority. We have to ask
ourselves why the power to make all decisions regarding hiring,
operations, everything, has to be concentrated in the hands of one
individual. We clearly have to figure out exactly what the Liberal
government is up to here. It is trying to pull a fast one, as we say.
However, some members of this House can see exactly what is going
on. It is not fair, and that is a fact. This person obviously has too
much power, and that is the direction we are headed in, as I indicated
earlier. We are moving in the wrong direction, that is, toward the
commercialization of our national parks. That is quite obvious.
No one can argue that we are not headed in that direction, which will
mean more pollution, more of everything.
Again, we must realize that unemployment is a big problem in this
country. Affected employees will be guaranteed a job for two years only.
They do not know where they will be working two years from now. Many
employees across the country have no idea where they will be in two
years.
I completely agree with my colleague that the government is moving
in a very dangerous direction, which will certainly be harmful to our
parks and to our economy.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-29, an act to
establish the Canadian Parks Agency, which will be responsible for the
administration of all legislation relating to national parks, national
historic sites, national marine conservation areas and heritage areas.
This bill will also make consequential amendments to other acts.
I am pleased to take part in this debate because I live in an area,
the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, that has always been known as having
great potential for tourism. It took several decades before we could
even hope that, some day, we would be on the list of Canadian national
parks. With regard to the management of federal and even provincial
parks, we realize that we must try to add new elements that will make
park management more dynamic, if I can use that term, and that will
involve local communities to a greater extent.
I will have the opportunity later on to make further comments on
the contents of Bill C-29. In my own region, there is a
provincial park, the Saguenay park, and there is also the marine
national park. A co-operative effort is being made to try to meet
common objectives for the development of our region and for the
tourist industry of Quebec and of Canada as a whole.
The efforts to establish the new national marine park directly
affiliated with Parks Canada have been successful.
1210
But we realize that, in both provincial and national parks, we must
try to provide funding so that our managers can initiate productive
projects for the future and give guarantees in order to eventually
promote the direct involvement of municipalities and the private sector,
and so that we can bring more people into our parks.
Through the involvement of regional sectors, both private and
public, perhaps we could make some interesting changes to the parameters
and criteria underlying the management of national and provincial parks.
I know very well that some efforts must be made to increase the
number of visitors in our national and provincial parks. Some major
corrective action must be taken to provide these parks with new
facilities that would help attract more people.
For example, in my region, 200,000 visitors go to the mouth of the
Saguenay River, to Tadoussac, in Charlevoix, but not even a quarter of
them go to the Saguenay provincial park and marine park. We have to
rethink a number of things.
I believe that the initiative to establish this agency will allow
us to increase the participation of the people in the area.
At the present time, it is very difficult to set up new infrastructures
in these parks. I am referring, among other things, to the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park in our case. As has been done at Montmorency Falls,
at Val-Jalbert and in national parks in western Canada, we could provide
some means of access so that people could get to the extraordinary
lookout site of Cap Trinité. It takes four and a half hours to walk to
the statue.
Therefore, the people in the area, with the support of their
federal member of Parliament, are thinking about setting up perhaps a
cable-car or some other way to provide access to this site that is quite
extraordinary.
We have to redesign the existing infrastructure, and the
establishment of the parks agency will certainly be an opportunity for
increased financial autonomy, making this agency less vulnerable to
government interventions that are not always timely. I am convinced
stakeholders will feel this agency is more open to their needs and
suggestions than Parks Canada has been in the last few years.
I think the best way to successfully manage the assets that remind
us of our past is to bring in people into the regions in great need of
economic development through tourist, cultural and heritage attractions.
People will certainly be more than happy to suggest to the brand new
agency ways to make these extraordinary sites that are an important part
of Canada's and Quebec's heritage more profitable and attractive.
I am sure people in the outlying regions will become more actively
involved in the way parks are managed.
If such an agency is established, as we hope it will be, I am sure it
will be quite open to the recommendations of people who have an
economic, cultural and social interest in bringing in more people to
enhance our whole heritage infrastructure and boost park development.
There is still a great deal of work to be done, but the auditor
general has told us he has serious doubts about the future of Canadian
park development because of the budget cuts.
1215
During the last few decades, funding was haphazard. I am sure that,
with the new agency being established under Bill C-29, we will be able
to consider more seriously the future of our heritage and tourist
industry.
I am also convinced that my beautiful riding of Chicoutimi and my
region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean will make a significant contribution
to the development of our national parks. In my area, in particular,
with the agency speeding up the structural development of national
parks, we will be able to step up cooperation with existing provincial
parks, as was done during the last few years.
Rest assured that our party will support this bill, because it is
a step in the right direction. It is not perfect, but I am sure that the
existence of this agency will make park managers more accountable. I
remind the hon. members that Parks Canada was not even officially
recognized.
Under this bill, it will gain official recognition and receive
guaranteed, statutory budgets. It will be assured of receiving the
budget resources needed to promote development and also, I hope, to
encourage cooperation among the stakeholders, who have different and
very specific interests in regional development.
Our party will cooperate and support this bill which is a step in
the right direction.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened to my colleague's speech very closely and I have two
questions for him.
There a number of very poor Canadian families in the country. I
think it was indicated this morning that about 1.4 million
children are living in poverty. We heard on the news today that
there are 200,000 young people out of work, largely school
dropouts who do not appear on any statistical record.
Would my hon. friend agree that with the imposition of user fees
certain Canadians, particularly children from low income
families, will have a difficult time accessing the use of some of
our national parks?
While it is called commercialization of the national parks,
would he not agree that this is another euphemism for the
privatization of Parks Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
important comments.
He alluded to poverty. I do not come from a very wealthy region.
Since it is always better to talk about what we know best, I can tell
you that, in the communities where these parks are located, 40% to 50%
of the workforce has trouble finding work.
Fees will be charged, but there is a downside. I get messages from
communities affected by the establishment of national parks, and even
provincial parks, to the effect that they would like to be in charge of
the development of these infrastructures. For example, there is a
provincial park at home that was established 25 years ago, but very few
jobs were created.
Local people are telling us they want to improve their financial
status, as mentioned by the hon. member, and take on more
responsibilities. It would really be in everyone's interest to let these
municipalities and villages take on some of the responsibilities, so
that they could play a role in the creation of new infrastructures that
will bring in more people.
1220
For example, back home, 200,000 people travel to the mouth of the
Saguenay River, in the Tadoussac—Baie-Sainte-Catherine area. Only 30%
to 35% of them make it to the heart of the Saguenay park. This means the
region loses out on a lot of revenue, because of a lack of
infrastructures.
For instance, It is indicated that these are conservation areas.
However, wildlife and plant life alone will not attract tourists. Some
major infrastructures are necessary to make it easier for the tourists.
Let us not forget that, economically speaking, seniors are currently the
most appealing group of tourists.
In order for these elderly to have safe access to certain sites,
certain infrastructures must be built.
I really appreciate the hon. member's question. Indeed, if local
people are more involved, I think it will greatly promote job creation
and economic development. It will also indirectly allow these people to
have access to the new sites that they have helped develop in an
intelligent way that takes their views into account.
[English]
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
in the House today on the occasion of the second reading of Bill
C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency and to amend
other acts in consequence thereof.
[Translation]
This bill will make it possible to modernize the agency
responsible for managing Canada's national parks, national historic
sites and other protected heritage areas.
[English]
The mandate of this organization, presently known as the Parks
Canada program of the Department of Canadian Heritage, is to play
the leading role in federal government activities related to
recognizing places representative of Canada's natural heritage
and places of national historical importance, protecting these
places and presenting them to the public.
Along with national parks and national historic sites these
special places include historic canals, a system of heritage
railway stations, heritage rivers, federal heritage buildings and
the vibrant federal archaeological program as well as Canada's
UNESCO world heritage sites including most recently a favourite
of mine, the old town of Lunenburg in Nova Scotia.
The establishment of the Canadian parks agency will bring two
main benefits to Canadians. First, and I say this to reassure
and to respond to the concerns of the member for Churchill River.
It is to assist in the creation of new national parks, the
designation of additional national historic sites and the
management of other related protected heritage areas including
the creation of national marine conservation areas. In other
words this is not an act of retrenchment. It is an act which
permits the ultimate expansion of these programs.
The second is the continued delivery of quality service to
Canadians at existing parks and sites.
[Translation]
Canadians attach great importance to their system of protected
natural and cultural heritage areas. Our national parks, our
national historic sites and other protected heritage areas are
characteristic of the geography, history, culture, economy and even
the identity of our country.
Canadians are joining forces to protect these exceptional
sites and to further expand our system of national parks, national
historic sites and other protected heritage areas. In so doing, we
are not just protecting our environment and our historical and
cultural artifacts; we are preserving what makes us Canadians, what
sets us apart from the rest of the world.
We have every reason to be proud of these sites, which
represent Canada and which are evidence of the sound and
sustainable management of the cultural and environmental resources
of our heritage.
[English]
I also reassure the member for Churchill that the new Canadian
parks agency will not change the mandate of the Parks Canada
program.
1225
The act creating the agency will support and wherever possible
strengthen that mandate, enhancing its stewardship role in
relation to Canada's natural and cultural heritage.
The Canadian parks agency will remain fully accountable to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and to parliament. The agency will
report to parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage
who will retain power of direction over agency activities.
Finally, the National Parks Act and other legislation setting
out the mandate of the program will continue to be enforced. In
short, we will not be turning our national parks into Disney
theme parks despite the concerns of the member opposite. Indeed,
if anybody attempted to try to sell off Canada's national parks
or to reduce their territory, they would have to come back to
parliament to do so.
What will change is that a new framework will be put in place to
administer these existing pieces of legislation.
[Translation]
The Canadian Parks Agency will differ from the existing
organization in two significant ways.
First, control of the agency will be through direct hierarchic
links between it and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Second, administrative provisions will be made to measure so
as to respond to the agency's specific objectives and unique
operational requirements.
In practical terms, this means that the Canadian Parks Agency
will use the tools and instruments that best suit its highly
decentralized and diversified operations.
The member for Jonquière raised a number of justified concerns
on the proposed agency's financial arrangements. I want to
reassure her that its financial management practices will still be
governed by the Financial Administration Act. It will continue to
prepare its main estimates and to receive parliamentary
appropriations. The agency will still be audited by the office of
the auditor general.
One of the main reasons for creating the Canadian Parks Agency
was to ensure Canadians continued to enjoy a high level of service.
Another objective was, to respond to the concerns of the member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, to create a stable administration that
would provide parks' employees with some assurance their jobs would
remain. In fact, there is even the possibility of extending jobs,
contrary to what she feared.
[English]
To this end new flexibilities are being created. Canadians will
benefit from them in very concrete ways such as the way in which
the new agency will now be able to work toward the completion of
the national parks system and the expansion of the system of
national historic sites and other protected heritage areas as I
described earlier.
For example, the Canadian parks agency will receive the
authority to keep and spend most of its revenue. This will
result in additional dollars for investment in new national
parks, new national historic sites and other protected heritage
areas. A new non-lapsing account will be used to fund the
creation of new parks and sites, as well as to complete those
parks and sites which have not yet been fully developed. This
account would be able to carry moneys forward into the future and
will help the agency achieve existing government commitments.
A two year rolling budget will make it easier for the agency to
plan and carry out its expenditures and will result in a greater
stability of service for Canadians and a greater stability of
regime for employees.
The agency will also receive a higher level of delegated
financial and administrative authorities from Treasury Board.
This will reduce the time needed to make decisions and to get
approvals.
[Translation]
The agency will continue to come under Government of Canada
contracts regulations, but will have increased powers to manage the
purchase and sale of properties, award architectural and
engineering services contracts and award construction contracts.
1230
The agency will be able to negotiate the optional delivery of
certain common services with the departments responsible. Examples
of these are surveying, property assessments, disposal of surplus
assets, printing and publishing. This will put managers in a
better position to seek out the most economical and convenient
services.
In discussing the organization's mandate, it is important to
note that, even if it does not have a direct mandate for tourism,
it does play an important role, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi
has pointed out, in visitors' image of Canada, helps maintain a
prosperous and solid economy, and encourages sustainable
development to the benefit of local communities.
Canada's national parks, national historical monuments and
other protected heritage sites generate more than $2 billion yearly
in direct and indirect economic benefits, which are of crucial
importance to local economies in rural, isolated or economically
underdeveloped regions. Once again, I am picking up on what the
hon. member for Chicoutimi has said.
It is therefore very important to note that the Canadian Parks
Agency will continue to operate Parks Canada's corporate units and
urban townsites revolving funds, which are used to administer the
hot springs in Banff, Jasper and Kootenay national parks, the golf
course in Cape Breton Highlands National Park and the six townsites
within a national park.
The future integrity of Canada's natural and cultural heritage
sites will continue to represent a priority for the Canadian Parks
Agency, as it does for the present government. The challenges
facing Canada's heritage areas will continue to increase, as will
the demands upon them.
It is essential not only to design policies that can protect these
irreplaceable treasures forever, but also to ensure that the
organization with key responsibility for our heritage is equipped
with the necessary tools and structures to fulfil the mandate with
which the people of Canada have entrusted it.>
[English]
The legislation before us will enable the new Canadian parks
agency to meet the challenges now facing our heritage areas in a
most efficient way. It will continue to provide for the use and
enjoyment of Canadians a system of national parks, national
historic sites and related protected heritage areas and to manage
these places in ways that leave them unimpaired for future
generations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Five members have
indicated a desire to speak on questions and comments. We will
start with the member for Lethbridge, then member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, and third, the member for
Cariboo—Chilcotin. If we have a chance, we will go to the
member for Churchill River. With 10 minutes, it means we have
approximately 60 seconds for the question and 60 seconds for the
response.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
try to make it quick. I have a national park in my riding,
Waterton Lakes National Park, a hidden jewel of the west. We are
very proud of it.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that there will be new
parks and that there will be expanded parks. Could he indicate
to us whether in the discussions and in the proceedings they
talked about jurisdictional overlap and the disputes that have
arisen with other levels of government when it comes to
developing a park? Is there a new mechanism in place to handle
that? Has it been a consideration?
If the intent is to make the parks more efficient and to make
the best use of the dollars available, can the member assure us
that the user fees that are charged at the parks now are not
going to get out of hand? Is there some formula? Is there
something in place to assure that the people who are enjoying the
parks now will be able to afford to enjoy them in the future?
1235
Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the first question was
about the expansion of the parks system. The member asked if we
are using new mechanisms to involve all the appropriate levels of
government.
We are developing such mechanisms when we create things like the
new national marine conservation areas. We are continually
involving local populations and provincial governments in order
to arrive at common objectives. As the member indicated, these
are complex matters with many layers. Existing mechanisms are
being adapted for new challenges such as these marine
conservation areas.
Two things can be said on the second point of user fees. It is
a mandate of the parks not to charge more than the service costs.
In other words they are not designed to be profit centres. More
important, under section 25(1) of the act, the minister is
responsible for the setting of park fees and must do so only
after consulting with the group of relevant people in the area to
see what would be the consequences of raising those fees. If it
were in any way a barrier, that would affect the final decision
on the fees.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
his speech on Bill C-29, the hon. member for Don Valley-West said the
new parks agency would have a higher level of administrative authority
and more power to manage the environment in a national park.
Could we have a commitment from him that we will never again see
what we are witnessing in Alberta, where there is a beautiful national
park threatened by the opening of a mine nearby? It would appear that
nothing can be done to prevent this from happening even though this mine
is sure to cause serious damage to this park established many decades
ago.
Within the higher level of authority given to the new parks agency,
would it be possible to plan for this kind of situation and include
provisions allowing the board of directors of a park and the new agency
to take control of the park and, if need be, to expropriate and enlarge
the park so that hundreds of millions of dollars in investments would
not be lost because of so-called progress?
Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the answer is straightforward. >
Since the present National Parks Act remains in effect, everything
regarding economic decisions such as the ones mentioned by the member
will remain in effect. Therefore, this new scheme will not allow the
agency to go beyond the usual standards regarding the environment or
consultations at the local level.
This bill deals strictly with organizational matters, and with
regard to the kind of decisions mentioned by the member opposite,
current procedures will remain. So the answer is no.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask these questions of the
parliamentary secretary.
The parks system is vast. There are 38 parks, 131 national
historic sites, 661 sites operated by third parties, seven
historic canals, three marine conservation areas, 165 heritage
railway stations and 31 heritage rivers. The proposal seems to
make some move toward organizational simplicity and
administrative efficiency. There seems to be a delayering and
more financial accountability.
The parliamentary secretary said that they are in the process of
planning. I hear this so often from the government.
What is the government doing beyond planning to bring these good
ideas into practice?
1240
Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about planning
in two ways. In terms of creating a stable regime for the parks,
like so many other government agencies Parks Canada has been
subject to tremendous pressures through downsizing. This has
been a difficult period for Parks Canada. That period is over.
The thought now is to create a regime which will give the parks a
better chance for stability by allowing them for example to keep
moneys at the end of the year which they have made through their
various ancillary activities.
The actual efficiency aspects will be coming in to place as soon
as the act is passed. In terms of planning in the grander sense
as to how we complete our national parks system, I think that as
I suggested in my speech this law indirectly will allow that to
happen by providing more money and a more stable regime. In that
way we can either complete existing parks or get on with the new
ones a bit faster.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the Canadian parks agency, the term Canadian
parks is a change. It is now known as Parks Canada. How much
money is going to be spent to advertise Canadian parks? Will the
the letterhead, logos and signs be changed? Some people went
into a flap about the beaver as our national parks logo. Is that
going to be changed?
The chief executive officer has exclusive rights. In terms of
user fees the minister only has to consult someone she thinks is
interested in user fees. It could be the chief executive
officer. He would be interested. That is all that is required in
the act, whoever is interested, deemed by the minister.
I am interested. I live in Beauval, Saskatchewan. My children
are also interested about what happens in Banff and Waterton.
These are wonderful Canadian parks for Canadians. We are
interested but we will not be consulted.
I think we should take a second look at this agency, the powers
we are giving to it and the future of the legacy of our national
parks.
Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, on the second point of
consultation, the regime described in the bill is simply a
carryover of the existing practice. The minister is accountable
in this House for those decisions. The minister is a politician
like the rest of us. It is normal to expect the minister in order
to avoid a political firestorm to consult widely to protect the
government in the fashion which has been the practice up to the
current moment. It is a practice which is simply being
reincarnated in the proposed legislation.
As for the point about the renaming aspect of the bill, I would
venture a personal opinion here. When we have a brand name like
Parks Canada we would be a little careful about frittering away
the benefits of that brand name. It may be that the agency
aspect may simply be the title of record. Those are decisions we
will have to make in due course.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to voice my support for Bill C-29, the Canadian parks agency
act. While it is rare that we see eye to eye with the government
on issues, I feel that partisanship must be cast aside when good
ideas emerge. This rarely happens on the other side though.
Canada is a country filled with natural wonders. Our natural
environment is as much a symbol of our country as are the maple
leaf and the beaver. From Riding Mountain National Park in
Manitoba to Glacier National Park in British Columbia, our parks
are national treasures.
I represent the riding of Calgary East, a stone's throw away
from the beauty and splendour of Banff, Jasper and Yoho national
parks. I can say that Calgarians and indeed all Canadians are
extremely proud of their national parks.
People come from around the world to take in the beauty of our
country. In fact, our national parks and sites attract over 24
million visitors yearly and contribute over $2 billion annually
to the economy. While dollars do matter, we should not let this
alone determine our commitment to preserving our parklands.
1245
It is my hope that this bill will allow our national parks to
flourish while at the same time dramatically reducing the amount
of government resources needed to administer them.
Bill C-29 calls for the creation of a new agency, the Canadian
parks agency. Nine times out of ten I cringe when I hear of the
birth of yet another bureaucratic monolith. This usually means
that the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook to pump in maximum
dollars for minimum results.
However, in this case I see some merit in the establishment of
the Canadian parks agency. Let me explain why.
Parks Canada is currently responsible for our country's 38
national parks and, among other things, 131 national historic
sites. It manages over 225,000 square kilometres of Canada's
natural and cultural heritage and employs roughly 5,000 people.
At present responsibility for Parks Canada falls under the
Department of Canadian Heritage through the Secretary of State
for Parks who reports to the heritage minister.
The new agency will remain accountable, through the minister, to
Parliament. Perhaps the most significant change will be that the
new proposed agency will be able to raise and keep its own
revenue. This will no doubt contribute to more efficiency and
will hopefully lead to a decrease in the fees Canadians pay to
gain access to our national parks.
I have heard on numerous occasions from my constituents that the
costs of visiting places like Banff and Jasper are too high. The
user fees keep going up and up, discouraging Canadians from
visiting the national parks to see their own heritage. We have
an obligation to the people of Canada to make it as affordable as
possible for families to take advantage of this beautiful
country.
It is nice to see that once in a very long while the government
gets it right. In this instance the Liberals have acknowledged
that self-sufficiency in government is the right route to take.
The Canadian parks agency will be able to raise and keep its own
revenue. It will have access to $10 billion for parks and
historic sites. Normally this is where the taxpayer alarm would
sound. Another $10 billion of people's hard earned money will be
spent? However, in this instance any funds drawn from the $10
billion account will be repayable to the crown with interest from
revenue generated.
As well, third party operators will be permitted to administer
certain facilities. Outsourcing to private business will improve
service, increase revenue and deliver improved efficiency. This
new financial independence will allow the revenue generated to
flow back into the parks and sites. This in turn will allow for
the establishment and expansion of new initiatives. What this
means is that new parks will be created and those already in
existence will be better maintained. This is how the government
should work when it comes to areas such as this.
The agency will be able to bargain directly with its employees.
The CEO will have the authority to appoint employees and
establish terms and conditions of employment for agency staff.
Hopefully this will afford the agency the flexibility to develop
a human resource regime which is more responsive to the agency's
operational requirements.
In terms of accountability, the agency will fall under the
minister of heritage. She, in turn, will be accountable to
Parliament.
Moreover, the Canadian parks agency will fall under the Access
to Information Act. The auditor general will be able to audit
the agency at his discretion.
1250
Bill C-29 also commits the agency to hold consultations on a
biannual basis. This will allow Canadians to share their views
on the agency's program and to participate in the management
direction. This is especially important because we have to be
very careful that development is also balanced with the
environmental requirements to maintain the parks. The
maintaining of our environment is also very important.
The agency will consult directly with parties that may be
affected by any new fees. This hopefully will bring more
reasonable fees for Canadians to enter into the national parks.
The bottom line is that Parliament, the auditor general and,
most important, the Canadian people will be able to hold this new
agency accountable. What we have is a bill asking for the
creation of an agency that will be fully self-sufficient, more
efficient, more flexible and fully accountable.
It is also my hope that this new agency will contribute to the
maintenance and enhancement of Canada's natural environment. This
will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the
many natural wonders that Canada has to offer.
I was proud to be in this House supporting the legislation
introduced by the government which established the Saguenay
marine park, the first marine park in the world. It was my
pleasure to support that bill. I firmly believe that we have a
moral duty to preserve Canada's natural environment.
In closing, the official opposition is committed to having our
national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable,
efficient and cost effective manner. For the reasons outlined
above I see little reason why I should not support Bill C-29.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member spoke at the beginning of his debate about hope,
and at the end he also spoke of hope. How much hope do we have
in the government?
I listen to this party every day which talks about the
obligations of the government and the patronage appointments. Now
we are allowing another agency with a chief executive office to
be created by this government for another plum patronage
appointment. We are allowing the government to do that.
The other side will be going to question period raising an issue
about appointments in the other place. How can people trust your
point of view over what the Liberal government is proposing?
This is a capitalist form of commercialization of our national
parks and eventually privatization when hon. members take their
children, pay at the toll gate to lift the Stornoway gate up,
enter Walt Disney national park and come out and negotiate the
fee with the minister if she deems them to be of interest.
The agency does not create any assurances of your hopes of the
ecological integrity of the national parks of increasing the
amount of national parks that we have in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind hon. members
that it works best if members address each other through the
Chair. It tends to keep tempers down.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
respond to the hon. member's question.
He is right, I said hope. I did not give a full commitment
about that. I do hope the government will not build this thing
up with a patronage appointment. Please do not do it.
He is right regarding the question about whether this agency is
going to consult people. It has the ability to consult people
and to talk to Canadians. There is the question of who has the
input over this.
There is still a bureaucratic tangle over there. Some will say
they do not trust those people.
1255
At least here we have an arm's length agency hopefully that
Canadians can have an input in. It is accountable to Canadians.
Hopefully it will put down the user fees and will address the
environmental issues and other things that concern us with
reference to running a smooth parks network in this country.
That is important to us. Parks are a natural heritage. We have
parks here that are world heritage sites. We are custodians of
these parks for the people of the world.
An hon. member: The people will be the custodians,
not private enterprise.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We are saying that at least this
agency is responsible to Parliament as well as listening to the
Canadian people. Hopefully that addresses the hon. member's
question.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it interesting the evolution of this Liberal
government's financing to its departments. In the last
Parliament I was not here. I was out in the constituency and I
was aware of what was going on. It financed the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police to the tune of $100 million to set up 13
integrated proceeds of crime sections. The RCMP was forced to
borrow that $100 million and is now in the process of paying it
back.
I see there has been an evolution in this 36th Parliament to a
full retention and reinvestment authority for all revenues. I
wonder if this, in the hon. member's opinion, would be a good
thing to extend to the RCMP to fight crime, to have the moneys
retained and reinvested in fighting crime as opposed to paying it
back to the Treasury Board.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, what this has to do with
this bill is that we are creating an agency which is responsible
for keeping and administering the funds, not disappearing into
the government coffers. I think that is what the hon. member is
alluding to for the RCMP. This is a good point.
That is why we are supporting this one good idea of the
government. Maybe this idea will spread to other institutions as
well, including the RCMP, if it is feasible.
The government should start looking into this and doing these
kinds of things more often.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. I believe him to be a sincere member of
Parliament. I believe that what he was stating was what he feels
is accurate and true.
I appreciate that he is speaking on behalf of the minister, but
he said that he knew we had a lot of questions about this bill
but trust him, they will act in the best interests of Canadians.
We could count on them reflecting the views of Canadians.
These are the same folks who were against NAFTA, for example.
These are the same folks who were against the GST. When they got
into government they became GST enthusiasts, NAFTA enthusiasts
and now they are MAI enthusiasts. They even thought the GST was
so good they would apply it in a blended sales tax throughout all
of Atlantic Canada, knowing full well the people did not like
that.
When a government says trust it, I become very suspicious. It
is not a reflection on my hon. friend. When any government says
trust it, it will act in our best interests, there is sufficient
evidence to say that we ought to then panic. We then ought to
say we know we are being conned, we know there is a snow job
coming upon us.
Members can probably tell I do not support Bill C-29 at this
point. I know today we are debating the principle of the bill
and one ought to be generous when talking about the principle of
the bill.
The bill says we should change the name of Parks Canada to the
Canadian parks agency.
1300
What is behind all of this? Why would he want to change the
name Parks Canada? I suspect that if a global poll was done and
citizens from Bangladesh, Dubai, Equador or wherever were asked:
when you hear the name Canada what do you think about, what image
comes to mind, it would probably be a toss up between a Mountie
and some natural scenes, some park like settings, some pristine
environment.
I think that is Canada. We are a geographic country, a country
that is proud of our geographic heritage, the second largest
country in the world. Canada is probably the most untouched
pristine environment to be found anywhere on the globe. Our
national parks system epitomizes that. Our national parks are
sort of a Canadian icon that we leave for future generations.
I am pleased to say that we have expanded a number of national
parks over the last number of years in some very crucial areas. I
am proud to say that I am from British Columbia, a province that
has established more parks than any political jurisdiction in the
world, and for good reason. It is a tremendously and wonderfully
beautiful province. Vast parts of it will now be preserved for
generations and generations to come.
The theory of Parks Canada, or what is soon going to be called
the Canadian Parks Agency, I think tells a great deal about
Canada.
Is this act intended to improve the situation? From the
government's point of view, I suspect it must think it is
otherwise it probably would not introduce the act. Remember,
these are the same folks who think the GST is a good idea and
that the MAI is a good idea at this point, but I suspect they are
going to change their minds on that eventually.
Although the government thinks it is a good idea let us be
clear. Does it necessarily mean it is a good idea? The fact
that we gave the Bronfmans a $500 million tax break does not
necessarily mean that was a good decision taken by the
government. Just the fact that it is a government sponsored bill
does not necessarily say that this is in the best interest of
Canadians.
Let us also acknowledge that this bill involves a great deal of
Canada, 31 national parks, 786 historical sites, a number of
historical canal systems, 661 sites that are managed by third
parties that are ecologically or environmentally significant, 165
heritage railroad stations, 31 heritage river systems and others.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect you and I would agree that the things
that distinguish our country from virtually any other country is
what we are talking about today, the natural geographic and
historical significant parts of our country.
We take this very seriously. As New Democrats we have studied
Bill C-29. I want to say the hon. member for Churchill has spent
hours and hours speaking with people who are involved in the
parks system, speaking with people involved in Heritage Canada,
knowledgeable people on the ground as well as in the park theory
field. On balance, he tells us as caucus colleagues that he is
concerned about this bill, that the kind of impression that he
gleans from these extensive consultations is one of concern and
worry.
As a matter of fact, not many people think this is a good idea.
I suspect that we would save a great deal of trouble by just
cancelling Bill C-29 when we come to the vote but I am not so
neophyte to think that is likely to happen.
The background papers on Bill C-29 say that this is a
contribution toward simplicity, toward administrative efficiency,
toward human resource flexibility, toward improved financial
procedures. These are euphemisms. These are words that George
Orwell would have liked because when it says here human resource
flexibility, what it means is that we want to lower wages and
salaries of the people who work with Parks Canada, we want to pay
people less.
Why do I have this idea? Why do I have this perhaps
questionable or cynical approach to this human resource
flexibility? It is because this is what is going on now with the
Department of National Defence, that all the hundreds and
thousands of civilian employees who work now on bases, who are
paid a decent wage because of the collective agreements that have
been negotiated year after year, are now being told they are all
gone. We are going to privatize and rather than pay $15 an hour,
employees are now going to collect a minimum wage of probably
$5.50 depending on their provincial jurisdiction. That is the
reality. That is what is taking place today.
If that is what the Department of National Defence is doing, why
would we not think that is what this Canadian Parks Agency is
going to do? That is what the government is doing, so we assume
that what they do in national defence they will do now with the
national parks agency.
1305
Therefore, when the government talks about human resource
flexibility, let us be clear that is what it means. We are going
to have fewer people working in our parks, pay them less and have
less dedicated personnel.
As someone who has used our national park system from coast to
coast, both national and provincial, spending a good deal of the
summer hiking, camping, canoeing and riding in these pristine
environmental areas, if there is a group of men and women who
epitomize the best of Canada it is those people who work in our
park system. They are dedicated to the environment and to the
work that they do.
However, when we pay someone the minimum wage as opposed to a
decent salary now in Parks Canada, what is the signal we are
sending? The signal is that we do not think much of this job.
We are saying it is a low end job, a minimum wage job and a job
that anybody can do. We are saying it is a job we attach little
significance to. That is what we are telling them.
I do not think this is the way it should be in our society but
in our society, which is a money based, capital based society, we
measure people's value by what they are paid. Hockey players who
are paid $3 million are the superstars or rock stars. Others, I
think it is fair to say, who are paid minimum wage are not
normally those people who we hold in high esteem as a society. I
think it should be the reverse but that is the reality.
We talk about improved financial procedures. That is scary
language. If there is any language that should get us totally
upset in this House it is when the government starts talking
about improved financial procedures because everyone knows what
that means. It means less money. It means it is going to put
less money into Parks Canada and it is going to make the people
who use our parks pay for them in user fees.
If someone is a wealthy person or from a high income family and
somebody tells them that in order to use the parks they will have
to pay $10 to canoe down the river, $20 per night for firewood
and $50 to park a tent for a day or two, it is no big deal.
However, for increasing numbers of Canadians who see their
disposable incomes going down and down, and for many people to
zero and below, if we pass this legislation we are going to put
access to Canada's national parks out of the reach of many, many
Canadians.
An increasing number of Canadians who fall into the poor and low
income category will not have the benefit of using our national
parks because they will not be able to afford them.
How many of us as members of Parliament already hear regularly
from our constituents complaining about the costs of accessing
parks? A family with four and five kids who want to go camping
for two weeks in a national park will not be able to afford it.
With this legislation, we are now going to make it even more
difficult.
Section 24 of the act deals with the fees. It states that “the
minister must consult with any member who he or she considers to
be interested”. That is the consultation. Who is that? Maybe
she is going to consult with the hon. House leader for the
government. Maybe it is going to be the CEO of the Royal Bank.
We do not know.
If we look at the track record, we can only assume that this
does not mean good news. This does not mean that fees are going
to go down. It means I suppose how quickly they are going to
increase. Is that the kind of country we have become? Is that
the kind of place Canada has become? Are people going to have to
pay to go canoeing or to walk down the paths in our parks? Yes
it is and this legislation will simply make it worse.
This legislation is scary. I suspect that the government wants
to get this through the House really quickly before anybody
figures out what it is all about. I assume that my friends in
the Reform Party, in the Bloc and in the Conservative Party will
vote against it, and at least enough Liberals who are concerned
about the environment and the future of Parks Canada will vote
against. However, we will have to wait and see.
The government says that Bill C-29 is not about privatization.
That is simply not true. It is not called privatization, it is
called commercialization. It is a new word. Privatization is
now considered by an increasing number of people to be bad news,
not a good word, so it decided to change the word and call it
something else.
We will call it a commercialization. Fair enough. That is what
it means. That is what it is.
1310
It simply means that increasingly we will be turning the parks
into some kind of a quasi-business operation. That is not what
Canada is all about.
I want to close my remarks by saying let me look at this
government. This year we are going to see cuts to Parks Canada's
budget. This is at a time when the government proudly tells us
that we are in a balanced budget situation.
As a matter of fact, we have some billions of dollars in
surplus. There is so much money rolling in these days that the
government is not quite sure what the surplus is. It is not
positive. Next year, it looks like it will be at some
unimaginable level.
If that is the problem the government has, if it does not know
how much money it is collecting, why would it continue to cut
services in Canada's national parks? Why would it continue to
lay off park employees? Why would it continue to make life
difficult for people who are trying to run our heritage sites if
that is the situation? They tell us it is.
I suspect at the Liberal convention in the next few hours, we
will see most Liberals with their arms in slings come Monday
because they will be slapping themselves on the back for days on
end, twisting themselves out of shape to say what a great job
they have done balancing the budget. Still they want to impose
this kind of damage on our park system. There are some serious
inconsistencies here.
I could go on but I think I have probably said enough at this
introductory stage. To repeat, I think the beginning of the
massive change game, if there was another symbol other than the
national parks, is the RCMP.
There is no other police force in the world any better than the
RCMP. It represents the best of Canada, both past and present.
I suspect it will also represent the best in the future.
What did the government decide to do? It decided to sell the
rights of making money off the RCMP to Walt Disney. Disney now
has the right to market Mounties around the world. There are
little Mountie dolls, Mountie hats, Mountie statues in China, in
Taiwan and it is all done by the great corporation of Disney.
If there is anything that is kind of embarrassing, I will bet
the House leader for the government that there is not a single
Canadian, other than himself, who thinks this is a good deal, who
would actually stand up and say that one of the best things we
have done as a Liberal government was to hand over the RCMP
selling rights to Disney.
The government endorsed it. It liked this idea. I can imagine
the members getting all excited and having a party that night
when that happened. That is where we are. “We sold out the
image Mountie to Walt Disney. Okay, we have done that”. There
goes a little Canadian heritage out the window. “Why not
privatize the national parks? We will call it commercialization
or we will call it a special agency”.
I think I will leave it at that and simply end by saying that as
New Democrats—thanks to our critic, the hon. member for
Churchill—we have looked at this bill. We have talked about it
in caucus at some length.
I can honestly say that we cannot find a single good point in
this legislation. I will watch because, as I sit down, I suspect
we will get to the vote. I will watch my friends in the Reform
Party. They are sensitive people in certain areas.
I have not found any yet, but somewhere down there there is a
sensibility or a sensitivity. We will watch them because this is
the chance. How do we vote in terms of the future of Parks
Canada?
Do we turn it into the Canadian parks agency, a private
corporation to make money now out of our national parks system,
or do we continue in the great tradition of Parks Canada to
preserve our natural environment for generations and generations
to come?
This is the question. We will decide it on this vote.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite interested in the financial aspects of this
bill. Therefore I will make my question to the speaker quite
simple.
What effect does he see, if any, of the MAI agreement that could
come down on our national parks system in Canada? Is there a
possibility of foreign interests getting involved in our parks
system?
1315
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
that very thoughtful and insightful question. I think he knows
the answer but has given me the opportunity to say what I think.
Obviously the answer is yes. According to a provision in the
MAI any law that is passed like the recent law on MMT and that
eliminates the right of a private corporation to make profits
will be considered to be a form of expropriation. Consequently
today the Government of Canada is in court, so to speak, with
Ethyl Corporation of the United States because it is being sued
for passing legislation against the MMT.
Let us imagine a significant ecological site next door to a
potential mine. A decision is being taken, after the MAI is
signed and after a German mining company has shown interest in
developing the mine, to turn that area into a park for future
generations. That decision would be challenged under the
provisions of the MAI as a form of expropriation to that
theoretical German mining company. The government would have to
compensate with hundreds of millions of dollars to do that.
That is only part of the problem. The real problem is the chill
effect of that threat. The government knows that if it makes a
park of that area the German mining company will sue it for
hundreds of millions of dollars. It probably will not make it
into a park although it knows it should. In consideration of
future generations of Canadians the government knows that it must
be made into a park, but because it knows it will be sued and it
will lose, it is chilled and will not do it. It will chicken
out.
I guess we can call it the chicken out factor in the MAI that I
would be concerned about. I appreciate the question from my hon.
friend.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the speech of the NDP member from British Columbia. I
am happy we are on the same side of an issue, which shows that
people can get past politics to serve the country.
The member has some beautiful national parks in his province. I
would like to think we have one in the province of Saskatchewan.
The lack of a long range plan for parks across Canada bothers me
more than anything else in the legislation. Could the member
comment on how he sees this shortfall in the lack of a long range
plan for parks across the country?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to have these
thoughtful questions coming our way. I appreciate the
seriousness of my colleague's question. When I think of the
great province of Saskatchewan, one of the first images that
comes to mind is the Waskesiu Park, one of the most beautiful in
Canada. The member should be proud to live in such a province.
His question is well taken. We lack a national park policy that
makes any sense just as we lack a national waterways policy or a
national highway policy. Let us think of the value of our
national park system and related parks, the value of waterways
and the value of highways in Canada compared with any country in
the world. It is rather peculiar to think that we do not have a
national policy in these areas. The glaring shortcoming, as my
friend point out, is well taken. We need to have a national
policy to build the kind of legislation that allegedly is
attached to the bill.
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.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
1320
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of National Defence)
moved that Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak
on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
The legislation will strengthen the statutory framework
governing the operations of the Department of National Defence
and the Canadian forces, in particular the administration of
military justice. It ensures an effective and fair military
justice system, one that is capable of operating in conflict or
peace in Canada or abroad.
There are four key components to Bill C-25 as it relates to
military justice. First, these changes will enhance transparency
and provide greater structure to the exercise of individual
discretion in the investigation and the charging process.
Second, the amendments will modernize the powers and procedures
of service tribunals, including the elimination of the death
penalty under military law.
Third, the amendments will strengthen oversight and review the
administration of military justice.
Fourth, the amendments will clarify, for the first time in the
act, the roles and responsibility of the key figures in the
military justice system and set clear standards of institutional
separation for the investigative and prosecutorial defence and
judicial functions.
I am especially pleased to speak in support of the changes on
behalf of the minister, clarifying the roles of these key figures
in military justice.
If we picture the manner in which the Canadian system of
criminal justice functions in our cities and towns, there are
four sets of key figures: the investigators, the prosecutors,
the defence counsel and the judges. Each set of figures performs
a discrete function in the criminal justice system. It is the
interaction of these independent figures, each with a determined
role, that produces fair outcomes in individual cases.
Each of these figures can be found in the military justice
system. However, until recently their functions were largely
carried out under the umbrella of the chain of command.
Furthermore, the institutional separation between them was not as
pronounced as in civilian criminal law.
A further complicating feature of military justice in Canada is
that the Minister of National Defence has been assigned a variety
of quasi-judicial duties under the act. This has meant that he
played an active role in the administration of individual cases.
The roles, responsibilities and duties of the key figures are
not precisely set out in the National Defence Act as it is
presently laid out. This lack of precision has led to confusion,
uncertainty and misunderstanding about the respective functions
and relationships in delivering justice.
To ensure that these roles are clearly separated and to provide
objective guarantees that cases will be administered impartially,
Bill C-25 establishes the duties and institutional relationships
among the prosecution, defence and judicial functions.
To this end there are five important features of the bill. It
will remove the minister from the day to day administration of
individual cases. It will set out the qualifications and role of
the judge advocate general as legal adviser in relation to
military law. It will fully separate the prosecution function at
courts martial from the military chain of command by establishing
the position of director of military prosecutions. The director
will be appointed by the minister and responsible under the
general supervision of the judge advocate general for the
conducting of all prosecutions at courts martial.
1325
It will provide for the appointment of a director of defence
counsel services whose sole responsibility will be the provision
of legal services to accused persons in proceedings under the
code of service discipline.
Finally, it will provide explicitly for independent military
judges to be appointed by the governor in council for a fixed
term. Military judges are not responsible to the chain of
command in the performance of their judicial duties.
Let us look at the minister's role. The National Defence Act
assigns the minister with the management and direction of the
Canadian forces and all matters relating to national defence.
This includes responsibility for administration of military
justice. The act also gives the minister a variety of powers and
responsibilities relating to the day to day administration of the
code of service discipline.
The report of the special advisory group on military justice and
military police investigation services, chaired by the Right Hon.
Brian Dickson, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada, recommended the elimination of the vast majority of the
minister's duties and responsibilities for the administration of
individual cases under the code of service discipline.
Bill C-25 implements that recommendation. This approach will
avoid perceptions of interference or conflict of interest in the
administration of individual cases and will enable the minister
to devote more time to his or her normal political and policy
role.
I would now like to address the responsibility of the judge
advocate general. The JAG, as he is known in the armed forces,
has advised the department and the Canadian forces on military
history and law since 1911. However, the National Defence Act
does not set out his duties and this has contributed to
uncertainty about his roles.
Both the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission of
inquiry recommended that the roles of the JAG be clarified
through amendments to the act. Bill C-25 clearly sets out the
JAG's duties and functions as legal adviser to the governor
general, the Minister of National Defence, the Department of
National Defence, and the Canadian forces in matters of military
law.
In addition, the judge advocate general will superintend the
administration of military justice in the Canadian forces. In
fulfilling this mandate the JAG will be required to conduct
regular reviews and file an annual report to the minister, a
report which the minister must table in parliament.
These changes, in addition to clarifying the JAG's duties, will
improve the oversight and review of the administration of
military justice.
The National Defence Act is currently silent on the important
role of the prosecutor at courts martial. In this regard both
the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission recommended
the establishment of a military prosecutor, independent of the
chain of command, to deal with serious disciplinary and criminal
charges and to be responsible for the conduct of all cases before
courts martial.
Prosecutorial independence is a basic element in our criminal
justice system. A clear separation between the prosecution
function at courts martial and the chain of command provides
greater assurance that prosecution decisions will be free from
external influences and conflicts of interest.
Bill C-25 will achieve this objective through the establishment
of the position of director of military prosecutions. In order
to reinforce the director's independence from the chain of
command, the director will be appointed for a fixed term of four
years and will report to and act under the general supervision of
the judge advocate general. In order to ensure ministerial
accountability for military justice, the JAG's directions to the
director will be required in writing and the minister will be
informed.
Subject to certain limitations designed to protect the
administration of justice in individual cases, the director will
also have the duty to ensure that these directions are available
to the public.
The Dickson advisory group also recommended that the judge
advocate general's duties in respect of his or her separate
defence and prosecution functions be set out in the National
Defence Act.
Bill C-25 establishes a clear institutional structure for the
defence function. It establishes a director of defence counsel
services whose sole function will be to provide and co-ordinate
the provision of prescribed services to persons subject to the
code of service discipline.
1330
These services include legal assistance to persons detained or
arrested acting as defence counsel at courts martial and certain
appeals and providing legal advice to individuals making an
election to be tried by courts martial or summary trial. The
judge advocate general will supervise the overall provision of
these services. To protect the solicitor-client privilege of
accused persons, the judge advocate general will not be allowed
to give specific directions in individual cases.
These institutional arrangements will enhance the separation
between military defence counsel and other figures in the system.
They will provide greater assurance of independent legal advice
for those who need it.
With respect to the judicial function, whereas the minister
currently appoints officers to perform judicial duties, Bill C-25
will provide a statutory basis for the independence of these
military judges. It will do this by authorizing the governor in
council to appoint military judges to a fixed five year term.
These amendments have a positive impact on how the military
justice system is organized and conducted. The amendments secure
a statutory basis for the authority exercised by key figures in
the military justice system. The result is a modernized national
defence act which for the first time explicitly defines the
independent roles and functions discharged by each actor.
When viewed in their totality, these amendments will strengthen
the Canadian forces as a vital national institution by promoting
discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice among the men and
women of the forces. I urge all members to support Bill C-25.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the
defence act.
Today I will talk about the stated purpose of the bill. Then by
focusing on three different areas I will talk about what I think
in reality is in this piece of legislation. The first area I will
focus on is the reform to the military police. Second will be the
reform to the office of the judge advocate general. Third will be
something that is completely missing from this legislation, which
is an implementation of an independent inspector general. I will
focus on these three areas as I give the opposition reaction to
this legislation.
I will close by talking about a component that is completely
missing from the legislation and in fact from government when it
comes to our military. The component which is completely missing
is a true commitment to the military.
Bill C-25 amends the Department of National Defence Act. The
government says that this bill is presented to make substantial
changes to the military justice system in the Canadian Armed
Forces. It goes on to say that Bill C-25 does that by clarifying
the role and responsibilities of various players. Also it
separates on an institutional basis the system's investigative,
prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions. It is intended to
complete summary trial reform. It will reform sentencing
regulations. These are the things the government says this
legislation will do.
1335
The legislation will establish two independent oversight bodies
external to the Canadian forces. The first is the Canadian
forces grievance board and the second is the military police
complaints commission. It will require both of these boards and
the judge advocate general to file annual reports to the minister
which will be tabled before Parliament.
The legislation will require the Minister of National Defence to
have the National Defence Act reviewed and reported back to
Parliament in five years.
The legislation will also abolish the death penalty as a
punishment and will substitute it with life imprisonment for
crimes committed in the military.
To be fair, there are some positive changes in this bill. I
will focus on three areas. First I want to say that these
changes while positive, absolutely do not go far enough. For
that reason, Reform cannot support the bill at second reading.
Substantial amendments to the bill are needed. We will be
presenting amendments at committee and at report stage. If
substantial amendments are accepted then possibly we could
support this bill, but we feel that substantial amendments are
needed. To demonstrate this I am going to focus on three areas.
A critical area is that of implementing the position of an
independent inspector general. This is something Reform has been
proposing for some time and it was actually recommended recently
in the report on the Somalia inquiry. Unfortunately it is not
included anywhere in the legislation.
There currently is an inspector general. It is important to
clarify this. The inspector general in the forces right now is
not independent in any way from the military rank system. The
powers are very narrow. The way it has been described to me is
that the inspector general is there now more to inspect that the
uniforms are right, that people are wearing them properly, that
type of thing.
Clearly that is not the role we see for the independent
inspector general. We see a very substantive role. We feel it
is a role which is critical to fixing the military so that it is
an organization which functions well to protect Canadians. That
is the purpose of the military.
The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of an independent
inspector general. The government again has completely ignored
that key recommendation of the Somalia inquiry in this
legislation. This is despite the fact that the minister in the
press release announcing this legislation said that part of the
reason for this legislation was to respond to the recommendations
of the inquiry. He has completely missed this critical aspect of
the Somalia inquiry.
The minister has shown very clearly that he does not want an
independent inspector general in the Canadian military. He said
they did not need some outsider looking over their shoulders.
That attitude is upsetting. We expect in Canada that we will have
an outsider looking over the shoulders of those who run the
military. Those outsiders are the Canadian public represented in
the Parliament of Canada.
I would also suggest that the independent inspector general
could do a lot to head off some of the key problems before they
become big news stories. These have plagued the military and
have done a lot of damage to morale over the past several years.
The independent inspector general is not just to dig out dirt on
what goes on inside the military, far from it. The real key
purpose is to find these concerns, to listen to men and women
inside the forces and to act before there is another smudge on
the military through some big story in the media.
1340
Quite frankly the only media stories we need regarding the
military are positive stories which right now are completely
missed. There are many positive stories that should be told
about the military. We have excellent men and women serving in
the military. We have some excellent people in command positions
in the military.
We also have an awful lot of very serious problems particularly
in those command positions and other problems regarding the men
and women which have driven morale to an unprecedented low. We
certainly saw this as we travelled with the defence committee.
We do need someone looking over the military's shoulder and not
just Parliament, although we certainly need more of that, but we
also need an independent inspector general. I do not think there
is any doubt from events in the past and the recommendations of
the Somalia inquiry and some of the things that came out that
this position is needed.
The government's response to this position was the minister
announced the creation of the position of ombudsman in the fall
of 1997. He agreed to create that post following the
recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. That was another
separate position that was recommended in the Somalia inquiry.
The minister still has not followed through on that commitment.
Bill C-25 would seem to be a logical piece of legislation to
implement the minister's version of the ombudsman, which by the
way is much different from the version of the ombudsman that was
recommended by the Somalia inquiry.
These changes we are debating here today do not mention the
position of ombudsman at all. Not only has the independent
inspector general been left out, but also the ombudsman has been
completely left out in spite of the fact that the minister has
called for this position to be created.
When we look at the minister's own briefing notes on his idea of
the ombudsman, which is much different from the idea of the
ombudsman that was presented in the Somalia inquiry, he made it
very clear that the position would have very little power and
would not really affect the changes that are needed.
Just to quote the minister, he says that the ombudsman has no
formal authority, does not conduct formal investigations, makes
no formal recommendations and publishes no report of findings.
The ombudsman is a member of the organization but not a part of
its management structure. Rectification of problems continues to
remain within the chain of command. As pointed out and
recommended by the minister, that is the reality of what the
ombudsman would do.
Not only do we not have the independent inspector general in
this legislation, but there is no mention at all of the ombudsman
in spite of the fact that the minister has actually said that he
would institute an ombudsman. Those are the two glaring holes we
see in this legislation.
The second area I am going to focus on is the office of the
judge advocate general. I question whether there is a need for a
change to the office of the judge advocate general. If we are
making changes, we had better know there is a need for them. It
has been demonstrated pretty well that there is a need for major
reform to the office of the judge advocate general. The
unfortunate thing about this is that the changes proposed in this
legislation do not solve the basic problems which I will talk
about in a minute.
First to answer the question of whether there is a need for
change, clearly there is. In the Somalia debacle, the lower
ranks were blamed for the actions of the higher ranks. Documents
were destroyed and officers lied on the stand. This clearly
points out the need for reform of the office of the judge
advocate general.
1345
The Dean Marsaw case, which was a well publicized case, points
that out. There have been various individual courts martial that
really show the need for reform in this office.
The Bakovici hospital case in Bosnia and the way that was
handled shows a clear need for reform in the office of the judge
advocate general.
Most recently, in the Simone Olofson case that I brought before
this House last week, a letter was written from the judge
advocate general to this lady who made a presentation to the
standing committee in Cold Lake.
She presented after the minister and the chief of defence staff
said “We encourage members of the forces to present. They can be
assured that there will only be positives that will come from
this”. “We want to hear from people”, they said. “Come, bare
your souls. Be witnesses before this committee and we will
listen carefully. We will take the information we get and try to
make things better”. That is what they said.
What did they do? They sent a threatening letter to Simone
Olofson. They criticized her in the strongest terms for
presenting before the committee. There was a threat that really
was not veiled that if she speaks out again she is going to be in
trouble.
This woman works on the base in Cold Lake on a contract basis.
She is not a member of the forces. Her father works on the base
along with her father-in-law and her mother-in-law. They can go
through the list. There are a lot of people in her family who
depend on work at the base.
The judge advocate general, or perhaps it was the deputy judge
advocate whose name was on the letter, actually pushed this thing
forward.
This could have come from the minister. We do not know. It
could have come from any rank higher than this person. The way
the military works, these people will write the letter they are
told to write. I do not want to lay the blame just on that
individual, although clearly the letter was wrong.
The minister said he apologized for it. I did not really see
much of an apology but at least he did acknowledge that it was
wrong, that it never should have happened. That letter shows
clearly the need for some major reform in the office of the judge
advocate general.
What Reform has said on this is that this office needs to be
independent. Currently the JAG is appointed by the privy council
office on advice from the chief of defence staff and reports to
the chief of defence staff.
Members can tell from that that really there is no freedom, that
there is not the kind of independence that is needed in this
office. It was recommended again in the Somalia report.
It needs to be recognized that conflict of interest between the
judicial, the prosecutorial and the defence roles no longer
exist. We have been calling for that to be clearly separated.
In this legislation, if members were to read it and listen to
the words that have been spoken about it, that happens. In
reality there really is not the independence and they all still
answer to the chain of command.
That independence just is not there. What is in this
legislation is not as it is being presented by the government
side. That is pretty clear. We have some great concerns about
this office of the judge advocate general.
The minister again says that the changes have been recommended
in order to further strengthen the independence of the JAG. It is
clearly not there. His words just do not match up with what is
in the legislation. Prior to these amendments, the National
Defence Act did not list the requirements for the JAG to be a
military officer.
What I want to do with this next minute or so is point out the
changes that have been made in this legislation which actually
make this appointment even less independent.
I will go through that step by step. Prior to this legislation,
the amendments to the National Defence Act did not require that
the JAG be a military officer.
As the National Defence Act states, the JAG will be an officer,
a barrister or advocate with at least 10 years standing at the
bar of a province. That is what is stated partly in this
legislation.
The pool of individuals who would qualify for this position of
judge advocate general, which was previously not limited by rank,
has now been limited to a pool of very few people.
Some say there are as few as four people in the military who
would qualify under the guidelines which are laid out in the
legislation.
1350
Instead of making things better, it is pretty clear that this
legislation makes things worse. It narrows the pool even more.
There is a problem with these changes, other than just the
narrowing of the pool. The JAG will still be within the chain of
command. He will have three levels of officers above him. He
will be outranked by approximately 25 individuals. What we
called for is more independence. We suggested that the JAG be
taken out of the normal chain of command.
If that does not happen, he will be outranked by 25 people. We
know what that means in the military. It means that when one of
those 25 people give an order the JAG will listen.
The rank system still allows for influence to be held over the
JAG. In fact, these changes will allow that to become law.
The present minister has already recognized the problem inherent
in these amendments. In making the most recent appointment last
week, the minister went outside of the current list of serving
candidates to recall a retired lieutenant-colonel to fill the
position of JAG. Lieutenant-Colonel Pitzul was promoted two
rungs to become brigadier general, which is the required rank
under this legislation.
This rank jumping negates the entire military hierarchical
system which will make a mockery of the position. That is a
fundamental problem with what has been done with the office of
the JAG by this legislation.
The best person for the job may not be able to fill the
position. If he is a civilian he will not be able to do that
unless he has the proper background.
These changes, when we really look at them, will not increase
the independence, as promised, but in fact will only make the
system even more closed than before. Clearly, the office of the
judge advocate general has not been reformed in this legislation
as it should have been.
The third area is that of the military police. I will not talk
much about it, but I want to give a very brief outline of what
has happened in that area.
The military police should have been taken completely out of the
chain of command and given more independence. It is a very
similar problem to that of the office of the judge advocate
general.
The military police should report to the attorney general in
matters relating to the investigation of major disciplinary
offences and criminal misconduct, particularly when the
infractions occur in Canada.
Judge Warren was commissioned to report on the military police.
He recommended they not have the power in Canada to conduct
criminal investigations, and yet this recommendation was
completely ignored in Bill C-25. It is another glaring gap in
this legislation.
I have talked about some of the specific problems with this
legislation. What I want to do now is talk about a missing
component of this legislation and other legislation which may
come forward. That missing component is the commitment of
government to the military. That commitment must appear in three
ways. It must appear in words. The government must reinforce,
again and again, that the military is important to Canadians. We
need our military. We need the kind of security which comes with
a well trained and well equipped military.
1355
The second thing needed is commitment in terms of dollars, and I
will talk a little about that. The third is a commitment in
terms of the change in the structure of the military.
In terms of the commitment in words, it might be thought words
would be the easiest way a government could show commitment to
the military. I want to ask the following of any of the
government members. When is the last time a Liberal prime
minister showed real commitment to the Canadian military? When is
the last time a Liberal prime minister said we really need the
military of this country? When is the last time a Liberal prime
minister said the men and women in the military were doing a good
job or that the reason the military maybe is not functioning as
well as it should is because of the basic structure of the
military? I challenge the members to find the last time the
Prime Minister said things like that.
In fact, one would have to look back a long way. My guess would
be about 30 years. Clearly the commitment to the military
has not been there in words in any way. We have heard the
defence minister on occasion show some support for the military.
I think that is one of the jobs of the defence minister, but for
the Prime Minister it has been an awful long time.
Give some credit to the Conservatives. Certainly the
Conservative government and former Prime Minister Mulroney did
show a lot more respect for the military, did show more
commitment to the military and did express our need for the
military. They did it not only in words, they did it in terms of
dollars and in terms of change. Those are the things I will talk
about when I rise to complete my presentation after question
period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this Sunday marked the beginning of the Arctic winter games in
Yellowknife. More than 1,500 athletes and staff participated for
one week of competitions, cultural exchanges and shared new
experiences.
Since 1970 these games are held every two years and include
participants from all regions of the circumpolar world. This
year there were contingents from Russia, Greenland and Alaska
joining the NWT, Yukon and Northern Alberta to compete in 18
different sports ranging from hockey to traditional Arctic
sports. A number of cultural presentations from the different
regions were also present.
These were the last games for the NWT as one territory. In the
next games to be held in the year 2000, Nunavut athletes will
represent a new territory for the first time and will have full
participation in the event. This will give Nunavut residents the
opportunity to express their distinct culture and share their
experiences with other participants. The Arctic winter games
provide—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
March 21 is the international day for the elimination of racial
discrimination. I take great pride in the fact that Canada in
1989 became the first country in the world to have a national
March 21 campaign.
Unfortunately racism continues to be a problem in countries
around the world, including Canada. Yesterday evening I had the
honour to attend the finals in Toronto of the stop racism
national video competition.
Students from across Canada produced brief segments of the
problems of racism in Canadian society. These young Canadians
showed an awareness to a problem we should all be addressing.
Racism divides people and weakens society.
The Reform Party is committed to fighting racism. Therefore we
pledge to work with all Canadians in order to ensure that
discrimination is eradicated in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, March 20, Canada and every country where French is spoken will
celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
As we know, the international francophone community is an integral
part of Canada's foreign policy and all Canadians benefit from this
window on the world, as a result of the cordial relationships we have
established with French-speaking countries on all continents.
1400
As one of the most active members of this multinational community,
Canada will continue to uphold the fundamental values we all share,
values such as democracy, human rights and, above all, the rights of
women and children.
I would like all members of this House to join me in wishing all
francophones in Canada and around the world a great Journée
internationale de la Francophonie.
* * *
[English]
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind all hon. members that March
21 marks the 10th anniversary of the celebration of the
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which was crafted by a Canadian, John Peters Humphrey.
We live in a Canada that enjoys a worldwide reputation as a
model society that values social justice and democracy above all
else. In reality, racism and social discrimination continue to
act as barriers to the realization of our full potential as a
socially responsible, progressive and prosperous nation.
Let us resolve anew to build upon our determination to craft a
society in which every citizen feels a proud sense of belonging,
a society in which social justice is a reality and not just a
dream.
* * *
[Translation]
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to address a number of issues which are important to the
people in my riding.
[English]
I have said it in this House before and I will say it again.
Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be the place to be in the
brand new century, in the brand new millennium ahead. I want to
share with my colleagues the enthusiasm I have for my riding of
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte. We are hosting the National
Triathlon Championships and heading into the world qualifying
matches. The world will be joining my riding, here with us,
colleagues included. Mr. Speaker, you are invited as well.
We will start off the brand new 1999 with Soirée '99. It is
Newfoundland and Labrador's 50th anniversary as part of
Confederation when Canada also joined Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, you are invited to that as well. We are also
celebrating the 1999 Canada Winter Games. Members of this House,
including the Speaker, are invited to that event.
To cap it all off, the brand new millennium will be first hailed
in in L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. We are ahead of our
time, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: That is the best offer I have had today. The
hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday the Toronto Dominion Bank announced that the
British Columbia economy is essentially in recession. It is not
hard to understand why. For example, a Swedish company, Bolidon
Limited, purchased Gibraltar Mines near Williams Lake less than
three months ago. Last week it announced that it is permanently
closing this mine with a 12-year ore reserve still in the ground.
What it really wanted were the Chilean mines in the deal.
Two hundred and seventy-eight people will lose their jobs. The
economic spin-off of this closure will only add to the economic
devastation felt by the community as a result. The actions of
both the provincial and federal governments have had an enormous
detrimental impact on my riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin and on the
entire province of British Columbia. While the national
unemployment rate is falling, it rose by almost .5% last month to
9.7% which is higher than it was when this Liberal government
began its economic reforms in 1994.
British Columbians are suffering. What does this government
care? British Columbians demand changes—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
* * *
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I rise to point out a disgraceful act. I want to make you aware
that members of this House are making allegations all the time,
hiding behind parliamentary immunity. They have made accusations
of bribery. However, they refuse to make these same statements
outside of this House while they know full well they would be
sued for their untrue allegations.
The Prime Minister of Canada is considered to be a man of
integrity. He is one of the most highly respected politicians in
Canada and in the world. Like many other Canadians, I am proud
that this good Canadian is my leader. If the Reform Party leader
would follow the Prime Minister's example, he too might carry
some respect in Canada.
It is this simple. The Canadian people want Reformers to
apologize or make their statements outside of this House. The
leader and the deputy leader of the Reform Party quite simply and
knowingly have lied, yes lied, Mr. Speaker.
1405
The Speaker: Those words are not permitted in the House
of Commons. I would like you to withdraw those last words.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: If they would withdraw their comments,
Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleague, I want you to withdraw your
words. These words are not parliamentary. I would ask you
specifically to withdraw those words.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: I withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the past two weeks the leader of the Reform Party has been
abusing the parliamentary traditions of this House.
The leader of the Reform Party has been making false
allegations, allegations that he is not strong enough to repeat
outside the Chamber. Shame on the leader of the Reform Party.
We hope that the leader of the Reform Party is inspired by the
higher goals of honesty and integrity.
* * *
[Translation]
CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a
former minister responsible for the status of women, I attended the
ceremony commemorating the 25th anniversary of Quebec's Conseil du
statut de la femme.
In the National Assembly's red room, the council's current
chairwoman, Diane Lemieux, the Speaker of the National Assembly,
Quebec's minister of employment and minister responsible for the status
of women, Louise Harel, the opposition leader and the premier took turns
at the microphone to pay tribute to the council and its successive
chairwomen. In the evening, more than 400 women gathered to celebrate,
reminisce and plan for the future.
In Quebec, the Conseil du statut de la femme is an important
institution. In addition to providing assistance to women and women's
groups in those regions where it is represented, the council conducts
research, publishes information and makes policy recommendations.
Unlike the federal government, which abolished the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Government of Quebec not
only supports but—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on March 30 the voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam will have an
opportunity to send a voice to Ottawa that will represent them.
They will say “no” to this Liberal government that refuses to
listen and continually ignores British Columbians.
Let us talk about the facts. Let us talk about this Liberal
dismal record.
The B.C. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not only failed to
move forward in the Pacific salmon dispute, but he has put us in
a worse position than we were five years ago. He knows he is
about to close the lighthouse on Vancouver Island, the very
lighthouse which talked him to safety some 20 years ago. They
closed CFB Chilliwack, the only armed forces base in B.C. This
Liberal government raised taxes to the highest level since
Confederation and cut millions from B.C. health care and
education.
B.C. residents are sick and tired of being told by this
government what is good for them. They want someone who will
stand up and listen, someone who will fight for them. The Reform
Party is the only party that will listen and stand up for B.C.
* * *
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the second time this week I am compelled to rise and address
the disgraceful antics of the official opposition.
I have served in municipal, provincial and federal legislatures
since 1978. In all those years I have never seen a leader of the
opposition so shamelessly hide behind the veil of parliamentary
immunity like the leader of the Reform Party.
He has made slanderous accusations against the Prime Minister in
the House, yet he does not have the courage to make those same
allegations outside the House. Why? Because he knows they are
unfounded.
Reform campaigned on a promise to rise above this level. Its
antics have shown otherwise. This is the true face of Reform.
Canadians deserve honest and responsible representation. Not
shameful antics designed to disrupt Parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
OTTAWA SUN
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Conrad Black
owns half the newspapers in Canada, including two French-language papers
in Quebec.
But it is only in his English-language newspapers that can be found
all the substance, content, and depth of the federalist arguments for
Canadian unity.
This morning's Ottawa Sun carried two columns that are real gems.
Earl McRae has all kinds of nice words to describe sovereignists:
seditious rats, dumbs, loud-mouths, devious, anti-Canada, treacherous
turncoats.
1410
As for Linda Williamson, she compares the sovereignist movement in
Quebec to ethnic nationalism in Yugoslavia.
These brilliant columnists want the Bloc Quebecois out of the House
of Commons. That is exactly what we want too. In case they did not
realize, we are working toward an independent Quebec. Conrad Black
should publish editorials such as these in his French-language papers in
Quebec. Their wish to do away with sovereignists in Ottawa would be
fulfilled even sooner.
* * *
[English]
BANKS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
town of Lynn Lake is the latest victim of the Liberal government
position: Let the banks decide.
The banks say bigger is better. They talk about providing
better service at a better price.
Mayor Audie Dulewich of Lynn Lake and many in the community
tried to keep services there. The bank, in spite of giving
assurances to myself and the community, is not able to provide
minimal service let alone better service.
Bank mergers, job loss, intimidation tactics, excessive
surcharges, bank closures; what more does this government need?
How many more communities will have to suffer the fate of the
people of Lynn Lake before this government takes action and
ensures that banks, in their privileged positions, have a
responsibility to provide the service Canadians want?
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF REFORM PARTY
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to talk
about Reform, but they will understand only half my statement because I
will use both languages.
Over the last two days, the leader of the Reform Party has shown
his true colours by refusing to repeat outside the House the serious
accusation he has made here.
He is accusing a senator of buying a seat in the Senate, and the
Prime Minister of receiving financial gains in exchange for this
appointment. But he would not say a word about this outside the House.
[English]
Shame on the Leader of the Reform Party.
Yesterday, we saw the true face of the Leader of the Opposition.
He stood in this place and accused the Prime Minister of allowing
a senator to buy his seat. This is a very serious accusation
against the Prime Minister, an accusation that the Leader of the
Opposition does not have the courage to make outside of the
House.
* * *
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
businesses on the island of Newfoundland receiving goods from or
exporting goods to Canada must run a gauntlet of toll gates on
the Trans-Canada Highway in the maritimes. The one-way toll in
Nova Scotia is $10 per truck and the one-way toll in New
Brunswick will soon be $27.50 per truck.
Therefore, a truck making one round trip a day every day for a
year would have to pay over $27,000 a year in tolls. This will
drive up the cost of doing business in Newfoundland and will
cause us to lose jobs and economic development.
I call on the federal government to exercise its constitutional
responsibility and take action to ensure the free flow of goods
and services in Canada. We do not have a railway in
Newfoundland, so it is up to the federal government to allow us
to keep on trucking.
* * *
[Translation]
SIMCOE NORTH FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Semaine de la francophonie gives all Canadians the chance to
celebrate French-speaking communities throughout Canada. My
riding has a proud French-speaking community that is not afraid
to take its future into its own hands.
Through perseverance and solidarity with other French-speaking
communities and successive governments, this community in Simcoe North
has been able to get the means and resources to secure its collective
development and well-being.
For example, the French-speaking people of Simcoe North have their own
community radio station, literacy centre, schools, community centre and
newspaper.
This community is always facing new challenges, but I am sure it
will be up to the task thanks to the solidarity that exists among its
members and among all of Canada's French-speaking communities.
Long live the French-speaking community in Simcoe North and long
live the Canadian francophonie.
* * *
[English]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we can
surely tell there is a Liberal convention in town judging by the
antics of the Liberal last row members of Parliament on the other
side today.
I want to quote from an article by Sean Durkan dated March 18,
1998. It states: “Did you know the Department of Justice
completely misreported RCMP statistics on criminal use of
firearms to make them look far worse than they were and bolster
the argument for gun control. I agree with gun control but
having the department alter figures to suit its purposes is
outrageous”.
1415
I for one would like to know what else the justice department
misreported. If justice officials deliberately misrepresented
RCMP crime statistics on gun use and violent crime, how do we
know they did not mislead the public in other evidence?
This is just one more example of the Liberal way of ramming
through distasteful legislation by concocting their own evidence.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the government about the Senate and please do
not sue me.
The Liberals are being a touch sensitive about the lucky lackey
in the Senate. David Black served on Viceroy's board of
directors with the Prime Minister. He says that Viceroy rewarded
the Prime Minister with shares. That is fine. It is even legal.
Why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week that he
received no remuneration for his work at Viceroy? Why did he say
it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the important question is why did the Reform Party
assert wrongdoing when protected by the privilege of the House of
Commons in the House and not have the guts or the integrity to
repeat the charges outside the House.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
there is to be a lawsuit I expect the Prime Minister should be
sued for false advertising. He broke his promise to end Senate
patronage.
It is unbelievable the upset these Liberals are feigning.
Yesterday the Prime Minister was so upset that he did something
he has not done in years. He actually stepped outside and talked
to reporters. Too bad he did not stay to answer their requests.
The Prime Minister said he received no remuneration. This is a
simple question. David Black admitted that the Prime Minister
was rewarded. Why is the Prime Minister still claiming he was
not given remuneration for his work at Viceroy? Why is he still
saying that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I return to the real issue. Why, when the Leader
of the Opposition stepped outside the House, did he not have the
integrity, the dignity and the class to repeat these allegations
if he thought they were true?
This proves they are not true and the members of the Reform
Party are abusing the process and privileges of the House. They
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think we can get third time lucky here. The reason Canadians are
asking these questions is that the Liberals are breaking their
election promises on integrity in government.
In 1990 the Prime Minister told Canadians “I am not interested
in patronage because I am a Liberal. I know if I make my friend
a millionaire he will become a Tory”. This latest millionaire
appointment is Liberal to the core.
Why did the Prime Minister promise to end patronage appointments
and then continue to give his friends jobs in high places? Why?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why has the Reform Party broken the pledge of the Leader
of the Opposition made in the Winnipeg Free Press on
January 16, 1994 “to do away with political cheap shots,
personal remarks, booing, desk thumping and rude noises”.
That promise has been broken and the question of the hon. member
is nothing more than a rude noise which does not belong in the
House of Commons.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Alberta is having Senate elections this fall because they are
sick of the Prime Minister's patronage appointments and they
simply refuse to accept another Ross Fitzpatrick.
Day after day the Prime Minister has told the House he will
ignore Alberta's wishes and will appoint his friends instead.
Albertans are doing what the Charlottetown accord never would
have allowed them to do, that is holding a province-wide election
on senators.
Why does the Prime Minister think that his patronage
appointments are more honourable than a democratic Alberta
election?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why did the Reform Party vote against the Charlottetown
accord?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
1420
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Reform Party had
voted for the Charlottetown accord the last paragraph of clause 7
of the accord would have gone into effect which states “Matters
should be expedited in order that Senate elections be held as
soon as possible and if feasible at the same time as the next
federal general election for the House of Commons”.
If they had not voted against the accord, there could have been
an elected Senate as far back as the elections of 1993.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the arrogance of the government has no bounds. It simply refuses
to listen to Canadians.
How could any prime minister ignore what has gone on with
Senator Thompson in his absenteeism? This Prime Minister did.
How could any government ignore the wishes of Albertans who want
to elect senators, not appoint them? This government is. How
could the Prime Minister and the government so misread the mood
of Canadians when it comes to Senate reform?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister had misread the mood of Canadians,
why is it that he won a second back to back majority victory for
only the sixth time in Canadian history?
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, when I asked the heritage minister about Option Canada, she
only managed to reply that she was not the minister at the time. Yet, to
my knowledge, the principle of cabinet solidarity still exists.
Are we to understand from the minister's comments that she is
beginning to distance herself from the decisions made by her
predecessor, who authorized a $2 million grant to Option Canada, 12 days
before the application was submitted?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I already said that the comments made by the hon. member, and
by the member for Rimouski—Mitis who keeps repeating them, are false.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
replies such as this one, it is not surprising that the minister is no
longer the Deputy Prime Minister.
But let us go back to the issue. The minister said that, following
the auditor general's request, she asked the president of Option Canada
to submit a report on the use made of the funds given to that
organization.
Can the minister release the letter she claims to have sent to the
president of Option Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, any information that is released is on the public record.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly
ridicule does not kill anyone, otherwise the minister would have died a
long time ago.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Option Canada
spent nearly $5 million, and, two and half years later, still no one
knows how.
I would like the minister to tell me if she has set a
deadline by which the president of Option Canada must reply and, if so,
quite simply, what is this deadline?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Indeed,
Mr. Speaker, the expenditures involved exactly match those made by
Option souveraineté Québec.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whose
member's question the minister answered, but I will put another one to
her.
Since Claude Dauphin, who was the president of Option Canada at the
time the grant was awarded, now works for the Minister of Finance as an
adviser on Quebec affairs, will the minister at least tell us who is
currently the president in charge of Option Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member says he does not know whose question I
answered.
The interesting thing about Bloc members is that, when they do not
like the information they are provided with, they cast it aside. We will
recall the Le Hir episode. Millions of dollars were spent by the PQ when
they were intent on achieving sovereignty.
1425
After looking into the matter, Mr. Le Hir distanced himself from
the sovereignist option and poof—he was gone. Poof—bye bye
francophones! Any information they do not like they make disappear.
* * *
[English]
RACISM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On March 21, United Nations
international day for the elimination of racism, a white
supremacist meeting in Oliver, British Columbia, will try to
solicit support for an Internet provider who has become an
electronic news-stand for publications fostering hate against
aboriginals, new Canadians, francophones, the Jewish community
and other groups.
Racist groups are flaunting the law by using the Internet. What
is the government doing to ensure that Canada does not become an
electronic safe haven for hate mongers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important question. It is an issue that
concerns all of us who are both encouraged by the prospects and
opportunities that new technology creates and mindful of the
downside.
All the criminal laws that apply to hate or pornography in other
forms of publication apply with equal force to the electronic
media. We will ensure they are enforced as stringently as
possible.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as various
white supremacist groups are now converging in the town of
Oliver, British Columbia, the city hall has called for an
expedited investigation of the problems regarding the regulating
of Internet material, specifically racism and hate literature
including such topics as neo-Nazi, white supremacist and
anti-Semitic literature.
Internet providers should be responsible for hate material
stored in their systems.
Will the Minister of Justice take steps immediately to modernize
the law to define the legal responsibility of Internet providers,
especially when it comes to hate and pornographic materials?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again this is an important issue. For that reason
Canada is hosting a number of international meetings that will
touch on it.
There will be a meeting of the OECD in October in Ottawa which
will deal with electronic commerce and other aspects of the
information highway. As well, there will be an international
conference held in Canada that will raise the very issues the
hon. member has raised.
It is complex from a legal point of view. However, I believe it
is key to understand that nothing distinguishes electronic
communication from other forms of communication. All aspects of
the Canadian law with respect to pornography and hate mongering
apply equally.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Moody's, the firm that sets international credit ratings, has
expressed fear that the government will start indiscriminate
Liberal spending yet again.
Despite the claim of a balanced budget, Canada's credit rating
is two levels below that of our international trading partners.
When will the Prime Minister admit that the financial markets do
not have confidence in his policies because they know he will
choose spending over giving Canadians the meaningful tax relief
they need?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ultimate
confidence in the financial markets of the world is expressed
through interest rates, which have come down from being at least
two percentage points higher when the Tories were in office to
below across the board U.S. rates today.
If we had adopted Tory policies in this regard, including its
massive tax cuts the last time, we would have been right down in
the sewer.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised the minister did not mention the Canadian dollar, which
has shown some upward movement recently. The fact is that the
only upward movement in the dollar is due to leadership, but not
the leadership on that side of the House.
The Prime Minister's idea of leadership is to place blame on the
provinces for the health care system this government destroyed
and to place blame on the currency traders for the government's
financial ineptitude. He sounds more like President Suharto than
he does the prime minister.
When will the Prime Minister start taking some responsibility?
When will he recognize that the dollar remains weak because the
fundamentals of this economy are wrong?
1430
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ultimate in
hypocrisy is the Tory party coming before us and suggesting that
it has set the course for the good fiscal management of this
country.
We have gone through a very difficult period. We will continue
to take a balanced approach to keeping our fiscal house in order
and to paying down our debt, reducing taxes and investing in the
future of Canadians. Financial markets of the world have called
Canada, for example, the economic miracle. We will continue
that.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me read to members from a fiction novel: “I didn't want to
be trapped into making decisions on patronage, local contracts
and appointments that cause so much friction and bad blood”.
Members are probably asking where that comes from.
That fairy tale came from page 196 of the Prime Minister's own
book called Straight from the Heart. If the Prime Minister
will not listen to Canadians about patronage, for goodness' sake,
will he at least listen to his ghost writer?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Reform Party should be hired by a creative
writing department at a university. When it comes to fiction, it
is setting new standards, and they are very low standards.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
certainly the Liberals are feeling the heat on this one. They
have stopped showing their arrogant side and now they are showing
their bullying side, threatening to sue us and trying to shout us
down, anything to stop Canadians from getting—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, what I would tell the
government is that seat in British Columbia does not belong
to the Liberal Party of Canada. It does not belong to the front
benches of the Liberal Party. It belongs to the people of
British Columbia. They own that seat. Why is the Prime Minister
treating it like it is Liberal Party property?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is using the Reform concept of creative
fiction when he develops his second question. We are very
conscious of the concerns and desires of the people of British
Columbia and all of Canada.
The hon. member has yet to show, to quote the Leader of the
Opposition “we have to demonstrate in five years to the people
of Canada that we can do politics differently”. Perhaps he has
demonstrated that because he and his party have brought the
standards of decorum in this House to new lows and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
controversial matter of Option Canada, in which money was spent without
us really knowing where it went, we can say that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage is as transparent as the door of a safe.
She just said that the letter she wrote was made public. If so, why
has her office refused to give us a copy? If this is true, will she ask
her assistants, upon leaving this House, to give us a copy of that
letter?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I put everything in the file. I myself gave the members
opposite about 118 pages of information, from which they drew their own
conclusions. Unfortunately, no fewer than four times in this House, and
also in Saskatchewan, the Bloc Quebecois has misled the public with
regard to the contents of this file.
1435
All I want is for you to stop—
The Speaker: The member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will never
know the end. How sad!
The last time the heritage minister gave that kind of answer, it
was in the GST matter in which she had to resign. This is disturbing.
It is she who is misleading the House. Is she willing to make that
letter public, as she just said? Will she instruct her officials to make
that letter public when she leaves this House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell the House that all the information is in the
public domain. I am quite prepared to provide all the information they
want, but they are not interested. All they want to do is play politics,
as they are doing this week with the Semaine nationale de la
francophonie.
When francophones have the opportunity to celebrate together, we
see people like Sylvain Simard who shamelessly play politics with French
Canadians. The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois should be ashamed.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general is fighting back in response to the blistering
letter he received from the government the other day. He has
told the government to go take a hike because he will have no
part in the minister's game of cooking the books.
My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Why do
taxpayers have to cough up two and a half billion dollars today
when students will not see a penny of this for more than two
years?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have come
through a very difficult time but finally we have balanced the
books and we are now starting to pay down our debt. This is due
in large measure to the fact that we have adopted a policy of pay
as you go combined with total openness and transparency so
Canadians can understand exactly where we are. This is why we
will continue to hold ourselves to the most rigorous possible
standard of openness and transparency. This is our policy.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
has nothing to do with pay as you go. The new policy of the
government is take now and give it back later. If the taxpayer
were to do his books that way he would be in jail because Revenue
Canada would never stand for that.
When is the minister going to smarten up and realize this double
standard is costing Canadian taxpayers a two and a half billion
dollar tax break this year?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have
done here is very simple. We have adopted the proposition and
the principle that when you commit to paying money you no longer
have that money available to spend on something else. Every
household and every business knows this. This is the policy of
this government. When we commit, we pay.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is to
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The minister stated yesterday that he wanted all the money that
will be put into the millennium scholarship fund to go to students,
which the Quebec government is not committed to do.
How can the minister lead students to believe that he wants to give
them more money when his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, said that Quebec just had to subtract from loans and
scholarships any amount received from the millennium fund?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the Quebec government does not intend to do that because the
objective is for both governments to work together to help students.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs should speak to his colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
Does the minister not agree that, if he really wants to give more
money to students, he must not do so through the millennium scholarship
fund but by giving back to Quebec the millions of dollars he cut in
education?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us not forget that, from 1993-94 to this day, the Government of
Canada has cut its own expenditures by nearly 11% and its transfers to
the provinces by 7.4%.
1440
Second, five of the ten provinces have surpluses and the others
have deficits that are quite acceptable, except Ontario, which chose to
reduce its taxes by $5 billion—we have nothing to do with this—and
Quebec, which took a year to hold a referendum and another year to
recover from it.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Human Resources Development stated that
February's unemployment numbers showed that “Atlantic Canada and
every single province had a reduction in their unemployment rate
this month”.
It is amazing that the parliamentary secretary would make this
statement considering that in British Columbia the unemployment
rate rose from 9.3% to 9.7%.
I ask the minister is this just another example of this
government's distorting the facts to congratulate itself or is it
that it no longer—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes indeed
we are very proud that last month some 82,000 new jobs were
created in Canada.
I did say that in every province in Atlantic Canada the
unemployment rate did go down. That is exactly what I said. I
also said that the unemployment rate did go down in Canada and it
is a continued trend since this government's policies started to
kick in. We will not be satisfied until every single Canadian
has a job.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the Minister of Finance stated that B.C.'s woes were due
to the NDP government, yet he takes credit for all the good
things that are happening in the rest of Canada. The only
commitment he made was that this government would not be coming
to B.C.'s rescue.
Does this mean that this government will continue to suck
billions of dollars out of British Columbia, recognizing it is
the only province that is suffering an economic downturn at this
time?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of us are
very concerned about the economic downturn in British Columbia.
It is due in part to the fact that British Columbia is
disproportionately suffering from the Asian crisis.
We are monitoring this situation very carefully. We have
committed ourselves to helping B.C. deal with the Asian crisis
and have made strong moves there. We will continue to monitor
the situation in British Columbia, as we are very concerned about
it.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
Kanesatake Mohawk Council, the people of Kanesatake and the people of
Oka, through their mayor, have expressed concerns about the serious
consequences they could suffer because of an unregulated landfill
located in Mohawk territory.
Will the minister admit that the best way to solve the problem
would be to intervene so that Quebec's environmental laws and
regulations apply there as they do everywhere else?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about
this issue of the Kanesatake First Nation.
The band council has held community meetings in this regard and
we are working together with it to develop environmental auditing
strategies.
I note that members from my colleague's department, the Minister
of the Environment, have been on site and are taking samples. We
are working in a participatory way to try to deal with this
issue.
* * *
DONKIN MINE
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Atlantic Canadians and in particular the people of Cape Breton
Island are very much concerned about the statements and
allegations being made by the member for Bras D'Or.
Today I would like the Minister of Natural Resources to explain
to this House and to the good people of Cape Breton Island the
future of the Donkin mine, in particular their employment with
Devco.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Bras D'Or is playing the most vicious
form of politics with the lives of Cape Breton miners on the eve
of an election for her own partisan purposes. She is anxious to
stir up fear and heartache not to help the people of Cape Breton
but to try to save the political skin of the NDP.
I come from Saskatchewan and I know how the NDP operates. Let
me be very clear that its allegations about Devco are utterly
false and its tactics in this matter are beneath contempt.
* * *
1445
BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A recent Informetrica report indicates that some 9,100 jobs will
be lost in British Columbia by the year 2000 due to the increases
in CPP contributions. A KPMG management consultant study
suggests British Columbia has been shortchanged $1.3 billion by
federal government procurement opportunities.
The Prime Minister always talks about the APEC conference
helping British Columbia. What else do they have to offer
British Columbians to offset these jobs that we are losing in
British Columbia?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we took
office the tax for unemployment insurance was rising to $3.30.
We have cut it back. The last cut was $1.4 billion.
Having said that, I am fully confident that the strong measures
we have taken to put our fiscal house in order, to keep our
inflation down, to make sure that we have a balanced approach to
tax reduction, to investment in our future and to debt reduction
are going to pay the dividends for all Canadians.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
B.C. really got hosed when the Liberals decided to make political
hay from essential infrastructure funding. Communities
throughout B.C. are still waiting. Cities like Cranbrook have
bills to pay.
The minister blames B.C. but his excuses do not wash. What
about the culture and heritage grants where volunteer labour and
private donations go begging? Why does the government hold out
money promises to B.C. then grabs it back when it applies for it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the member would stand in the House
and talk about culture applications because he also complains
before the House about the kind of investment we have in
organizations like Canadian heritage.
In fact Canadian heritage is one of the major cultural employers
in British Columbia. The movie and film industry in British
Columbia is one of the fastest growing industries and his party
has done everything it can to cut off the cultural industries in
British Columbia.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans may ignore a
panel of inquiry and impose unfair oil spill response fees to be
collected by big oil companies at the expense of small
competitors.
There are serious concerns that the minister's decision may be
retroactive and could increase gasoline and heating oil prices
across Canada. Atlantic Canadians are still suffering from the
HST impact on home fuels.
Will the minister commit today to implement the Gold report
recommendations and say no to the retroactive fees?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member
that the previous government set up a response organization
system involving the private sector. For this to be effective
and for there to be proper protection of our environment,
naturally those who transport oil over water must pay and must be
part of the system.
It is no surprise that the hon. member prefers to have lower
prices rather than environmental protection. Environmental
protection is one of the weak suits of the NDP.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Cominco, one
of Canada's largest companies, has shut down the Anvil Range mine
in Faro, Yukon leaving hundreds unemployed and stranded. The
minister's EI rules are keeping families trapped in the remote
north with no hope of work or moving to get to work.
In light of the minister's huge surplus and considering the
remoteness of the location involved, will the minister help these
families with the costs of moving to a new job?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
will know if she has talked to the local officials on the ground
that there is a program in place to deal with laid off workers.
If the member would spend a little time looking at this, we will
be quite willing and prepared—
Ms. Louise Hardy: They need help. The government has
money. Help them.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, if the member would
listen and not yell across the room, maybe she would hear the
answer.
The answer is that there is a transitional program in place for
workers who are laid off. Once we put in that program we will
help the individuals who are laid off look for work and find work
elsewhere.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last week the minister reintroduced the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act and stated in the House that her department had
sufficient resources to deal with every element of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act in its current form.
Yet her own deputy minister stated in committee that there were
not enough resources to enforce all the existing regulations.
1450
How does the minister square what she said in the House last
week to what her deputy minister has said? How does the minister
expect her department to enforce a new act when it does not have
the resources to enforce the existing act?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the question.
What I said last week is that there is within my department
resources available to deal with all enforcement issues
necessary, including inspections.
The deputy minister was before the committee. He did respond
that there is a review under way to find how we can reallocate
some resources to make sure that we have effective enforcement
within the department.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister is serious about inspections, she might want to listen
to this point.
On February 26 one of the minister's officials stated when
referencing what happens to a CEPA regulation in Ontario, “If we
do not have the resources, then it basically sits in a file until
an investigator is freed up, and if an investigator is not freed
up over a period of a year or two years, then the file just gets
closed”.
Canadians want to know how many broken environmental regulations
end up in a file that gets closed.
Why does the minister even bother having environmental
regulations if she does not intend on having anyone to enforce
them?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the regulations we put in place are
enforced.
I would also like to say that enforcement is a serious concern
to me as it is for many Canadians. I have asked my department to
review our enforcement activities and to find the resources to
make sure that our environment is adequately protected.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Millions of Canadians are now in the process of filing their
1997 income tax returns. In spite of assurances in the past,
many taxpayers feel that they have little or no rights. What
actions are being contemplated to ensure that those who pay the
bills have rights and are treated with respect?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want thank the hon. member for Durham
for his question and his genuine interest in ensuring that
Canadian taxpayers are treated with the respect that they
deserve.
Fair treatment for taxpayers is of foremost importance to both
Canadians and the national revenue department. Just yesterday I
released a public discussion paper entitled “Ensuring Fair
Customs and Revenue Administration in Canada” in which I make a
clear commitment to ensure that fairness is a cornerstone of our
tax system.
I look forward to the input of Canadians and my fellow—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
CIDA gives out contracts worth billions of dollars. My home
province of British Columbia receives only 3% to 4% of these
contracts, even after the open bidding contracting system was
installed. The two central Canadian provinces received well over
90% of those contracts.
Can the minister come clean and explain the inequitable and
unfair treatment that British Columbians are receiving? What has
she done to address this unfairness?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we now have an open bidding system. The only way
contracts can be won is to actually go out and bid on them.
I am sorry but British Columbians do not bid very much on those
contracts. I have personally travelled to British Columbia to
encourage people to try to make some bids on these contracts. If
they bid on them, they have a very good chance of getting
contracts.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTIMS OF HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, destruction of
some documents, refusal to divulge others, court challenges, anything to
hinder the work of the Krever commission.
This morning, we have learned that the federal government
recognized, long befor the final report was tabled, its responsibility
toward victims of hepatitis C.
Again, how can the minister justify his government's contemptuous
attitude in recognizing privately its responsibility toward victims,
while claiming exactly the opposite before the commission and the
Canadian hepatitis C society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Justice Krever received documents and heard the testimony of officials
of the Department of Health on all the events, at the time.
1455
We have now received Mr. Justice Krever's report. We have accepted
the recommendations concerning the department and the ways of assuming
our responsibilities.
We are holding discussions with the provincial departments,
including the department in Quebec, to set up a compensation plan for
victims. We will be announcing it when we are ready.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, evidence released today shows Monsanto, with its Liberal
aides turned lobbyists, is behind a major campaign to get bovine
growth hormone approved in the milk we drink.
The health minister rejected his own scientists' concerns and
set up more review panels while including Monsanto on a Canadian
delegation overseas that voted against further review of the
rBST.
Will the minister let his own scientists do their jobs or will
he let Monsanto dictate the health protection agenda for the
country?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in what is becoming a pattern the hon. member has her facts
wrong.
The so-called delegation to Geneva was headed by the director
general of food safety in the health protection branch.
Invitations were sent to dozens of Canadian interests to
accompany the delegation, including the Consumers' Association of
Canada.
The decisions made and votes cast were those only by the
officials. In fact there was a motion to prolong the study of
rBST. That motion was adopted.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice if the
same flawed statistics that were used by the Liberal government
to justify gun registration were also relied upon by members of
her department when they made their pleadings before the Alberta
Court of Appeal. She did not answer that question.
She also referred to a letter that she tabled in the House dated
December 30. In that letter there is a reference by the
commissioner to a letter from her department dated September 25.
Will she answer yesterday's question and table that letter today?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to
the hon. member, and I would be happy to file this with the
Speaker, the report to which he refers incessantly is the
“Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada”. In annex A of the
report the methodology is set out.
If the hon. member bothered to inform himself he would see that
there has been no misrepresentation. There has been no attempt
to in any way misuse or conceal data. In fact the statistics—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark—Carleton.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Many people in various regions of the country have worked long
and hard to attract a semi-conductor manufacturing plant to
Canada. Can the minister tell us if this effort has reached a
dead end or is there still hope that a major chip fabrication
plant will be built to serve our high tech industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the effort to attract a major semi-conductor
manufacturing facility to Canada continues to be a top priority
of investment partnerships Canada. It is working together
between my department and that of the Minister for International
Trade in partnership with the provincial governments in British
Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, as well as the private
sector and many representatives from various universities and
colleges across Canada.
I am convinced, based on the information we have gleaned, that
we remain a very competitive site for the location of such a
facility. I am determined that Canada will win such a facility in
the near future.
* * *
LIGHT STATIONS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 80% of British Columbians want their light stations
staffed. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refuses to state
his intentions to maintain staffing of lighthouses because of the
byelection in British Columbia on March 30.
The government's retirement incentive for light keepers expires
March 31 but light keepers cannot decide their future because the
minister will not disclose the plan.
Will the minister commit today to maintain staffing of British
Columbia light stations?
1500
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that there is
some period of months, in fact years, that this has not come to
the decision he would like and in fact has not been made. The
byelection he talks about has only been in progress for a few
weeks.
It seems to me that the logic of his putting the two things
together is totally false. I will be making a decision on that
subject in due course at the appropriate time.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of the Hon. Yero Boly, Minister of Territorial
Administration and Security of Burkina Faso.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour and my delight and my privilege to ask the famous Thursday
question and to inquire about the legislative agenda that is
planned by the government for the coming days.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across
for this excellent question. At the same time, I want to thank
hon. members on both sides of the House for their co-operation in
dealing with legislation so far this week.
The real and serious work of this Chamber does not seem to
sometimes excite much the people in the media, but I want to take
this opportunity to point out that since my business statement
last week, members of all parties have moved forward six
important pieces of legislation. I hope for similar co-operation
in the future.
This afternoon we will continue Bill C-25, the defence
reorganization bill.
On Monday the first item will be Bill C-28, a bill to augment
the Canada health and social transfer. We are looking forward to
support on this. This will be followed by Bill C-12, the RCMP
superannuation bill; Bill S-3 respecting pension benefit
standards, and Bill C-25 if not completed today.
On Tuesday and if necessary on Wednesday we shall debate the
budget implementation bill that was introduced this morning. We
would then return to any leftover bills from Monday, followed by
Bill S-4, the marine bill.
That is the weekly business statement. For the convenience of
all hon. members, I would like to indicate the plans of the House
for a little bit further. I hope to be able to announce a
schedule in the future that will include among other things Bill
C-27, the coastal fisheries bill, Bill C-26, the grain bill, the
Judges Act amendments introduced this morning, as well as Bill C-3
and Bill S-5 if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights reports them in time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[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 second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have held discussions with representatives of all parties on Bill
C-25. Regrettably, the Minister of National Defence has not had
the opportunity to speak on it and I understand that he is deemed
to have spoken, Bill C-25 being in his name.
I would seek the consent of the House to allow the minister to
participate at the next Liberal turn in the normal rotation and
for the normal period of 20 minutes, subject to 10 minutes of
questions and comments.
1505
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have
the unanimous consent of the House for his proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period, the hon. member for Lakeland had 15 minutes remaining in
the time for his speech.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while I
know you would be delighted to see me take my 15 minutes, I will
probably take about 5 minutes to close.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: All of the members are hollering for
more, but I have to keep it to what I really have to say. I am
pleased that the minister will be speaking and be open to
questions. I look forward to that.
All I have said about this legislation is not as important as a
key component that has been missing from this government and from
Liberal governments over the past 30 years. That component is a
real show of support for and commitment to the Canadian military.
Before question period I was commenting on the three ways a
government should show support for the military, the first being
words, the second being money and the third being important and
substantial change to the defence act and the way the defence
department operates.
I commented on the words. To my knowledge, we have not seen a
Liberal prime minister over the last 30 years stand up before the
Canadian people and say very clearly that the Canadian military
is absolutely essential to the security of Canadians in our
country. I have not heard that the men and women in the military
are good people who do their jobs as well as they can in the
system they are forced to work within. I have not seen them show
that kind of support for the people in the military. We hear
that from the minister of defence but clearly that is his job.
It is absolutely essential for the Prime Minister of this
country, the top person within the government of this country, to
come out and show strong support for the military. Until that
happens we are not going to have the proper level of morale, nor
will we have a military that is functioning as well as it must
function in order to offer the security that is so important for
us. That commitment has not been there.
Money is the second key commitment that must be made by
government. I go back to 1992 when Reform was putting together
our zero in three plan, the plan to balance the budget in three
years. We campaigned on this in 1993 for the election. In that
plan we proposed reducing military funding from a level of about
twelve and a half billion dollars a year down to about eleven
billion dollars. We thought that was absolutely necessary based
on the financial condition of the country.
This government has gone beyond $11 billion down to $9 billion a
year that is being spent on the military. Our military cannot
operate properly at that level of funding. The government has to
show commitment by giving the men and women in the forces the
proper equipment and the proper training. The men and women in
the military right now do not even have proper personal equipment
including uniforms and combat equipment. That is completely
unacceptable.
On top of that, they need the best in terms of more significant,
larger equipment like helicopters. There has been a promise to
replace the search and rescue helicopters. What about the
shipborne helicopters? We all know that the Sea Kings are unfit
to fly. They operate under much more severe conditions for the
military than they do during civilian usage. The military does
not put as many hours on helicopters as the hours put on civilian
choppers, but because of the vigorous and difficult conditions
they operate under, they are not safe. This government will
offer a replacement at the very earliest by the year 2005. That
is the very earliest and that is not good enough.
They just have not shown the commitment in terms of equipment and
training. That has to happen before we will have proper morale
in the forces.
1510
Third, and this relates more directly to the piece of
legislation that we are debating today, they have not shown a
will, a desire or a direction when it comes to making the basis
systemic changes that are needed to make this military operate
properly.
This legislation, quite frankly, does not cut it. It is a
series of half measures. Some of them are good and move in the
right direction. However, when they are looked at and analysed,
they really do not go anywhere near far enough.
We oppose this legislation. We will be making amendments and if
the government will support our amendments, or put forth its own,
offering the same kind of changes, then under those conditions we
will support this legislation. It really depends on the
government and what it will allow in terms of its own amendments
and amendments from us and other opposition parties.
I will close by saying once again that I am looking forward to
the minister and his presentation at four o'clock. I am looking
forward to the questions that the opposition parties ask of the
minister at that time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I must say first that Bill C-25 is not only sizeable, but also
ambitious. It is ambitious because it seeks to change our military
justice system. For those who followed the work of the commission of
inquiry into the deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia, we know very
well that the present system has serious problems that deserve some
special attention.
The Bloc Quebecois is among those who believe that the role of
members of Parliament in defence issues must be reinforced.
This does not mean that we must play a huge role overseeing the conduct
and business of the military, but that we must oversee them in such a way as
to break down the walls of national defence and the Canadian armed
forces, in the best interests of people in Quebec and Canada.
To be more effective in our role, we should have access to reports
produced by non-political, independent organizations, such as those
prepared by the auditor general. This is why, as the Létourneau
commission recommended, we believe that an inspector general, working
independently from the Canadian 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.
As the Létourneau commission stated in its report “There is
evidence that Canadians and members of the CF want a review process that
is straightforward and independent. We also believe that a civilian
inspector general, properly supported and directly responsible to
Parliament, must form an essential part of the mechanism Canadians use
to oversee and control the Canadian Forces”.
Even if soldiers give up some of their rights when they join the
army, they still expect to be treated fairly. During the Létourneau
commission, some soldiers complained that their commanding officers were
often insensitive to their concerns and that those who dared to complain
faced informal retaliation or even put their careers in jeopardy.
The members of the armed forces who feel the need to complain are faced
with a dilemma: to suffer in silence or to fight the system and deal
with the consequences.
The creation of an office of the inspector general would
unquestionably meet the need for a fairer complaint processing
mechanism. Instead of implementing the recommendation of the Létourneau
commission and in order to really confuse the public and give the
impression that he was agreeing to some kind of inspection, the Minister
of National Defence chose to set up a review committee made up of eight
distinguished Canadians.
1515
These people will review the implementation of announced changes
within the department and the armed forces. However, they will not have
anything to say about the conduct of the armed forces.
According to the minister, these eight distinguished people will
serve as a window for Canadians, a window that will be closed in two
years since the mandate of the review committee does not extend beyond
that period.
What will we be left with in the end? Simply a few annual reports
here and there to meet accountability requirements. In short, we will
not know anything more about the important things that will continue to
go on in this galaxy.
Like the Létourneau commission, we agree with the idea of
appointing an inspector general of defence, who would be responsible for
conducting investigations not only on the way the military justice
system works, but also on any other aspect of national defence that he
or she would deem appropriate.
Any member of the Canadian Forces and any employee of the
Department of National Defence could contact the inspector general
directly for any reason without having to obtain prior authorization
from anybody else within the Canadian Forces or the Department of
National Defence.
We know that, right now, civil employees of the department are
worried about the proposal to privatize services within the Canadian
Forces and the possible consequences of such a decision in terms of job
security.
At the Longue-Pointe garrison, in Montreal's east end, it seems
that the privatization process could result in the loss of 250 civilian
and 150 military jobs.
The same goes for the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu garrison, where 300 jobs
could disappear.
The inspector general would be the most appropriate authority to
review any privatization of services by the Department of National
Defence. An inspector general could address the individual or general
problems of all DND and Canadian Forces personnel without these people
having to fear some form of punishment.
To be able to express oneself freely without fear of retaliation is
fundamental to anyone who wants to expose a delicate situation.
Therefore, a member of the military should not be required to indicate
to his or her superior that he or she is filing a complaint, especially
if the complaint is against the superior.
Inspections, checks, investigations or reports following a
complaint by a member of the military should not give any indication
whatsoever of the complainant's identity.
The threat of reprisal is not an imaginary concern. The hearings
conducted by the Létourneau commission revealed that some members of the
military had been threatened and badgered for their part in the
commission's work.
Corporal Purnelle and Major Armstrong were among them. The latter,
in fact, required physical protection while in Somalia after he had made
serious allegations of misconduct to his commanding officers.
By refusing to follow through with a proposal to create a position
of inspector general, the defence minister is clearly showing that the
armed forces do not intend to clean up their act and instead are
determined to keep on operating in isolation.
To justify his rejection of an independent review body, the
minister said in the fall that the position of inspector general would
cloud his authority before Parliament. It would make the
responsibilities and accountability of the chief of the Defence staff
and the deputy minister ambiguous.
The minister even said that the high command did not want an
inspector general constantly looking over their shoulder. However, the
civil authorities have the duty to look over the shoulder of the
military.
Why are the defence minister and the Canadian armed forces afraid
of an institution which has a proven track record in the United States,
and with which the American armed forces get along well?
1520
It is the whole concept of accountability that is at stake. And by
refusing to allow an independent control, the minister is reinforcing
the idea that the government and the military are accountable to no one.
With regard to the minister's promise to create an ombudsman
position, something the military personnel are still waiting for, we
must be clear. This position is not the same thing at all as an office
of the inspector general. While the function of the ombudsman, or
ombudswoman, if you will, is generally limited to receiving grievances
and making recommendations in this regard, the inspector general would
have wide ranging inspection, control, inquiry and assistance functions.
The functions of the inspector would include those of the ombudsman.
Thus, as was recommended by the Létourneau commission, these two
functions should be brought together and carried out by a single entity,
that is the office of the inspector general.
Finally, if the national defence minister had really wanted to
ensure greater openness in the military justice system, he would have
supported the establishment of the position of inspector general. This
would have indicated a clear willingness to make changes. So we can
forget about openness.
As I mentioned a little earlier, the minister also stated, in his
response to the recommendations of the Létourneau commission, that the
implementation of the changes to the National Defence Act would increase
the fairness and effectiveness of the military justice system.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, believe that all military personnel must
be treated fairly.
They must, like any other Canadian citizen, be able to benefit from the
constitutional guarantees provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. As the Létourneau commission said, the military justice system
should follow the civil justice system, except when there are clear
reasons to depart from it.
Therefore, the question we must now ask ourselves is this: will the
changes brought about by the bill ensure, as the defence minister is
claiming, fairness in the military justice system?
In Canada, this system is administered according to two main types
of procedures, namely the summary trial and the court martial. Summary
trials are aimed at dealing with minor military offences.
This type of trial is at the heart of the military justice system, since
more than 90% of all offences committed by members of the armed forces
are only heard summarily.
Usually, summary trials are presided by commanding officers. The
purpose of such trials is to deal quickly with disciplinary offences
within the unit and to send the offender back to his or her unit as soon
as possible. We understand that the goal to keep order and discipline
within the armed forces somehow justifies the summary nature of this
type of trial.
However, during the hearings of the Special Advisory Group on
Military Justice, chaired by former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Brian Dickson, several members of the armed forces criticized the
summary trial system of justice and even questioned its legitimacy,
since it violates some of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The right to counsel and the right to be tried by an independent
and impartial tribunal are both being violated. In that respect, this
bill provides for minor changes to the summary trial process and appears
to reinforce its constitutional validity.
In particular, the bill now prevents commanding officers from
presiding at summary trials in which they are involved. Also, the
accused person can have access to a lawyer before electing to be tried
by court martial or by summary trial.
This does not mean that the accused has the right to counsel, only
that he or she can consult with a lawyer. It is true that the commanding
officer has the discretionary power to allow the accused to have access
to a lawyer, but that is not a right granted to the accused, just a
discretionary right enjoyed by the commanding officer.
1525
The purpose of these few changes is quite simple. They are meant to
change summary procedure just enough to let the commanding officers go
on imposing their own discipline during summary trials. Even though this
procedure still infringes on the constitutional rights of the accused to
be heard by an impartial and independent court and to be represented by
counsel, amendments in this bill will reduce the seriousness of these
violations so that they can be reasonably justified under section 1 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This section states that rights and freedoms are subject only to
such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
In this case, the purpose of the bill is to make minimal changes to
the summary procedure so that it can withstand any challenge under the
charter, even if commanding officers are in no way impartial and
independent in the legal sense defined by the supreme court in the
Généreux case.
While the objective of maintaining order and discipline within the
armed forces is important enough in itself to justify denying a
constitutional right under certain circumstances, in wartime for
example, we do believe that under normal circumstances, when the freedom
of the accused is at stake, violating the right to be heard by an
impartial and independent tribunal and the right to counsel, which are
guaranteed by the Canadian Charter, is not justified under section 1 of
the Charter.
The constitutional guarantees provided by the Charter apply to all
citizens, whether they are civilians or members of the military. In the
absence of criminal sanctions, violating rights guaranteed under the
Charter is not as serious an issue. It is, however, a different matter
when the accused may lose his freedom.
In this respect, section 7 of the Charter states that, “Everyone
has the right to life, liberty and security of the person
and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice”.
This provision therefore guarantees the right to counsel of a
person facing the risk of being deprived of his or her freedom. In
addition, section 11(d) of the Charter entitles any person charged with
an offence to a fair hearing. This right entails the right to counsel.
It is true that both the bill and the Queen's Regulations and
Orders for the Canadian Forces provide that the accused may choose
between summary and court martial proceedings when faced with a jail
term.
The accused who chooses to be court martialled is entitled to
counsel. Under the QR&Os;, however, this right must be exercised within
24 hours.
If the accused chooses a summary trial, can we honestly say that he
knowingly relinquished his constitutional right to counsel and to be
heard by an impartial and independent tribunal?
The choice between a summary trial and a court martial can have
serious consequences. That is why we think the accused should be free to
opt for a summary trial and have the right to counsel when faced with a
jail term.
As for the right of the accused to be heard by an impartial and
independent tribunal, section 11(d) of the Charter provides that any
person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal.
So, in the case of disciplinary infractions punishable by detention, the
accused should be heard by a totally impartial tribunal capable of
making a decision on the sole basis of the evidence presented.
1530
But can we seriously believe that, when a commanding officer
presides over a summary trial, there is not a reasonable risk that
the accused will be subject to prejudice? The commanding officer
will be required to judge a member of his unit and will probably
have extensive knowledge of the accused's professional record.
Furthermore, since the commanding officer is responsible to his
superiors for the maintenance of discipline within his unit, he has
a direct professional interest in the outcome of the summary trial.
The person making the decisions should not be influenced by
the parties, or by outside forces, except in so far as he is
convinced by the arguments and pleadings on the questions of law at
issue.
Finally, we believe that breaches of discipline that may result
in the suspension of liberty should be treated differently than
other disciplinary offences. In our view, only a more formal and
independent tribunal offering the accused the right to call on
the services of a lawyer, should have the power to hand down a
30-day detention. This having been done, the military justice
system should provide the accused with procedural guarantees
consistent with the charter. The only way for a summary trial to
ensure the accused these guarantees would be to restrict summary
trials to offences not likely to result in criminal charges.
The advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
obliged the Canadian forces to make adjustments to their military
justice system in order to comply with charter rights and freedoms.
When I say obliged, I am not exaggerating.
On reading a study by Martin Friedland on the handling of
military misconduct, I was astonished to learn that the armed
forces tried, in the past, to obtain a general exemption from the
application of the charter, but that the Department of Justice was
opposed. I admit that this says a great deal about how the
military establishment viewed the charter. The armed forces
therefore had no choice, and had to comply with the charter in
order to ensure the survival of their military justice system.
In the Généreux case in 1992, the supreme court ruled that the
court martial court in which this case was tried did not constitute
an independent tribunal within the meaning of section 11(d) of the
charter.
Before the court could even bring down its decision, changes had
already been made to the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the
Canadian Forces, particularly to remedy the major shortcomings
relating to the judiciary independence of the Judge Advocate.
These changes called for military judges to be appointed for
a set period of up to four years, but no less than two. They also
required the judges to hold no other duties for the duration of
their mandate. These changes also called for the Chief Military
Judge, and no longer the Judge Advocate General, to have the
express power to appoint a judge advocate to the court martial.
Without running down the whole list of changes that have
occurred since and the ones proposed by the bill, particularly
those concerning the authority to call a court martial, we must
admit that these amendments as a whole have considerably improved
the military justice system.
We believe, however, that the bill could have gone further in
order to ensure greater independence for the military judges.
These must be officers who have been barristers or advocates of at
least 10 years' standing at the bar of a province. According to the
bill, they are appointed during good behaviour for a term of five
years, and this is an improvement over the current situation.
Since military judges are appointed for only five years,
unlike civilian judges who are appointed until they reach
retirement age, there is no guarantee whatsoever that they would
not be compromising their careers as military judges by bringing
down judgments in favour of the accused rather than the
prosecution. I believe that military judges, like civilian judges,
ought to benefit from security of tenure, sheltering them from any
possible type of interference.
1535
In addition, the irremovability of military judges is
threatened because they may be removed before the end of their term
under the discretionary power of the governor in council.
On the matter of independence, the approach in the U.K. is
different from ours. There, a civilian and totally independent
judge advocate general appoints the court martial judge advocates.
The judge advocate general holds office up to the age of 70. Like
civilian judges, he may be relieved of his duties only for failure
to carry them out or for improper conduct.
The various judge advocates are civilian lawyers who cannot be
removed.
We believe Canada should draw on the British practice and use
civilian judges who are totally independent and without military
ambitions.
The Létourneau commission made a recommendation in this regard
that the chief military judge and all other judges appointed to
decide on matters of military misconduct by civilians be appointed
under the federal Judges Act.
In a real effort to ensure institutional separation between
the prosecution and defence functions of the military justice
system, the bill creates the new positions of director of military
prosecutions and director of the defence counsel service.
Furthermore, the bill establishes more precisely the role of
the judge advocate general. The various roles played by the office
of the judge advocate general have raised a lot of questions as to
its impartiality.
The fact of providing legal advice at the investigation and charge
laying states and of being part of the prosecution, the defence and
the judgment on military offences have drawn attention to the
conflicting nature of the various functions performed by this
office.
The bill, to its credit, removes the office of the judge
advocate general from the prosecution function, which it gives
exclusively to the new director of military prosecutions. Under
this bill, this person will decide the charges laid against
individuals to be judged by court martials and conduct the
prosecution.
Unfortunately, the institutional separation is only
superficial, since the director of military prosecutions will be
acting under the supervision of the judge advocate general, who may
issue guidelines or provide instructions on prosecutions.
So, there is a risk of interference from the judge advocate general
that undermines the integrity and independence of the director of
prosecutions.
Oddly enough, the same thing goes for the new position of director
of defence counsel services set up under this bill. By establishing
defence counsel services, the bill separates the prosecutors from the
defence counsel, since the defence counsel services no longer report to
the office of the judge advocate general.
However, since the director of defence counsel services works under
the general direction of the judge advocate general, once again, the
bill fails to create the arm's length relationship that could reassure
the members of the armed forces.
To achieve the proper arm's length relationship, should the defence
counsel services not work under the direction of some other authority?
Finally, I know that I have just skimmed over the bill and that
several other changes included in this piece of legislation deserve
consideration, but unfortunately I will not have the time to address
them today.
However, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I will vote
against Bill C-25. How sad to realize that what Georges Clémenceau used
to say at the beginning of the century still rings true today. He said
“Military justice is to justice what military music is to
music”.
* * *
1540
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 Bill S-9, an act respecting depository bills and
depository notes and to amend the Financial Administration Act, to which
the concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I would like to have unanimous consent
to table a document that the Minister of Justice mentioned in
answer to a question from a Conservative member.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent to the tabling of this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
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 second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I must say
it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the
National Defence Act, involving primarily military justice. The
title of the bill does not state it all. I want to mention some
of the highlights of this bill before I get into the discussion
of its content.
Bill C-25 includes proposed amendments to the National Defence
Act that attempt to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
military justice system's principal actors, including the
Minister of National Defence and the judge advocate general. It
also attempts to establish clear standards of institutional
separation between the investigative, prosecutorial, defence and
judicial functions. It establishes two independent oversight
bodies external to the department and the Canadian forces, one a
Canadian forces grievance board and the other a military police
complaints commission.
The bill also abolishes the death penalty as a punishment and
substitutes it with life in prison.
The bill requires the Canadian forces grievance board, the
military police complaints commission and the judge advocate
general to file annual reports that the minister must table in
this House. These reports are in addition to the annual reports
of the ombudsman, the chief of defence staff and the Canadian
forces provost martial. It also requires the minister of defence
to have the National Defence Act reviewed and the results of that
review reported to Parliament within five years.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you stay awake late at night worrying
about all of these different tablings and so on. I am sure that
you will appreciate this process is appropriate within our
parliamentary system.
It really is a joy for me to join the debate on Bill C-25, a
bill which I have indicated changes and modernizes the National
Defence Act and in particular the code of service discipline.
As most members of this House know, the main focus of Bill C-25
and a key focus of the National Defence Act is the military
justice system, a distinct system of penal law applicable to
members of the Canadian forces and other persons subject to
Canadian military jurisdiction.
We all recognize that the military justice system in recent
years has been under increasing scrutiny and pressure for change.
A number of factors have contributed to the introduction of this
bill.
One factor is undoubtedly the extended and unprecedented period
of time since Canada was last involved in a major war and the
perception that chances of such involvement are now very remote.
This situation tends to lead people both inside and outside the
military to be less tolerant of any perceived systematic
unfairness in the system and its retention of punishments
perceived as excessive or rather out of date.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that while we have
been fortunate enough not to be involved in a major war for many,
many years now and in fact for some decades, we do not forget the
fact that many of those serving in our armed forces are serving
in very troubled hot spots around the world. As we debate this
change to Bill C-25, they are carrying on their best efforts as
peacekeepers and peacemakers on behalf of Canada.
Another factor has been the adoption of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. This constitutional change has brought the
military justice system as well as the Canadian legal system
generally under increased scrutiny as regards procedural
safeguards for accused persons and principles of fairness and
equality of treatment generally.
1545
Particular attention has been drawn to aspects of the military
justice system that reflect the disparity of treatment between
soldiers and civilians or among military personnel. These include
the lack of certain traditional criminal law safeguards at
summary trials, the fact that only junior ranks, privates and
corporals, and non-commissioned officers, master corporals and
sergeants, can be summarily sentenced to detention or reduction
in rank.
Also, commanding officers had considerable discretion in
deciding to proceed or dismiss charges, including very serious
criminal charges, the fact that persons exercising judicial fact
functions, or what would be judicial functions in the civilian
system, are often members of the chain of command who have no
legal training and have other apparently conflicting
responsibilities for administering the code of service
discipline.
Let us be very clear. All of us in this House today know what
is behind Bill C-25. In the last two years, such issues and
concerns have been brought to the forefront by various high
profile cases such as those relating to the misconduct by a
handful of selected forces members in Somalia and Bosnia and the
cases of Lieutenant Commander Marsaw and Corporal Purnelle.
The 1997 report on both the Somalia Inquiry 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 dealing with possible reforms of the military
system when it comes to justice.
New Democrats appreciate the efforts of the Minister of National
Defence to bring the military justice system more in line with
the civilian justice system. We are very concerned about the
issue of accountability when it comes to the military justice
system. Unfortunately, the efforts of the Minister of National
Defence in this regard just do not go far enough. We regret that
greatly. We were hoping for significant changes in the area of
accountability, but unfortunately this has not happened with this
particular piece of legislation.
We know that something went terribly wrong in Somalia. We sent
Canadian troops to Somalia to help keep the peace. Some ended up
killing the same people they were sent there to help. It is a
horrible thing that happened. It would not be right to sweep
this under the rug and pretend it never happened. Nor would it
be right to simply deny it. It would not be right to deny why
this happened. It is certainly not right that certain
individuals involved in this terrible incident are not now held
accountable.
All of this has happened. This is a fact. What is more
shocking than the incident itself is the cover-up that happened
and occurred after, a cover-up that included some of Canada's
senior defence personnel.
Canadians first learned about the Somalia incident through some
enterprising news reports. Some talented inquiring reporters
broke the story. We learned more when Canadian soldiers with a
conscience blew the whistle as well. However, during this time
soldiers in the upper levels of the military were busy little
beavers tampering with some documents, destroying some,
distorting others and stonewalling at every opportunity.
Canadians, in spite of their efforts, could not get the full
story no matter how hard they tried. In 1994 the Liberal
government set up the Somalia Commission of Inquiry. In the
beginning the Liberals appeared very keen to get to the truth.
They were going to get to the bottom of things. I remember time
after time various ministers and others speaking in this House
saying it was important to get to the bottom of the Somalia
issue.
When the commission started working, they too were stonewalled
by military brass in their attempts to avoid having the truth
come out. To say the least, this frustrated the commissioners.
We all remember night after night on the news various
commissioners in their own adroit way explaining the frustration
that they experienced in terms of getting to the facts.
Nevertheless, the commission continued and the Liberal
government got scared. They were now well into their term of
office and preparing for an election call. I guess they did not
want the defence department's dirty laundry being aired on the
eve of an election. We all know what happened next.
Doug Young, the former minister of defence, shut the Somalia
inquiry down. One of the commissioners called the shutdown the
most brazen cover-up in denials of responsibility in the history
of this country.
He also said that the Liberal government's actions were a brazen
cover-up and a denial of responsibility.
1550
Because the government snuffed out the inquiry, Canadians will
never know the truth about what happened in Somalia and Canadians
will never know who was really responsible for all the cover-up.
I just grabbed a handful of newspaper clippings of that time
from my file. I thought it would be appropriate to read some of
the headlines into the record.
One of the panelists said of the commission that the Department
of National Defence got away with it. Others went on to say some
very questionable things. I do not think our rules would allow
me to use some of the language in these presentations. I will
set those aside.
One headline says “An inquiry insider slams the federal
government's response”. A second says “Prime Minister acting
in a most irresponsible fashion”. Another headline says
“Canada's military remains not accountable”. Another says
“The government kowtows to military brass”. Others say “The
Somalia inquiry proves a major embarrassment to the armed forces
and to the government of the day” and “Outside supervision of
military ruled out”. The sub-headline says “Military remains
responsible for their own: Inquiry exposes areas of
incompetence”. It is depressing to read these headlines. One
says “The defence stonewalled: Defence unable to obtain
documents”.
It says—again this is the minister—“The minister has betrayed
the Canadian armed forces, particularly their future”. Another
one is “Panic in the armed forces”. Another one says “The
Somalia inquiry a mess”. Still another says “Cutting off the
inquiry will backfire in terms of political fall-out”. I am not
sure if that happened but this was a prediction.
Another one says “Government calls the whole thing off before
embarrassment” and another says “The deadline lets the brass
off the hook: A previous Prime Minister shielded from reality”.
It says “Minister of defence not told the truth: Grits shielded
from military scrutiny”.
I could go on. This is just a handful. I am very reluctant to
even mention these in my presentation because they are so
distasteful. I guess we have to nevertheless do these things.
I must say that in spite of all the stonewalling and in spite of
all the denials and cover-ups, despite being shut down mid-way
through its work, the Somalia commission still issued
recommendations.
Wouldn't you know it? The Liberal government has again
responded with some arrogance, I am afraid to say. The Minister
of National Defence called the inquiry's work an insult. The
arrogance of this minister is unbelievable, how he would call the
inquiry work an insult and not the fact that it was stonewalled
and shut down prematurely.
I think we should tell the minister that this piece of
legislation before the House today is an insult. This bill
completely ignores—
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me that with such a good speech as this being given that
the minister should be on hand to take note.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the minister would be
taking note of the speech some place. I know the hon. member
knows it is improper to refer to the presence or absence of
members.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Perhaps then, it would be in order to
ask whether the Speaker sees a quorum in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not see a quorum. Perhaps we
could ring the bells.
1555
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I see a quorum. The hon.
member for Kamloops has the floor.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I can hardly take that, Mr. Speaker. I
have never experienced this before in my life. I do not want to
overdo it and change their minds very quickly. Thank you, that
is more like it.
I am going to end my remarks in my presentation by simply saying
that we believe the minister is not going far enough in
subjecting our armed forces to an outside and independent review
process.
This concerns New Democrats a great deal because we feel that
the insular culture of the military was in fact in large part
responsible for the cover-up that occurred in the Somalia affair.
The measures introduced by the minister in Bill C-25 may be a
bit of a help, and I acknowledge that they may be a bit of help,
but they really do not address the problem of a military beholden
to itself.
The Somalia commission's principle recommendation, the
establishment of a formal inspector general system to watch over
the military's performance, has been rejected by this minister
and his Liberal government. Instead, the minister will allow the
military to continue to investigate itself in these matters.
I know that the minister is a very thoughtful individual but I
find it hard to believe that he was attached to this because
would anybody really believe that the military will continue to
investigate itself in a clear fashion. It is a bit like asking
the coyote to keep an eye on the chickens in the henhouse and
make sure everything is peaceful there.
We point out what appears to be a glaring error in the draft of
this legislation and perhaps we will have a chance to change it
later.
The minister has also rejected a key recommendation of the
Somalia inquiry aimed at protecting both those individuals who
report wrongdoing in connection with the Somalia mission and
those who may do so in the future. This might be called whistle
blowing. Also rejected is the recommendation that military
police be more independent of the defence department and report
to the solicitor general instead.
The minister also has not accepted the commission's proposal
that Parliament set the ground rules for future peacekeeping
operations.
I believe this minister has perpetuated the notion that the old
boy network in the military is alive and well and that when
problems arise, they will be settled clearly within the family.
Given the terrible shape of our military these days, I am afraid
that is not in any way assuring Canadians.
Bill C-25 reminds us of the government's failure to get to the
bottom of the Somalia affair and the government's failure to
bring forth the key recommendations of the Somalia commission in
this bill indicates to us in the New Democratic Party that there
is more secrecy to come and there will still continue to be a
great lack of accountability in Canada's military.
Bill C-25, the department of defence response to the need for
change in the military justice system, fails to deal with the
contentious issue of accountability and responsibility within the
senior echelons of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we are
not terribly enthusiastic about this legislation at this time.
To reiterate, I think it is fair to say that the two areas of
serious concern are, first, the fact that there is no protection
for whistle blowers, in other words those men and women in the
Canadian Armed Forces who see a serious wrongdoing, see something
that simply should not take place, who do not feel free to inform
others, including the public, of this problem. Until that
happens there will always be this sort of cloudy pall hanging
over the armed forces with people wondering if everything is
going on above board. There is also the matter of
accountability. The two are related but there is still the lack
of accountability in terms of what is happening, particularly at
the leadership level in our forces.
That is what we do not like about the bill but, like everything
else, there are good points and there are some bad points. I
have emphasized in my role as a critic today some of the more
negative and downsides of Bill C-25. But there are positive
aspects.
I could list a few, but it just is not part of my personality in
the House to list positive things. However, I will focus on one
positive and that is the removal of the death penalty.
1600
The minister is here in his place and I want to applaud him for
his efforts.
Many countries around the world have eliminated the death
penalty for their armed forces. The death penalty has been
abolished in many western nations with which Canada has very
strong ties. Among our NATO allies are countries such as
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Greece, Iceland, The
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Spain. I could list a number
of countries which have done away with the death penalty as a
punishment for all civil and military offences. Countries
outside the NATO sphere have also abolished the death penalty for
civil and service offences. Our Commonwealth friends such as
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have also abolished the
death penalty.
The odd state in the U.S. retains the death penalty. It is
interesting that those states which have kept the death penalty
are those states which have the highest amount of violent crime.
There seems to be an inverse relationship to the death penalty
when it comes to safety.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you as a learned individual know full
well all of the reasons why we have abolished the death penalty
in Canada. Now that the Minister of National Defence, through
this legislation, has eliminated the death penalty for Canada's
armed forces, we join those nations which are the most
progressive in the world. I believe it is fair to say that the
countries which are the most favourable in the world in which to
live, almost inevitably, are those countries which have taken
steps to abolish the death penalty. It is a clear signal of the
values they place on human life.
I am loath to say that we will not support the bill at this
stage. However, we hope that by sending out a clear message to
our friend, the minister of defence, there will be a chance to
amend it in committee. We will be working hard in committee to
improve the legislation.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak to this bill today. The government has decided to
address the issue of justice in the Canadian forces and we
believe it is about time.
Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both
important and urgent. My party understands that if we are to do
something, we might as well do it right. Unfortunately, while
there are some interesting points in the bill, it does not
address the real problems faced by the Canadian forces today.
There are several questions which we must ask ourselves. What
events brought us to the point to have this bill read in Canada's
House of Commons? Did the government act in an appropriate way
and does the bill address the need for change? If passed, will
the bill work in a practical way when it is applied?
While all these questions are connected, it would serve us
well to take the time to ensure that they are answered to the
satisfaction of Canadians.
The first question is perhaps the most important. The key for
this bill is what events brought us to this point.
I believe all members of the House are aware of the events which
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 which
needs to be addressed. As elected officials of this House it is
incumbent on 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, then there is a good reason to complete it.
I would like to quickly outline what was the cost, in real
terms, of prematurely shutting down the Somalia commission.
Robert Fowler, then deputy minister of national defence, now
Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, said that on March 19,
1993 he told defence minister Kim Campbell's acting chief of
staff, Richard Claire, that Somalia teenager Shidane Arone had
died three days earlier as a result of foul play at the hands of
Canadians.
1605
Richard Claire, then acting chief of staff to minister of
defence Kim Campbell, said he did discuss the death with Fowler
and Vice-Admiral Larry Murray, then vice-chief of defence staff
on March 19, but nobody mentioned foul play. He said at that
time the death was still a mystery to him.
The Right Hon. Kim Campbell, then minister of defence, said that
she was aware that there was an investigation going on from March
17. She knew this because she received a briefing note on that
day. In that briefing note the death of the Somali was listed as
perplexing and that Canadian forces had acted appropriately.
The Right Hon. Kim Campbell also knew from the same briefing
book that Corporal Marchi had tried to kill himself because
“he had roughed him up”, meaning Shidane Arone, “the truth was
that he beat him to death”. It was not until March 30, 11 days
later, that Kim Campbell learned that there was an investigation
into the death.
Because the Somali 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 have less faith in their public servants
as Robert Fowler remains Canada's ambassador to the United
Nations and Larry Murray has just been appointed assistant
deputy minister in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and
still there is no resolution.
The result is that Canadians do not know the true story and
still there is no resolution. That is why we are here today. We
are not here because the government all of a sudden cares about
justice in the military but because the government made a mistake
and it knows it made a mistake and now it wants to hide that
mistake as best as possible.
That brings me to the second point that I outlined earlier. Did
the government act in an appropriate way and does the bill
address the need for change? I would like to refer to the words
of one of Canada's most respected sons, Chief Justice Brian
Dickson. In a speech given in November, 1997 Chief Justice
Dickson said: “Something is drastically wrong when the public
feels that its military is incompetent and led by an inept if not
corrupt hierarchy”.
I do not bring up Chief Justice Dickson for no reason. In fact,
Chief Justice Dickson is an important player in the making of the
bill because much of what is in the bill stems from the
recommendations made to the minister of defence in March, 1997 by
a special advisory group chaired by Chief Justice Dickson. It is
worth repeating the words of Chief Justice Dickson: “Something
is drastically wrong when the public feels that its military is
incompetent and led by an inept if not corrupt hierarchy”.
My party agrees with Chief Justice Dickson. There is something
drastically wrong. Does the bill address the need for change? I
just told the House I disagree with the way the bill arrived
here. However, there is much in the bill that my party agrees
with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to cover up
something rather than address the real issues, as this government
so often does, the result is very often inadequate.
Similarly, because the government is introducing the 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 the military. The
government could have taken measures that would have truly made a
difference, measures the Canadian public could point to and say
“my government listened and I now have faith in the way the
military operates”. The government did not listen. Instead it
shut down an inquiry and stifled debate and now the Canadian
public will feel cheated, and justifiably so.
The government feels proud when it says that 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 inquiry 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 far more important than mere
quantity.
The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that the judge
advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored this
recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended
that the office of the inspector general be created. The
government ignored that recommendation as well.
My party proposed in our election platform last year and we
maintain today that creating the office of an inspector general
would be the best way to make the military both accountable and
increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its
armed forces.
We proposed in our platform let the future begin: “Establishing
an inspector general for the armed forces to act as an ombudsman
to address concerns which cannot be dealt with in a routine chain
of command”.
1610
In the government's response to the Somalia inquiry, a document
that for one reason or another my party has not yet figured out,
called “A Commitment to Change” the government turns down the
proposed inspector general. In “A Commitment to Change” the
government states that the commissioners themselves are confused
and that introducing an inspector general of the kind that they
envisioned would demand the very sort of counter-expert body the
commissioners consider inappropriate in chapter 44 of the Somalia
report.
My party has looked very closely at chapter 44 of the Somalia
report and found one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Chapter 44 is entitled “The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”.
The chapter does not speak about the office of the inspector
general but rather how to better inform Canadian
parliamentarians.
In chapter 16 of “A Commitment to Change” the government
misleads Canadians into believing the Somalia commissioners asked
for an inspector general and then said in chapter 44 an inspector
general was not needed. That is not the case, and the minister
and the government know this very well.
If that was not clear enough, my colleague for
Compton—Stanstead put forward a motion on November 29, 1997 at
the defence and veterans affairs committee because he knew it was
very important to clarify this precise issue.
I would like to read the motion that my colleague presented at
that time: “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 am sad to say this motion for the need for a vigilant
Parliament was turned down. This is shameful behaviour on the
part of this government. It ends an inquiry and misleads
Canadians in its response to the inquiry. When the defence
committee wants to have things clarified, as is its right, the
motion is 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. Is this why 80% of the recommendations of
the Somalia inquiry do not include the recommendation for a
detailed annual report to Parliament? Instead of listening to the
recommendations made by the Somalia commissioners this government
chose to follow the advice given by the Dickson special advisory
group. What my party cannot accept is the way this government
picks and chooses what recommendations to follow.
The government might want an example and this might surprise it.
Recommendation 35 of the Dickson report, which has not made its
way into this bill, calls for “an independent office of
complaint review and system oversight such as a military
ombudsman be established within the Canadian forces and that it
report directly to the Minister of National Defence”.
The Somalia commissioners call it an inspector general. The
Dickson report calls it an ombudsman. My party calls it an
inspector general to act as an ombudsman. And still this
government does not act. In the words of the Minister of
Defence, the military does not need someone looking over its
shoulder.
Why is this minister convinced that the Department of National
Defence does not need an independent inspector general when
experts who have studied for months and made recommendations to
his department tell him he does need an inspector general?
Before I move on to my final points I want to tell this House
about another recommendation made by the Somalia commissioners
that did not make it into the government's 80%: “That the
National Defence Act be amended to provide clearly that any
individual in the Canadian forces or any civilian can lay a
complaint with the military police without fear of reprisal and
without having first to raise the complaint with the chain of
command”.
This recommendation does not appear in the bill before us today
because in “A Commitment to Change” it is written plainly this
recommendation is not accepted.
If passed, will this bill work in a practical way? My party will
ensure during the committee stage of this bill that we invite
witnesses who can enlighten the committee.
I hope the government does not interfere with this process.
1615
It is my understanding that my colleague from Compton—Stanstead
will put forward motions to invite the Somalia commissioners.
They are experts and they have something to add to this bill. He
will also want to hear from those who worked closely on the
Dickson special advisory group. But that is not all. It will be
important to hear from the Americans, the British, the French and
other like-minded nations on the operation and success of their
military justice systems. It will also be important to hear from
the stakeholders, namely members of the Canadian forces.
This bill addresses the issue of military summary trials, that
is, trials run by military officers with no legal training.
When being briefed by the Department of National Defence on this
bill, my party asked what sort of training company commanders
were given. The answer that there was no formal training
astounded us. Although Chief Justice Dickson recommends a
certification process that allows officers to hold summary
trials, the issue is not addressed in this bill.
Through my colleague, my party will argue that this bill should
go further to create real change. We want the public to know the
military serves them and not itself. I hope the government takes
my party's suggestions seriously.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate
on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
The 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. It
deals primarily with the military justice system. The amendments
proposed in the bill are the most extensive amendments to the
National Defence Act since it was first put in place in 1950.
The men and women of our armed forces have maintained our
defence forces at a high state of readiness in the face of many
challenges. They have contributed with enthusiasm and
professionalism to our wide range of international and domestic
commitments. In the Saguenay, in Red River in Manitoba, in
central, eastern and Atlantic Canada they have played a crucial
role in protecting the health and the safety of Canadians.
[Translation]
During the recent ice storm, one of the worst natural disasters in
our history, almost 16,000 members of the Forces provided relief to
literally millions of Canadians who were without power.
[English]
They helped restore power, set up evacuation centres, assisted
police and other emergency response teams and comforted people in
need. Their very presence helped Canadians cope with the
disaster and face it with added confidence and resolve. The
Canadian forces demonstrated once again that it is truly a vital
national institution. We and all Canadians have good reason to
praise the dedication and the professionalism of these men and
women.
We must also remember that the Canadian forces are an armed
force trained for combat and requiring a distinct system of
military justice. This requirement derives from the uniqueness
of the Canadian forces' mandate, purposes and roles as well as
special responsibilities and obligations to its members.
Military personnel may be required to risk injury or death in
the performance of their duties. This puts a premium on the
discipline and cohesion of military units.
This operational reality has specific implications for military
justice.
1620
First, the Canadian forces require a justice system that can try
offences against the ordinary law of Canada and offences that are
unique to the military, such as mutiny or being absent without
leave.
Second, the military chain of command which is accountable not
only for the maintenance of discipline but for carrying out the
missions assigned by the government, must play a key role in the
administration of justice.
Third, the system must be able to try and punish violations
quickly so that individuals can be returned to service as soon as
possible.
Finally, the system needs to be portable so it can function
wherever the forces are deployed in times of peace or conflict,
either here in Canada or abroad.
Discipline is the lifeblood of any military organization.
Whether in peace or war it spells the difference between military
success and failure. It promotes effectiveness and efficiency.
Its foundations are respect for leadership, appropriate training
and a military justice system where equity and fairness are
unquestionably clear to all.
In recent years however, the capacity of the military justice
system to promote discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice
has been called into question by a number of incidents. The
government looked closely at these events and has acted
decisively.
In March 1995 the Somalia commission was established and the
commission brought us a great number of recommendations. Over
80% of those recommendations, including many on military justice,
are being implemented. It has been asked what about the
inspector general recommendation. It is here in other forms.
There are other people responsible for the military justice
system who will carry out those same functions. Indeed there
will be independent monitoring, looking over the shoulders of the
military to ensure that in fact they are implemented.
In December 1996 the government commissioned a special advisory
group under the right hon. Brian Dickson, former chief justice of
the Supreme Court of Canada. We asked him and his colleagues to
assess the military justice system and the police investigation
services.
The group reported on time and under budget. The minister of the
day supported the recommendations in his report to the Prime
Minister on the leadership and management of the forces of March
25, 1997. The Prime Minister endorsed early action on the
recommendations and work began immediately to pursue their
implementation.
The special advisory group was also asked to examine the
quasi-judicial role of the minister in the military justice
system. I am pleased to accept the recommendations it has made.
They are also being implemented.
When the government saw that the military justice system was one
of the key areas where change was needed, we took action. We
sought advice from within the military, from the public at large
and from distinguished Canadians with specialized knowledge. The
amendments under Bill C-25 are a product of that process.
Bill C-25 addresses a broad range of provisions in the National
Defence Act. It will modernize the provisions with respect to
boards of inquiry. It will clarify the legislative authority and
performance of public service duties by Canadian forces members
such as those during the recent ice storm.
Bill C-25 is primarily about the modernization of the military
justice system. The four principal thrusts of this initiative
will first, establish in the National Defence Act for the first
time, the roles and responsibilities of the key figures in the
military justice system and set clear standards of institutional
separation, a very important element, for the investigative,
prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions.
Second, it will enhance transparency and provide greater
structure to the exercise of individual discretion in the
investigation and charging processes.
1625
Third, it will modernize the powers and the procedures of
service tribunals, including eliminating the death penalty under
military law.
Fourth, it will strengthen, not weaken but strengthen, oversight
and review of the administration of military justice.
[Translation]
Each component is a major building block in the revitalization of
the Canadian military justice system.
Allow me to present a brief overview of each, so that the totality
of the improvements are apparent.
[English]
The roles, responsibilities and duties of the key figures in the
military are not precisely set out in the National Defence Act as
it is presently constituted. This has led to a degree of
uncertainty and misunderstanding about their respective functions
and relationships in the overall process of delivering justice.
The amendments contained in Bill C-25 will establish in clear
terms the duties and relationship between the prosecution,
defence and judicial functions. The bill clearly defines the
role of the judge advocate general as a legal adviser to the
Governor General, the Minister of National Defence, the forces
and the Department of National Defence in matters of military
law.
The bill will establish the office of the director of military
prosecutions who under the general supervision of the JAG will be
responsible for deciding which charges are tried by courts
martial and for the conduct of all prosecutions at a courts
martial.
It will provide for the appointment of a director of defence
counsel services who will provide legal services to accused
persons in proceedings under the code of service discipline.
It will provide explicitly for independent military judges to be
appointed by the governor in council for fixed terms.
Under the system as it now stands, the Minister of National
Defence is also a key figure and plays 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 reduce potential conflict of
interest between the minister's duties in individual cases and
the minister's responsibility for the overall management of the
department and the Canadian forces. It will enable the minister
to focus on other duties and responsibilities.
These amendments will also complement the recent initiative to
establish the national investigative service of the military
police. This organization will be independent of the operational
chain of command and will have jurisdiction to investigate
serious and sensitive service offences. They are people who are
being well trained to carry out that function.
Bill C-25 will also improve the structure of the investigation
and charging process and enhance transparency within that
process. The current system has been criticized for its lack of
transparency and for the broad discretion it gives to a
commanding officer to 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.
The amendments to the act will remove from commanding officers
the power to dismiss charges. They 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. They will also require that a charge that is
beyond the jurisdiction of commanding officers is referred to the
director of military prosecutions.
Changes to the act and to the regulatory administrative
provisions dealing with investigations and charging of service
offences will increase openness and refocus the exercise of
individual discretion. At the same time they will ensure the
valuable and essential participation of the chain of command in
the process.
The amendments under Bill C-25 will also modernize powers and
procedures associated with the two types of service tribunals
that try military offences, summary trials and courts martial.
Reform of the summary trial process 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.
1630
In addition, commanding officers are being provided with more
comprehensive training in their military justice duties and
responsibilities.
Bill C-25 will complement those ongoing reforms of the summary
trial process by reducing the powers of punishment at summary
trial in keeping with its disciplinary focus.
The maximum period of detention that may be awarded at a summary
trial will be reduced from 90 to 30 days. The power to reduce in
rank will be limited to one rank below the rank held before the
summary trial.
In respect of courts martial, they will deal with more serious
offences and will be conducted in accordance with rules similar
to those at a civilian criminal court.
Currently general and disciplinary courts martial are composed
of a judge advocate who officiates at a panel of officers headed
by a president. Even though the president and the officers and
the panel are not required by the act to possess any legal
training, they nonetheless make judicial decisions and determine
sentences. Moreover, as it now stands, only commissioned
officers can sit as members of general and disciplinary courts
martial panels.
Bill C-25 will recognize the judicial nature of the courts
martial. As such, it will eliminate the position of president of
the courts martial panels. It will authorize the presiding
military judge to make all decisions of a legal nature, contrary
to what I was hearing earlier from a colleague opposite.
It will enable a military judge presiding at courts martial
rather than the members of the court martial to determine the
sentence. These people are well qualified to do that.
Moreover, Bill C-25 will permit a non-commissioned member of the
rank of warrant officer or above to serve as a member of a
general and disciplinary court martial when the accused is a
non-commissioned member.
This participation, which is for the first time, will enable the
Canadian forces to tap into the considerable wealth of experience
and leadership offered by their senior non-commissioned members,
men and women who also have a significant role to play in the
disciplinary process.
We are moving to enhance accountability and transparency within
the military justice system. Oversight and review mechanisms
must be in place to ensure that day to day decisions are
monitored effectively and are capable of being assessed.
Bill C-25 will establish two oversight bodies, both of which
will be independent of the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian forces.
The first is the military police complaints commission. Its
mandate will be to receive and investigate complaints by any
member concerning the conduct of military police in the
performance of their duties.
It will also investigate complaints by military police about
improper interference in their investigations by members of the
Canadian forces and senior departmental officials. That is
something that is not done in other police complaints
commissions.
Second, the Canadian forces grievance board will make findings
and recommendations on certain categories of grievances prior to
their being referred to the chief of defence staff for final
decision.
If any finding or recommendation of the grievance board is not
acted upon, the chief of defence staff will be required to
provide reasons in writing for not doing so.
In addition to these oversight bodies, Bill C-25 will impose new
review and reporting requirements. The Minister of National
Defence will be required to report to parliament on the operation
of the act within five years of the amendments coming into force.
Moreover, the Canadian forces grievances board, the military
police complaints commission and the judge advocate general will
be required to report annually to parliament. This will provide
a great deal of opportunity for oversight of many reports coming
into the public forum for examination.
These measures will greatly enhance accountability, transparency
and increased competence in the military justice system.
[Translation]
The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-25 are the most
extensive in the history of the act. They will provide a more modern and
effective statutory framework for the operations of the department and
the Forces.
1635
They will more closely align military justice processes with
judicial processes applicable to other Canadians.
[English]
In conjunction with other elements of our comprehensive program
of institutional change, these amendments will increase the
effectiveness and the efficiency of our armed forces and enable
the men and women of the Canadian forces, who do so much for us
and do it so well, to do it all even better.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 38,
it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche, Courts in Campbellton; the hon. member for
Kamloops, Health Care; and the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington,
Atomic Energy Control Board.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the minister a couple of questions stemming
from the comments he made in his speech.
He said that the position of an independent inspector general,
which was recommended by the Somalia inquiry, was not needed as a
result of changes made by the legislation. I would like to ask
him specifically how what was done in the legislation replaces
the position of an independent inspector general laid out by the
Somalia inquiry.
The minister proposed that there be an ombudsman. That was also
recommended in the report of Somalia inquiry, as well as in other
reports. The position recommended in the Somalia and other
reports called for an independent ombudsman. The one being
proposed by the minister is not independent. However it is
notable that the position of ombudsman is nowhere in the
legislation.
Has the minister gone as far as he is going to go in this area,
or will he implement a position of ombudsman? Again, could he
explain where the rather phantom independent inspector general is
in the legislation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. It gives me an opportunity to say that
the functions he proposes in terms of an inspector general are
covered in other positions, not just in terms of the legislation
but also in other provisions that are being made by the
government.
In the legislation, as I have mentioned already, there is the
grievance board and the police complaints commission. There is
an ombudsman who indeed will be independent. It will not be
someone who reports to the chain of command or who is part of the
chain of command. The person will be independent and will be
from outside the Canadian forces. When a report is issued, the
report can be examined by parliament, can be examined by the
committee which is a part of the parliamentary process and does
such things. It will be fully available and open to scrutiny and
examination.
That I call accountability and transparency. It addresses the
issue of the examination of what is going on in the military.
I am not afraid to have people looking over the shoulders of the
military. I said that we did not need an additional person to do
that when we already have the functions covered. They are
covered by the ombudsman, by the grievance board and by the
police complaints commission. There is also a chief of review
services who does a lot of work in examining what the chain of
command has authorized, what it is carrying out and whether it is
being carried out within the mandate and is being done in a
proper fashion.
A very substantial overview will happen not only as a result of
these amendments but of decisions of the government to implement
oversight mechanisms to make the Canadian forces all the more
accountable to parliament.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on March 12 there was a press release from the
minister's department announcing that Jerry Pitzul was the new
judge advocate general.
This appointment seems to exactly hit on what the minister is
looking for. It has the element of a civilian and the element of
a former military person.
1640
I understand Mr. Pitzul has been out of the military since 1995
when he took on a position with the Nova Scotia government as
director of the public prosecution service. It now appears he is
being brought back into the military with a new rank, a raise in
pay and new responsibilities.
He is praised in this release as being an extremely competent
man. Was an appraisal done of his performance in the province of
Nova Scotia? It speaks of his immense experience in Nova Scotia
but the man never tried a case there.
I ask the minister if there is any beginning to the wisdom of
this latest appointment.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, given that the hon.
member once worked for him—
Mr. Peter MacKay: He fired me.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: He fired him. Yes, that is
true. I guess if you get fired you do not particularly like the
person who fired you. Well, too bad. Perhaps he had good reason
to do that; I am sure he did. I guess it does not hurt members
who get fired because they get elected to the House of Commons.
Mr. Pitzul has considerable experience in the military. He
spent most of his legal career in the military. He has been a
judge. He has occupied other positions that have given him a
great deal of information, knowledge and understanding of the
military justice system. On top of that, he now has experience
from outside having gone to Nova Scotia and having performed
duties in a civilian role in that province. That adds to the
depth and experience he brings to this position. It also shows
that we are willing to bring in new blood, to bring in people
from the outside and to make reforms in the military justice
system.
I know that the new judge advocate general, Mr. Pitzul, will do
that and do it well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have one minute
for a question and one minute for a response so that we can get
them both in.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister mentioned that 80% of the Somalia inquiry
recommendations were being implemented in Bill C-25. The
minister shut down the Somalia inquiry so 80% may not be an
accurate figure.
The inquiry was not allowed to complete its work because the
government shut it down. That 80% figure is probably a bit
erroneous. Even so, the 20% the government chose not to
implement includes some of the most important things that could
be done for the Canadian Armed Forces including the
implementation of an inspector general.
I will ask the minister directly one specific question about
reducing the sentence for mutiny. In this country mutiny can be
very serious. The minister has pointed out that we require a
strong military system for good order and discipline. Where is
the wisdom in the government that would see a sentence for mutiny
reduced to 14 years where we are dealing with heavy expensive
equipment like CF-18 aircraft and we—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The minister of
defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, let me comment
about the Somalia commission of inquiry. We are implementing
over 80% of the recommendations.
The member talks about the other 20%. We are by and large
implementing all the recommendations. We have different ways of
implementing some. We do not agree with every letter of every
recommendation. We have a different way, a preferable way of
implementing but the spirit and intent of just about all
recommendations are being implemented, not necessarily all by the
legislation but certainly by government action in many different
respects.
The inspector general is a good example because it will come
into the 20%. I have said that all those functions are covered.
We have covered them with other positions.
On the question of mutiny, all these changes are to bring about
a legal system that is in accordance with modern day legal
practices, akin to what is happening in civilian courts and takes
into account the charter.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is very
impressive that the minister is willing to overhaul the whole
institution, in particular when it comes to justice.
1645
As he said, we expect every soldier to be willing to give his or
her life so why on earth should we hold them to another code of
conduct and a whole other code of justice than what we would hold
ourselves accountable to? I think this is important. What is
wrong with our own courts? Why on earth can we not have our
justice system deal with our military so that they can count on
our justice system if they are going to give their lives for us?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: I thank the hon. member for the
question. By tradition there is a separate military justice
system because of the nature of dealing with matters swiftly.
As I emphasized in my remarks, discipline and cohesion are very
important because not only can what some of our soldiers do
threaten their own lives, it can threaten the lives of other
people who are part of the team they are working with. It is
important to be able to deal with these matters for that reason
very swiftly. In some cases they may be abroad at the time.
They may be involved in war or peacekeeping in other parts of the
world and so it is necessary to have a portable system, have a
system that can operate in a very swift fashion in terms of the
military justice system.
The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated there is justification
and a need for a separate military justice system. What we are
attempting to do is to bring it as close as possible to the
civilian system so that indeed the charter and the questions of
fairness and equity within the judicial system will be there for
the soldiers as much as they are for the civilians.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to
speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act.
The act represents the government's attempt to respond to the
failings of the military justice system which became so evident
to all Canadians during the Somalia inquiry.
Canada has an obligation to protect its interests both
internationally and domestically. This frequently involves
committing military resources which is a task that is becoming
increasingly difficult for the underfunded, undertrained and
under-equipped Canadian Armed Forces.
I would like to stress that this statement is in no way an
attack on the good men and women who serve our country. I would
like to put it in complete context by telling the House, and
telling Canadians, that I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I
served five years in the regular armed forces with the navy on
three Canadian destroyers, the HMCS Gatineau, the HMCS
Yukon and the HMCS Qu'Appelle. Later in life I also
served in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve.
I come to this debate with a little knowledge regarding the
forces. I see you also, Mr. Speaker, have served in the Canadian
Armed Forces, and maybe other members have too. I think there is
a strong feeling that the military is very important to
Canadians. It certainly is to me and it is not lightly that I
enter the debate on Bill C-25.
Many people in eastern Canada had to do little more than to look
out their windows recently to see the dedicated men and women of
the armed forces in action. Operation Recuperation had more than
12,000 military personnel deployed in Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick to assist in humanitarian relief operations.
Floods in the Red River Valley also highlighted the important
role of our military forces and how they help with domestic
problems in Canada. Recently, internationally, we see unrest in
the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo which has Canada and the
United States considering the sending of more troops to that
region. Currently, Canada has some 1,300 troops located in
Bosnia. Recently we sent a small contingent to the Persian Gulf.
In my history as a member of Parliament and as a military
person, most recently I have seen the good work of the Canadian
Armed Forces internationally in Bosnia in 1994 where we had
reserve members and regular force members. They do Canadians
proud each and every day of the week.
Just last week, as a matter of fact, we saw Her Majesty's
Canadian ship, the Okanagan, a submarine located in
Halifax, rescue two men who had drifted out to sea in the Bahamas
after the motor of their fishing boat gave out. I congratulate
the entire crew of the HMCS Okanagan for a job well done.
1650
The men and women of our armed forces do a wonderful job and
they deserve the support of this government for their hard work
and dedication. However, members of the Canadian Armed Forces do
not have the commitment from this government that they need to do
their jobs. Spending cuts have decimated the Department of
National Defence since the Liberals took power in 1993. In the
last five years, the department's budget has dropped from
approximately $11 billion to just over $9 billion. This has
dramatically reduced the readiness and capability of the forces.
As I said earlier, the men and women of the Canadian Armed
Forces do their best with whatever they have and they have been
able to complete their tasks, no thanks to this government and
this Liberal administration.
Cuts to the defence budget have lowered the standard of living
of lower ranks to near poverty levels. They have cut the number
of personnel to below minimum levels and have reduced training to
below minimum requirements. In fact, I have introduced a private
member's bill that will seek to address the substantial training
deficits faced by our reserve forces in Canada. This bill will
entitle reservists employed by the federal government and crown
corporations a period not to exceed two months annually for the
purpose of training or serving in the Canadian reserve force.
Presently, reservists have been forced to use their own
hard-earned vacation time to attend training courses. This is
just not right when they could be sent away to do the
government's bidding and the government's will. We need to make
some concessions in our system for those reservists, those
citizen soldiers who work so hard for us. This is certainly a
tremendous sacrifice for them and their families. Therefore, I
encourage every member of the House to show their support for the
fine work of our armed forces reserve and support this bill when
it comes to this House on Monday.
The Somalia inquiry exposed very serious deficiencies within the
military justice system. As I looked through one of the many
volumes from the Somalia inquiry, volume 5, it just highlights
some of the problems that the Somalia commissioners found when
they were involved in that massive review of the military justice
system: too few military police and military police with
inappropriate skills; commanding officers slow to call in the
military police; guidelines for calling investigations not
followed; guidelines not followed when it comes to summary
investigations; witnesses' statements not taken correctly;
conflict of interest; problems in military investigations; lack
of co-operation when people were interviewed by military police;
difficulty investigating superior officers because of the chain
of command in the military—military police had a lot of
difficulty with that— and influence of commanding officers over
investigations.
The volumes and volumes of books that we have and still not
complete point out the true problems that we have in the military
justice system. We have to try to get to the heart of those
problems: problems surrounding the murder of a Somalia civilian;
the cover-up of the murder; the failure of the general staff and
the government to hold anyone accountable for their actions or
omissions; the cultural secrecy within the Department of National
Defence; and the double standards in the military justice system
all became very evident during the Somalia inquiry.
If this Liberal government was really concerned about our troops
and our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, it would have
let the commissioners of inquiry complete their work and finish
the recommendations instead of just coming up with 80% of the
problem completely solved. I do not think that is fair to our
men and women in the forces. They deserve much better.
The amendments in Bill C-25 give the appearance of an attempt to
address problems with the military and the justice system, yet
the amendments do not address all the concerns expressed by the
commissioners in their incomplete report. In fact, they actually
add a whole new set of problems to the military justice system.
The first problem is that the bill creates more bureaucracy. If
there is one thing the Canadian Armed Forces does not need, it is
more levels of bureaucracy. We have more military personnel
located in Ottawa in a bureaucratic function than we have on the
pointed edge of the army in actual military roles.
There are more bureaucrats here for the Canadian Armed Forces and
this bill will add more bureaucracy to that already top heavy
system. That is not good enough.
1655
The military police complaints commissioners is created. That
sounds fine. The problem is it is going to create seven more
order in council appointments. I think Canadians are pretty fed
up with order in council appointments. We would like to see a
system where they appoint more people who are fully qualified and
have the background, not more patronage appointments that we saw
this week in the Senate chamber. We do not want to see more of
that here and this department creates seven more order in council
appointments. It is unbelievable. What we need in this system
of military justice is openness, accountability and independence,
not a more complex system.
Another problem is with the office of the judge advocate
general. Currently the judge advocate general wears three hats.
He is responsible for investigative, prosecutorial and judicial
functions of the system. One office is responsible for the
military police who investigate the potential violations for the
prosecutors who prosecute the cases and for the legal officers
who may preside over courts martial that may result. It is not
hard to understand that the JAG may find himself in a conflict of
interest in these duties.
In the days leading up to the murder of Shidane Arone, the judge
advocate general was actively involved in providing the executive
staff of the Department of National Defence with daily legal
advice. You have a person offering the chief of defence staff
the military command, the military hierarchy, legal advice when
he would only weeks later be expected to oversee the military
justice system that was going to prosecute people. So you can
see there is a conflict of interest.
Nowhere was this conflict more evident than in the Somalia
affair where the JAG was providing from the start legal advice to
the minister, the deputy minister and the military police. He
did provide that judicial advice to his military trial judge
division. Clearly judicial responsibility should be removed from
the JAG branch. The judicial function must be seen as
independent and clearly this cannot happen when the JAG is
appointed directly by the chief of defence staff.
The other problem with the judge advocate general being of
military background is that he is always beholden to the person
who appoints him. There is only one person who can do that. That
is the chief of defence staff. He is offering him legal advice.
He is also very thankful that he received this appointment. It
is a difficult position to put anyone in and they should change
that system so there is more independence.
The third problem with this bill is the failure to create the
inspector general which was recommended by the Somalia inquiry.
The inspector general would receive information from all sources,
investigate complaints of corruption, abuse and mismanagement. We
could give you many examples of why this is important.
The other day during question period my colleague for Lakeland
brought a case forward where the inspector general had actually
sent a letter to a person intimidating that person regarding a
committee that was being heard. That is why an inspector general
is so important. What are people who are intimidated by the
office of the judge advocate general to do? Where are they to
go? The problem is that they have nowhere to go at all.
If they have an inspector general who works as an ombudsman for
men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who find themselves in
this particular situation where they are being attacked or being
told to keep quiet about a certain situation that is happening on
a base, we want to know about that in this House. That is why an
independent inspector general is so very important to a military
justice system that is going to carry us through the 20th
century.
The inspector general would also advise the minister concerning
ethical interests including conflict of interest.
This office must be filled by a civilian. This would be the
mechanism for ensuring civilian control of the military system.
This is a fundamental principle of Canadian society.
1700
Another problem with this bill is clause 28 and the reduction of
the penalty for mutiny without violence. The reduction is from a
maximum of life imprisonment to 14 years. Clearly this change
could dramatically affect the relationship between the ranks
which is vital to good military order. The minister acknowledged
that himself. We need a strong military justice system for the
good order and discipline of our troops. One of the key reasons
for that is that there is no other department in Canada where we
ask our troops to put their lives on the line, that they may
actually have to die for their country.
We have frigates in the Canadian Armed Forces that are worth
millions of dollars. We have CF-18s that are also worth millions
of dollars. What would happen if internally within Canada there
was a situation where a group of military personnel for one
reason or another decided they were going to do away with a
couple of those CF-18s and move them elsewhere?
A term of 14 years is not enough. This is not nearly enough to
ensure that we have good order and discipline in the Canadian
Armed Forces. It should be a life sentence and there is no
question about it.
Canada is a nation that recognizes its obligations both
internationally and domestically. The ice storm, the Manitoba
flood, Bosnia and the recent mission of the submarine
Okanagan all demonstrate to Canadians what a wonderful job
the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces do.
Yet we find this Liberal government has shown it is no friend to
the Canadian Armed Forces or people with military service. The
government has demonstrated this quite clearly through spending
cuts. In 1993 it dramatically reduced the readiness and
capability of our forces.
We had a chief of defence staff, Boyle, who said to the
international community in Brussels that our Canadian Armed
Forces could not meet the readiness capability of going into
battle. Exactly what we have a Canadian Armed Forces for is to
make sure it can protect our interests and our sovereignty at
home and abroad. Yet we do not have a military that is at that
level, according to a former chief of defence staff.
The reductions this government has imposed have hurt the
Canadian Armed Forces. This does not stop the Liberal government
from sending our troops into potentially dangerous areas like
Bosnia, the Persian gulf or Kosovo. As a matter of fact when the
Prime Minister thinks it might help his political points by
sending more troops to Rwanda or other places, even though we do
not have the troops to fill that need, the Prime Minister makes a
commitment anyway. We all know the result of that was just a
bunch of hot air. Those in the military circles knew very well we
could not have met the commitment the Prime Minister made.
The government has now introduced Bill C-25 to deal with the
problems created by the Somalia inquiry. However the changes in
this bill fail to address the fundamental root of the problem,
that the government, not the men and women in the forces and not
the forces itself, but the government has failed to provide
openness and accountability in our Canadian Armed Forces.
Recommendations of the Somalia inquiry continue to be ignored by
the government. The government has done our armed forces no
favours whatsoever. It has allowed a cloud to hang over the
military by shutting down the Somalia inquiry when it was just
getting to the root of the problem. True things were coming out.
But the government felt it was in danger itself of being tainted
with some of the things that were going on during the
investigative process.
I strongly support substantive changes to the military justice
system. I believe that Canadians also support changes to the
military justice system.
However, any changes must address the issues of accountability,
openness and independence within the Canadian forces. Changes
must, for me to support them, include an inspector general.
1705
The Canadian people will be watching this government and the
decisions it makes on this very important issue. Canadians
condemn the Liberal government for interfering with the inquiry
and turning a blind eye to the destruction of evidence and the
intimidation of witnesses.
The problems are at the top with politicians; let us make that
very clear, they are right here on the front bench across the
way. It is not with the lowest ranking members of the Canadian
Armed Forces who serve with the willingness to put their lives on
the line for those very people in the front row opposite. No, it
is not with members of the forces. It is with them across the
way.
The government now has the opportunity to address the problems.
We will be watching very closely on behalf of the men and women
in the Canadian Armed Forces. We will be watching on behalf of
all Canadians to make sure that the changes to the justice system
that are required for our men and women in the Canadian Armed
Forces are the proper ones.
We will be putting forward many amendments on this bill. The
way it stands right now, we cannot support this bill.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier I heard the minister tell us that the role of the
independent inspector general that was so very vigorously
proposed in the Somalia inquiry and by others was found in his
legislation or in something yet to come. It was not completely
clear from his answer. The member who has just spoken has
indicated that the minister has created a new bureaucracy and
several new patronage appointment opportunities for his Liberal
friends. The minister has not in fact put in place someone or a
group who would perform the function of that independent
inspector general.
I ask the member which is it. Is it what the minister says,
that the position is covered in these changes or is it not? Is
what has been created a new bureaucracy?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for his question. Unfortunately, under the test of
independence that I would certainly apply, there does not seem to
be the independence we would like to see that an independent
inspector general would provide for the Canadian Armed Forces.
One of the reasons for the independence requirement as I
mentioned during my remarks is that in one recent case a military
person was actually intimidated by the judge advocate general's
office.
We need the independence to make sure that the office will not
interfere with the military structure whatsoever and that it will
act as an ombudsman for people in the military structure, either
family members in the military, the military personnel themselves
or civilian members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are involved
with the military.
That is what we mean by independence. There would be no
connection whatsoever and they would have investigative power to
investigate complaints. It would be similar to a provincial
ombudsman role.
There is evidence around the world that an independent inspector
general is very effective. The United States armed services has
an inspector general. Millions of dollars in fraudulent
expenditures, et cetera have been uncovered in the armed forces
internally. People who have been intimidated by the chain of
command or by other forces in the armed forces structure itself
have been helped.
1710
Independence is very important. The government's reaction to
this does not meet the test of independence. Therefore I would
suggest that we would be putting forward amendments that will see
a true independent inspector general in the new military justice
system.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, to nail this down a
little more, I want to get back to the case the member referred
to. Last week I brought this to the attention of the House.
Miss Olafson from Cold Lake appeared before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs,
having been encouraged by the minister, the chief of defence
staff and others. She was somewhat critical of the department,
like some people on the base at Cold Lake. After, she received a
letter from the deputy judge advocate, Colonel Barber, who
strongly criticized her for what she had said at the committee
meeting. At the end of the letter he threatened her against
continuing.
Under the current system, before this legislation which is being
proposed passes, independence is an issue. It is a critical
issue. Who indicated that the letter should be written? Was it
Colonel Barber completely, the deputy judge advocate who decided
to write that letter, or was it the base commander, or was it the
minister of defence who said to the deputy judge advocate to
write the letter? We do not know because the independence is not
there.
Under the new proposals the minister has put forth, would there
be the proper level of independence so that the judge advocate's
office would not write the letter unless it felt it was proper,
and not as a result of pressure from above?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would have
the same independence as we are suggesting with an inspector
general. The system the minister has proposed is about patronage
appointments, order in council appointments. Appointments would
be given to friends of the Liberal government across the way.
Those people I suppose with a stretch we could say are
independent, just as much as the Liberal senator from B.C. who
was appointed has independence from the Liberal government. There
is no independence.
The structure in the bureaucracy would involve military people
and civilian people who are connected either through the chain of
command or through the bureaucracy on the civilian side of the
Canadian Armed Forces.
To answer the member's question, I fail to see how the
government's solution offers the security of independence at all.
I would strongly urge the government to reconsider this very
fundamental point that there be independence in a justice system.
I strongly urge the government when we put our amendment forward
to wholeheartedly accept the amendment of installing an
independent inspector general.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend
the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
Bill C-25 is the most extensive package of amendments to the
National Defence Act since enactment in the year 1950. The
amendments deal with a wide variety of issues ranging from
updating the boards of inquiry provisions to putting some of the
Canadian forces domestic duties, such as duties during the recent
ice storm, on a firm legislative footing.
But Bill C-25 is primarily about military justice.
In that regard it sets out a comprehensive strategy to modernize
the code of service discipline in a way that is consistent with
the values and expectations of Canadians and meets the Canadian
forces requirement for a military justice system that is swift,
fair and portable.
1715
As part of this comprehensive strategy, Bill C-25 puts in place
a number of mechanisms designed to improve oversight and review
of the administration of military justice. Both the report of
the special advisory group chaired by the Right Hon. Brian
Dickson and the Somalia commission of inquiry recognized the
importance of strengthened oversight and review of military
justice.
The Dickson advisory group made two important points in this
regard. First, military justice by definition must include an
effective, independent channel or mechanism through which service
members can express their concerns about any aspect of the
military establishment. Second, in their opinion, such a
mechanism would ultimately strengthen the military chain of
command.
The mechanisms in Bill C-25 are based on the principle put
forward by the Somalia commission that oversight and review
mechanisms should be strengthened. Bill C-25 contains a variety
of mechanisms to strengthen oversight and review and to
complement other specialized mechanisms. It is these mechanisms
to strengthen oversight and review which I would like to address.
Bill C-25 will establish the Canadian forces grievance board and
military police complaints commission, both of which will be
external and independent oversight bodies. It will establish a
military police code of conduct. It will create a new
requirement for the judge advocate general to review and report
on the administration of military justice.
Finally, it will require that the Minister of National Defence
review the provisions and operation of the National Defence Act
and report to Parliament within five years of the amendments
coming into force. All of these amendments will substantially
enhance both accountability and transparency in the
administration of military justice.
My colleague is exactly right when he said transparency is our
ultimate goal. The amendments will also ensure that there is a
means through which day to day decisions in the administration of
military justice can be monitored and assessed.
First, let me look at the current grievance system as authorized
by section 29 of the act. Today the language of section 29 does
not clearly define the circumstances in which a member may submit
a grievance. In addition, while the grievance process has
generally been seen to be achieving its objectives, it involves
too many levels of review. This leaves the perception that the
process is slow and unresponsive. Also, it is perceived as being
too closely linked to the chain of command and lacking any
external input.
The grievance process has been under active review within the
Canadian forces. It has also been the subject of observations in
three recent reports. The Somalia commission recommended that
the Minister of National Defence have no adjudicative role in
redress of grievance matters. The Dickson advisory group
recommended that the minister not be involved in grievances
related to summary trials and noted that the report of the
Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister in March 1997
indicated that it was inappropriate for the minister to act as
the final arbiter in grievance processes.
Bill C-25 will act upon many of the recommendations of these
reports. For example, it will make three important changes to
the grievance system. First, it will clarify the circumstances
in which a member may submit a grievance. Second, it will
establish the Canadian forces grievance board which will be
external to and independent of the department and the forces.
Third, it will authorize the chief of defence staff to be the
final decision maker in the grievance process.
1720
The grievance board will review prescribed categories of
grievances before they are sent to the chief of defence staff.
The CDS will have the option of referring any other grievance to
the board. The board will provide findings and recommendations
and submit them to the CDS. The CDS will not be bound by the
board's findings or recommendations, but will be required to
provide reasons when any findings or recommendations are not
acted upon.
The grievance board will establish its own internal process and,
for the purpose of conducting its tasks, will have the authority
to hold hearings and compel the attendance of witnesses and the
production of documents.
Bill C-25 will require the board to file an annual report with
the Minister of National Defence, who will be required to table
this report in Parliament.
Bill C-25 will also create a military police complaints
commission. This commission will be independent and external to
the department and the forces and will have the mandate to deal
with complaints from the public about the conduct of military
police in their policing duties.
It will also have the mandate to deal with complaints by
military police concerning improper interference by members of
the forces and senior officials of the department in the conduct
of military police investigations.
This commission will have the power and resources to investigate
complaints and the power to conduct public hearings. It will
also have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and take
testimony under oath.
As is the case with independent bodies which provide similar
oversight to civilian police, the complaints commission will have
the authority to make findings and recommendations to the
minister.
Bill C-25 will require the commission to file an annual report
which will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of National
Defence.
Bill C-25 will also make specific provision for a military
police professional code of conduct to be established in
regulations. The code of conduct will establish a clear standard
of professional conduct for military police. The code of
conduct, which is a feature of most Canadian civil police forces
and which was recommended by the Dickson advisory group and the
Somalia commission, will help to enhance both the professionalism
and accountability of military police.
In addition to these important steps to improve oversight and
review, Bill C-25 will also make the military justice system more
open and transparent through two other new review and reporting
requirements.
First, five years after Bill C-25 amendments come into effect
the Minister of National Defence will be required to review the
operation of the act. This review will be tabled in Parliament.
Second, the judge advocate general will be required to report
annually to the minister on the administration of military
justice in the Canadian forces.
These reports, in addition to those I mentioned earlier by the
Canadian forces grievance board and the military police
complaints commission, will enhance openness and accountability.
The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-25 are the most
extensive in the history of the National Defence Act. They
follow through on the recommendations of the Dickson advisory
group and respond to those of the Somalia commission. They
provide a more effective statutory framework for the operations
of the department and the forces.
In terms of oversight, the amendments to the grievance process
provide an open and responsive process through which members of
the Canadian forces can seek review of decisions in the
administration of the Canadian forces.
The amendments associated with the military police complaints
commission establish a rigorous and transparent process to review
military investigative activities. The new reporting
requirements mandated by Bill C-25 will enhance the effectiveness
of parliamentary oversight in a number of important areas.
A famous military man once said “There is no security on earth,
only opportunity”. We have here an opportunity to propose and
move these very specific amendments which will enhance our
Canadian military.
I urge all hon. members in this House to lend their unqualified
support, which I am sure we will get, to these amendments.
1725
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a bushel of questions for this hon. member. I will start with a
few.
At the close of his presentation, the hon. member talked about
the opportunity presented through this legislation. I agree with
the hon. member in a way that this is the time of opportunity in
terms of reforming the military. We have had calls from many
different places for major and positive reform to the military.
We have had the Dickson report. We have also had the Somalia
inquiry with a report that recommended substantive change,
including the establishment of the office of an independent
inspector general, which is not in this legislation.
The hon. member listed one after another after another new
bureaucratic bodies that are being created by this legislation. I
know the hon. member has a background in the military or
certainly a background knowledge of the military. I will ask him
a straight question. Does he believe the Department of National
Defence needs more bureaucracy? Does the Department of National
Defence need more bodies, more places to make patronage
appointments, more complexity? Does the hon. member really
believe that is what the Department of National Defence needs?
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly reply to
the hon. member for Lakeland. He asked what the military needs.
The military certainly needs the tools to do the job. With this
government it will get the tools to do the job.
I believe the Reform Party fresh start campaign was a no start
for the military—
An hon. member: Jump start.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Jump start is also a good term. Reform
wanted to reduce funding to the military. Instead of trying to
do the job with the tools we need, we would be doing the job with
Tonka toys if it were up to Reformers.
We talked about the JAG, the judge advocate general. I would
like to use that acronym for the hon. member for Lakeland and say
that he is just another grumbler. We are doing everything we can
possibly do to help the military. All they want to do is make
vituperative and splenetic remarks about it and indulge in
nothing more than crass political opportunism.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment and a question. My riding was one of the ridings
affected by the ice storm. I will take every opportunity I can
to put on the record that the minister spoke about what the
military did and the reservists too. I am glad that point was
made by the hon. member opposite. He was characteristically
humble as were most of the military people I encountered through
that.
The military saved lives in my riding. I will say that time and
time again. I was very proud of the Canadian military which
brings me to my question. What problem are we trying to solve
here? I have listened quite intently to this debate. The
members on the defence committee are guilty of engaging in
acronyms that I do not understand which leads me to my concern.
Reform is very good at these rather simplistic solutions. Have
an independent counsel. It will take care of itself. Let us
think of what the Americans did during the Watergate crisis.
Independent counsel. Now we have Kenneth Star and the executive
branch of the U.S. government embroiled in some kind of three
ring circus. If this is some way of cutting through red tape, if
this is an elimination of bureaucracy, I do not know where that
is headed.
If the Reform Party wants to do something constructive, let us
bring some balance to the debate. This issue is not as
simplistic as Reformers would have us believe. There are
different ways of accomplishing the same goal.
The member has a base in his riding. Does the member think it
brings anything to the picnic in terms of morale and recognizing
the good works of the Canadian military to constantly dredge up
and dwell on the small minority of negative comments?
I will end by quoting a commander who left eastern Ontario after
the ice storm to cheering crowds. He said: “This is the 99% of
the military you haven't heard about in —”
1730
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am reluctant to
interrupt the hon. member. The House will have to wait in
suspense until the next time this bill comes up for consideration
for the response of the hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
[English]
MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
The House resumed from December 11, 1997 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to be able to speak to the motion by the hon. member
for Kamloops calling on the government to extend veterans
benefits to Canadians who served in the Spanish civil war, the
surviving members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, also known
as the Mac-Paps.
This is a motion which on the surface has some merits. It is
one which many people have mixed feelings about. However, my
first difficulty is a tendency to revisit history and try to
apply retroactive judgments about who fought on the right side
and who fought on the wrong side.
At the time Canada was not at war with Spain. We had laws
prohibiting our citizens from fighting in this foreign war. This
matter has been debated in the House before. In 1980 a motion
similar to the motion presented by the member for Kamloops was
presented by Bob Rae, the then member of Parliament for
Broadview—Greenwood. The issue was also debated and discussed
in great lengths in 1986 at the standing committee on veterans
affairs.
The committee concluded that the losses incurred by the
battalion are indeed to be mourned and the qualities, endurance
and courage shown by the battalion are to be admired. These were
brave individuals fighting for a cause they believed in and we
should definitely not fault them for that.
The standing committee concluded, however, that these Canadians,
the Mac-Paps, cannot be considered in the same light as Canadians
who served in the wars in which Canada was involved as a nation.
The committee also concluded that there can be no thought of
treating them in the same manner by making them eligible for
benefits under the veterans legislation.
Those men who went to Spain and waged war on the fascists are to
be commended for their efforts. One can applaud their bravery in
the face of a better manned and better equipped enemy. Spain has
publicly thanked these men who joined the international brigade.
However, the indisputable fact is that they were soldiers of
conscience. They went on their own to fight the fascist
aggression.
At the time of the Spanish civil war, Canada chose to be neutral
and did not recognize the war. Canada was not at war. The
Canadians who participated in the Spanish civil war did so on an
individual basis. They let their conscience be their guide.
These men went to Spain in defiance of the laws of Canada at the
time. They fought on behalf of their own conscience, not on
behalf of the people of the Government of Canada.
We recognize the sincerity behind this motion. This debate
allows us the opportunity to once again say to these men that
they are not criminals and what they did was what they honestly
felt was right. No one can fault them for that.
They were courageous individuals. However, this House cannot
say that the laws are wrong. We as a country did not support
this war. We salute their bravery but simply cannot agree that
men who fought in a war not sanctioned by Canada are entitled to
benefits which are reserved for people who answered their own
nation's call to arms.
We should think for a few moments about what it would mean
internationally if this House recognized officially the fight of
these volunteers.
1735
Whether we want it or not, we would be approving the actions of
other people who may want to interfere in the internal affairs of
other countries. The government would create an extremely
dangerous precedent by recognizing officially these volunteers
as Canadian soldiers.
Where would we stop? How could we justify giving benefits to
all Canadians who fight in other countries for what they consider
to be just cause? I would not in any way want to encourage
Canadians to feel that they would receive sanctions to take part
in, let us say for the sake of argument, the conflicts and
violence that are occurring in Ireland or Israel for that matter.
We believe it is appropriate that we recognize their valour and
ensure their memory as a part of history. However, we do not
feel that it is right to bestow the status of Canadian war
veteran to members who were not part of the official Canadian
force.
We in our party support the rule of law and do not view it as
appropriate to advocate a position which would in effect
legitimize that which was illegal at the time. This would set an
untenable precedent.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to speak to Motion No. 75 put forward by the hon. member
for Kamloops.
Veterans status is a unique honour and it confers special
privileges to those who have served Canada. In recognition of
the sacrifices they made a grateful nation has provided benefits
to help provide for their war related needs. I consider it an
honour to play a role as parliamentary secretary in the
government's approach on veterans issues.
This motion, as it is written now, would give veteran status and
benefits only to those Canadians who fought for one side in the
Spanish civil war. Let me remind my hon. colleague that
Canadians fought on both sides in the civil war.
[Translation]
Canadians answered the call to serve their country during two world
wars, the Korean War, and in several peacekeeping operations.
However, as the member mentioned, some Canadians served under
different flags, during other conflicts, notably with the opposing
factions during the Spanish civil war.
[English]
About 1,300 Canadians volunteered for the international brigade
to fight against Franco. Incidentally, in the first hour of
debate of this motion, the member for Chateauguay indicated that
52 countries participated in the civil war. I do not know where
the member got that figure. But of the 1,300 Canadians who
participated, some fought in the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion,
the Mac-Paps, others in the Abraham Lincoln battalion, the
British battalion and other units. They suffered heavy
causalities. Only 646 returned to Canada.
Let me make it very clear about the government's view of their
efforts. No one will deny that these Canadians fought bravely.
No one will deny that they believed deeply in the cause for which
they fought. They were not fighting for Canada. They were
fighting in direct contravention of Canadian policy and Canadian
law.
I remind this House that Canada had a policy of neutrality in
the civil war that divided Spain. It was a sound policy. If the
hon. member for Kamloops believes that Canada should have weighed
in on one side or the other of the Spanish civil war, I ask him
to look back to the political realities of those times.
In 1937 J.S. Woodsworth, one of the founders of the CCF, which
we all know is the precursor of the New Democratic Party,
presented a motion to this House advocating strict neutrality in
all European conflicts. To enforce Canada's neutrality, this
House passed the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1937. It continues in
force to this day. It prohibits Canadians from joining the armed
forces of, or otherwise supporting, a foreign state which is
waging war against another foreign state which is on friendly
terms with Canada.
The government has authority to make regulations to apply this
act to civil war. That is what it did with respect to Spain in
1937. On July 31 of that year it became a crime to fight on
either side of the Spanish civil war.
1740
Although in previous speeches some members mentioned that these
Canadians were subject to job discrimination and surveillance by
the RCMP, to the best of my knowledge no veteran of the Spanish
civil war has ever been prosecuted under this law.
It is important to remember that these men disregarded the law
and by adopting this motion we would in effect reward them for
doing so. I would ask hon. members to consider what kind of
precedent this would set. What kind of example does it make for
young people today? Are we saying that it is permissible to
violate the law rather than work through democratic processes to
change it?
[Translation]
Are we going to set a precedent granting the status of veteran not
only to those who served Canada when their country called them, but also
to those who served under a foreign flag in a conflict in which Canada
had remained neutral? What message would we be sending to Canadian
veterans? This would stain the honour granted those who answered their
country's call and who fought for Canada.
[English]
Moreover, I wonder if the member for Kamloops has contacted the
Royal Canadian Legion to obtain its views. I have a letter
addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs from the president
of the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command:
Dear Minister:
[The member for Kamloops] recently presented a private member's
motion recommending the government consider the advisability of
giving the members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and other
Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces in the
Spanish civil war the status of veterans under federal
legislation.
The Royal Canadian Legion does not support the granting of
veterans status to those who fought in the Spanish civil war. It
was an offence under Canadian law at the time to fight on any
side during that war. The Legion supports the rule of law and
does not view it as appropriate to advocate a position at this
late date which would in effect legitimize that which was illegal
at the time. This could set an untenable precedent.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph Kobolak
Dominion President.
In fact, adopting this motion would open the floodgates to other
groups such as Canadian veterans of the Vietnam war who, contrary
to what the member for Chateauguay said in his speech, do not
qualify under our legislation for Canadian veteran status.
This is an emotional issue. It deals with elderly Canadians who
in their youth were governed by their conscience to risk their
lives in one of the most brutal conflicts of the century. They
fought like heroes and left many of their comrades behind in the
cemeteries of Spain.
As I said earlier, no one is denying their courage and their
commitment to their cause. Although the motion does not
specifically call for it, the member for Kamloops mentioned that
we should look at the possibility of setting this issue before a
committee. As the member for the Progressive Conservative Party
said, this issue has been raised in this House many times, the
most recent being in 1986-87 when the standing committee on
veterans affairs, chaired by a former member from Malpeque in my
home province, studied the issue in great detail. After very
careful research, deliberation and consideration that committee
decided against recommending veteran status to Spanish civil war
veterans.
I do not think this House in responding today to the motion from
the hon. member for Kamloops should overturn the considered
judgment of the committee that took several months to look into
the issue in great detail.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion. In so doing I
remind the House of the words of the report that the committee
tabled on the issue. I think those words speak eloquently of the
Canadians who fought in the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion. Many
were killed, the report says. Many endured great hardship and
displayed great courage. We mourn the loss and admire the
qualities these men displayed. They acted out of conscience and
this merits respect whether one agrees with them or not. May
their twilight years be spent with the comfort of their own
beliefs in the cause they served.
However, Canadian veteran status and veterans benefits are
reserved for those who fought for Canada. That is how the law
should remain. That is why I am voting against this motion and I
urge my honourable colleagues to do the same.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this motion is to have this House investigate ways of granting
some form of recognition to a noble group of Canadians, the
MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion.
They are a unit of 1,300 volunteer soldiers who banded together
to go abroad and fight the suppression of democracy, the fascist
powers of Europe.
1745
These were Canadians who had the wisdom and the foresight to see
the real dangers of fascism well before governments around the
world. In return for this wisdom and foresight and willingness
to stand up to fascism, these volunteers were subsequently made
criminals by our own government through the Foreign Enlistment
Act.
We are at a time when our government is making apology after
apology. The Japanese were apologized to, as should have been
done. At that time the laws were not good. People were just
obeying the laws by putting Japanese Canadian citizens in
internment camps and taking their property.
The minister of aboriginal affairs has just apologized to First
Nations people. I went to school with a man who at the age of
four along with his brother were scooped up off the hillside by a
truck that came to town and were taken to a residential school,
not to return home for eight years. They were just obeying the
law. No question, they did not do anything wrong but it was
wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now and the government
had the foresight to recognize this and apologize for it.
We have here people who fought for our country who were right
then and they are right now. We recognize that what they did was
right and it was a just cause. It made a difference in the
history of this decade, the freedoms of peoples and we will not
recognize their efforts. As a country we will not even look at a
way to recognize it.
The Spanish civil war was in many ways a dress rehearsal for the
second world war and there was therefore an early test of the
resolve of the free world to make a stand against the forces that
were there to crush democracy. That is putting it very mildly.
As we all know, it was the death of millions of minority groups
around the world.
The Mac-Paps fighting alongside other international brigades
distinguished themselves in a number of major battles against
Franco's phalange, the Italian Black Shirt divisions and the
German Condor Legion of the Luftwaffe. Among those Canadians was
Dr. Norman Bethune. The casualty rate was staggering but even
worse was the fact that those who survived were not allowed to
enlist and fight for their country so were doubly denied any
chance to be seen as veterans.
There are only 40 of these people alive. I do not think it
would be setting a dangerous precedent to recognize what they
have done. The government has already shown that it has the
courage to recognize where we went wrong in the past. We went
wrong here and we should have the courage to apologize and
recognize as a country what these people did for our country. It
is not about money, it is about recognition of Canadian citizens
and their efforts to make sure this country remains free.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege today of participating in the debate on Motion M-75 tabled by
my NDP colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops.
I rise today to speak in support of Canada recognizing the loyalty
and sacrifice of members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion. I call
today on the good will and generosity of my fellow citizens.
Three years before World War II, the Spanish civil war broke out
pitting brothers against brothers, sisters against sisters. Franco and
his army won the war and the fascist dictatorship lasted 40 years, in
fact until the dictator died in 1976.
[English]
This conflict was not merely a civil war for the repercussions
went far beyond. Claude Bowers, the American ambassador to Spain
between 1936 and 1939, said at the time: “History will declare
that the six months intervening between the fascist victory in
Spain and the invasion of Poland were a mere armistice in one
war, the second world war”.
In my view the Spanish civil became the powder keg that ignited
the second world war just as an infamous assassination in
Sarajevo laid the groundwork for World War I.
[Translation]
The Spanish republican government, democratically elected and
therefore legitimate, appealed to the international community for help.
1750
In spite of the stated neutrality of their governments, volunteers
came from Argentina, Cuba, Poland, Sweden, the U.S.S.R., Great Britain,
the United States, France and other countries.
Brave antifascist citizens of Italy and Germany risked their lives
and that of their families to help the cause of a democratic country
that Franco would transform into a dictatorship for 40 years. In Canada,
close to 1,250 men and women with names like Maurice Constant, Peter
Johnston, Hugo Koski and William Dent, to name but four, left their
homeland for the battlefields of Spain.
These Canadians, most of whom were of European descent, had
suffered from the consequences of the first world war.
However, the vast majority of them were not soldiers and had never even
handled a firearm. Most were blue collar workers, journeymen, students,
citizens of Canada at a time when our country was still suffering from
the severe economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s.
[English]
Norman Bethune was one of these brave Canadians. As head of an
innovative battlefield blood transfusion service, Bethune
witnessed the horrors and became rapidly conscious of the stakes
of war. He is often quoted as having said “The time to stop
fascism is now and the place to stop it is Spain”.
Another brave Canadian was Maurice Constant, then staff
lieutenant for the 15th International Brigade and now emeritus
professor at the University of Waterloo. Constant recalls living
through the Great Depression. He said “People of my generation
had the same feelings as young people now; the feeling of
helplessness. There were no jobs to go to. We students thought
the political-economic system was a failure”.
[Translation]
The Great Depression had a profound impact on Canadians.
Therefore, it is logical to say that, for the brave soldiers of
the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion, participating in the war was a
way to escape marginalization, a way to relate to some absolute,
to make it through the ideological undertow toward the certainty
that the fight against European fascism was honourable and
necessary.
Let us not forget—and this is fundamental—that General Franco
overthrew an established democracy. In 1986, when he testified before
the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, Walter
Dent, secretary for the Mac-Paps battalion, said “General Franco decided
to overthrow the government. Therefore, what is at issue is not kind of
people that were fighting fascism. We were fighting to protect the
country's democratic institutions.
This must be pointed out very clearly, so that there can be no doubt
whatsoever”.
[English]
In 1980 during a debate very similar to this one Bob Rae, then a
federal member of Parliament, stated when speaking of the
Mac-Paps that they were anti-fascist before it was fashionably
popular to be so.
The presence and popularity of pro-fascist sentiments in the
Canadian population and institutions led to the birth in 1936 of
Canadian legislation which partially reflected the state of mind
of a certain fascist electorate.
[Translation]
The Foreign Enlistment Act of 1936 made it illegal for volunteers
to fight against fascism in Spain because, at the time, Canada was
playing it safe and professed neutrality on the international scene.
Is it not in the Canadian nature to want to preserve democracy? Is
altruism not a Canadian trait? Is it not typically Canadian to fight for
peace, order and good government?
[English]
Why are we still talking about the Spanish civil war in Canada
today? For the simple reason that some of our fellow Canadian
citizens have not reached closure on this matter.
[Translation]
Religious, political and philosophical beliefs aside, these brave
Canadians had the vision and courage to recognize that Franco's army not
only posed a threat to Spain but also jeopardized the foundation of
democratic nations in Europe and the balance in their relations with
Canada.
[English]
Who are the veterans of the MacKenzie-Papineau battalion today?
Following their heart-wrenching defeat, about 650 veterans
returned to Canada. They were greeted as heroes in Toronto,
where a crowd of over 10,000 had gathered to meet them.
Groups such as the friends of the MacKenzie-Papineau battalion
organized fundraising events to help survivors and the families
of those fallen comrades. But soon the plight of the Mac-Paps was
engulfed by the overriding priorities of World War II.
1755
[Translation]
Today, there are fewer than 35 members of the battalion still
alive, most of them in their 90s. They could however benefit from the
federal government's financial support, because they were never
recognized as veterans by our government.
These Canadian citizens are brave men and women who survived harsh
fighting in the Spanish Civil War. These men and women, motivated by
their love of freedom, engaged Franco's nationalist forces in Spain
without the support of their government.
[English]
These once defiant individuals have lived for over 60 years as
model Canadians. They came home to Canada and they went back
Youth and idealism do not excuse illegal acts. However, knowing
what we know today, would it not be possible for us to find it in
our hearts to forgive and honour those valuable members of our
society.
Why cannot Canada at long last recognize these people's courage.
Other nations have embraced their Spanish war veterans. France
has given them veteran's status and has given them dignity,
respect and a place of honour among its citizens.
[Translation]
After 60 years, the Spanish government invited the civil war
veterans over and granted them honourary Spanish citizenship.
[English]
Here in Canada in the province of Ontario, after many years of
government inaction, the veterans of the MacKenzie-Papineau
battalion were finally honoured in 1995 with a Canadian monument.
On the lawns behind the Ontario legislature at Queen's Park lies
a plaque affixed to a stone from the battlefields of Gandesa in
Spain.
During the unveiling ceremony on June 4, 1995, the consul
general of Spain spoke eloquently of adolescents braving the
world to stand on the side of the poor. He spoke of courage and
innocence.
Would it not be possible for members of the House to speak that
same language and come together in acknowledging the courage and
innocence of the men and women of the MacKenzie-Papineau
battalion?
[Translation]
I know that the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs does not support
the request made by the Mac-Paps. Neither does the Royal Canadian
Legion. The Legion is a national treasure with more than 500,000
members. I had the honour to meet these men and women on several
occasions at the Legion's branch in my riding of Laval West. They all
know how much respect and admiration I have for them, because we talk
about it often whenever we meet.
Recently, the Canadian Legion made the following statement about
Canada “We believe in a united Canada, where all Canadians are equal
before the law and where the rights and freedoms of every Canadian are
nurtured and safeguarded”.
[English]
I wholeheartedly agree with this important statement. Respecting
the law is fundamental in any democracy but in a democracy we
also have the right to question, criticize and re-evaluate our
laws.
[Translation]
Canadian law is dynamic and must always reflect what Canadian
society thinks. I understand their views, but I would have expected more
generosity from men and women who, although they did not fight with the
Mac-Paps, did fight for the ideals we all share.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
her time has run out.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is a
rather extraordinary day as we wind down in anticipation of the
convention being held nearby. Considering that we do have time,
could I seek unanimous consent to allow the member to complete
her presentation?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. Let us
reflect together on an important question. If democracy had won in
Spain, would there have been a second world war? The answer is no. These
soldiers—and yes, they were soldiers—fought for freedom and
democracy ahead of time.
It must be noted that we are discussing a situation where monetary
compensation is not the only solution these veterans want.
1800
To the survivors, psychological and emotional redress is even more
important. I think that discussing this amounts to questioning the
democratic and egalitarian foundations of our citizenship, to
questioning our solidarity.
In conclusion, I would like to share with you an interesting
discovery. In the course of my research on this matter, I found a
photograph taken in June 1937 on the battlefield in Jarama, Spain. The
photograph showed a handmade sign that said, and I quote:
[English]
“To our fallen comrades, our victory is your vengeance. June
1937”.
[Translation]
Today as in 1937, a positive conclusion to this matter would give
that victory to the survivors and to those who fell on the battlefield.
I am very proud of their courage.
[English]
They had the courage to stand up and be counted.
[Translation]
I support this motion.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Motion M-75, moved by the New Democrat member for
Kamloops.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of giving to the members of the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with
Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and
1939, the status of veterans under the federal legislation and
making them eligible for veterans' pensions and benefits.
Let me say from the outset that some of my colleagues are using all
sorts of excuses not to support this motion, including the financial
impact and the fear of setting a precedent.
I remind them that, if the motion is adopted, it will not be binding.
Indeed, the motion merely asks that a committee consider the
advisability of recognizing the contribution made by Canadian soldiers
in the Spanish Civil War to protect democracy. The committee will be
free to make whatever recommendations it deems advisable.
In a letter dated November 20, 1997 and addressed to the hon.
member for Kamloops, the Minister of Veterans Affairs wrote the
following, concerning the 1987 review made by the veterans affairs
committee on the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion “I agree with the
committee's conclusions that we should deplore the losses suffered by
the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, and that we should admire the
endurance and the courage displayed by the battalion”.
If the minister was sincere when he wrote these lines, he should
support the motion.
The Canadians who participated in the Spanish Civil War left their
homeland for a far away country, where they were going to risk their
lives, along with other volunteers from all over the world. These people
were united by the same cause, namely the defence of democracy and the
right of people to freely choose their government through an election.
These men and women were not adventurers. They left their families,
their work and their country to join an under equipped army that was
fighting seasoned troops fully supported by the fascist governments of
Germany and Italy.
Over 40,000 volunteers from 52 countries answered the call of a
democratic Spain. These volunteers were not equipped, fed or housed
adequately, and almost half of them were killed, while many others were
injured.
These volunteers were fighting to protect Spain's democratic
institutions. The word “antifascist” was written on their pay slips.
It is important to remember that the Spanish government which fascist
generals were trying to overthrow was an elected, democratic and liberal
government.
The international brigades fought under the command of the
legitimate Spanish government's army. The Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion
was part of the 15th brigade, which also included a British, an American
and a Spanish battalion.
1805
The Canadian battalion, named in honour of the two leaders of the
1837 rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, was formed on July 1,
1937 at Albacete, Spain. It was made up of some 1,200 volunteers
and distinguished itself particularly in four campaigns: the attack
on Fuentes on the River Ebre in the fall of 1937; the defence of
the city of Teruel during the winter of 1937-38; the spring retreat
of 1938; and finally, the push beyond the River Ebre in the summer
of 1938, which was to be the last great offensive of the republican
forces.
In September 1938, the soldiers of the international brigades
were withdrawn from the front lines and repatriated. Only half the
Canadian volunteers came back.
The other half had been either killed, reported missing or
captured, with the exception of a few who remained in Europe.
When they returned home, some of the Spanish War veterans were
given a heroes' welcome. Money was raised to help them out and to
provide the casualties with medical care. Within a few months,
however, their sacrifice and heroism was forgotten. Canada soon
declared war on the Axis and called for the nation to mobilize
against the fascists.
Of the fifty or so countries whose men and women took part in
the Spanish Civil War within the international brigades, only two,
Canada and the United States, did not confer war veteran status on
these volunteers.
Today, about forty of the Canadian international brigade
volunteers are still alive, although very advanced in years.
Passage of the motion by the member for Kamloops would not cost the
federal government much, but it would have great symbolic
importance. It would recognize the some 1,200 Canadians who
volunteered to defend democracy and to prevent the birth of a
fascist regime in Spain on the eve of the second world war.
The democratic and patriotic ideals that inspired their
struggle and their heroic sacrifice also inspired the Canadians
who, later, fought fascism during the second world war.
Walter Dent explained that a number of the former volunteers
on the international brigades contributed directly during the
second world war through their experience. One of them became the
chief instructor of the armoured tank corps in Alberta. Another
taught officers how to read and draw maps.
The principal organizer of the British Home Guard was the
former commander of the English battalion in Spain.
The chief instructor of the secret war, who wrote a manual that was
used by the American and British armies, was Bert Levy, a former
brigade member, who was an American of Canadian origin. A number
of parachuters dropped behind enemy lines were Spanish war
veterans.
Proof that these volunteers were first and foremost believers
in democracy lies in the fact that many of them returned to the
countries of eastern Europe after the war and continue to defend
democracy. They were punished and persecuted by the totalitarian
regimes.
In 1980, the councils of seven Canadian cities passed
resolutions asking the federal government to recognize the
volunteers in the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion. They are Calgary,
North York, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
In 1995, all parties in the Spanish Parliament voted in favour
of making all survivors of international brigades honourary Spanish
citizens. Citizenship award ceremonies were held in November 1996,
and 12 of the 40 Canadian veterans of international brigades took
part.
Spain provided a small commemorative plaque in memory of the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, which was installed on the grounds of
the Ontario legislature by the National Historic Sites and
Monuments Board in 1995.
1810
The inscription on the plaque is to the effect that Spain will
not forget those Canadians who fought and gave their lives on
behalf of democracy. It is finally time for Canada as well to pay
tribute to these heroic individuals who volunteered their services
to defend democracy. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss private member's
Motion No. 75.
I congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops on his efforts in
bringing this important matter before the House. He like many
hon. members understands that Canadian veterans of the Spanish
civil war have not received the recognition they deserve.
Many of those brave men fought and died in defence of a
democratically elected government. A great many of the 1,300
Canadians who went to fight for republican Spain between 1936 and
1939 did not live to see their Canadian homeland again.
Members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion were the first
Canadians to take up arms against the fascist forces of Hitler
and Mussolini. It appears in hindsight that they knew what
others only suspected, that 1930s Europe was being pushed closer
and closer to a full scale war by the spread of fascism in
general and Nazism in particular.
However, having said all this, I feel obligated to oppose Motion
No. 75. My reasons for this are simple and straightforward. The
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion was not a recognized unit of the
Canadian Armed Forces. Its soldiers were not authorized members
of a Canadian fighting force. The Mac-Paps, as they came to be
known, fought in Spain against the express wishes of the Canadian
government which took a neutral position early in the Spanish
civil war along with Britain, France and the United States.
I therefore find unacceptable the hon. member's assertion that
we should retroactively make the Mackenzie-Papineau veterans
members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am not alone in holding
this position. Previous committees and subcommittees of the
House of Commons have expressed similar views. So too has the
Royal Canadian Legion.
It is not that I do not value the sentiments of the hon. member
for Kamloops. On the contrary, I welcome any and all dialogue
concerning ways this country can recognize Canadian veterans of
the Spanish civil war. However, in Motion No. 75 there seems to
be a leap in logic.
The hon. member will know that in addition to the many Canadians
who fought on the republican side in Spain, a handful of
Canadians also took up arms in the name of Dictator Franco. Would
the hon. member for Kamloops suggest that these men as well who
fought to re-establish fascism in Spain should be recognized as
veterans? Would the hon. member say that these men and their
widows should receive veterans benefits? I think not.
I think the hon. member realizes that what he is asking for is
both illogical and untenable. Canadians have at times chosen to
go off on their own and fight in various wars, conflicts and
uprisings.
This is true today and it will, no doubt, continue to be true in
the future.
1815
Some Canadians volunteer their military services for money,
others do so out of ideological conviction, but never have
Canadian mercenaries and freedom fighters asked to be designated
veterans, nor will they unless the hon. member's motion is
granted.
This is not to pass judgment on the role of the Mac-Paps in the
Spanish civil war. It is simply to say that we cannot and should
not rewrite history.
My colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle,
brought to the attention of the House last hour the similar
findings of the standing committee on veterans affairs.
That committee stated a decade ago that its decision not to
grant veteran status to the Mac-Paps was “without regard to the
rights or wrongs of the actions of those Canadians who are
veterans of the Spanish civil war”.
This cuts right to the heart of the matter. The member for
Kamloops is proposing that the political correctness of the
Mac-Paps cause should qualify them for veteran status.
Similarly, the member for Chateauguay questioned why Canadians
who served in a politically incorrect war like Vietnam should be
considered veterans when the Mac-Paps are not.
What both members seem to forget is that Canada recognizes as
its veterans only those who serve Canada or its allies in a war
in which Canada was a combatant.
The Mac-Paps did not meet this criterion in 1936 and they do not
meet it now. However valiant they may have been in their defence
of Spanish democracy, the members of the MacKenzie-Papineau
Battalion fought as civilians in the eyes of the Canadian
government.
It matters not that they are now only few in number or that it
would not involve significant sums of money should this motion
succeed. In my mind there is nothing that would justify changing
this situation 60 years after the fact.
There are, however, compelling reasons to honour the Mac-Paps in
other ways. The member for Kamloops mentioned in his speech that
a memorial was erected recently at Queen's Park and that similar
plans are under way in Vancouver.
It is my belief that many members of this House would be more
than happy to support some kind of federal initiative that would
not only preserve but promote the proud history of the Mac-Paps.
I will not endorse the politically motivated revision of history
that is called for in Motion No. 75.
In closing, I oppose the motion before the House but would like
to commend the hon. member for Kamloops for his efforts to
increase public awareness of Canadian involvement in the Spanish
civil war.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I too am pleased to rise to speak on Motion No. 75. I wish to
commend my hon. colleague from Kamloops for having brought this
motion before the House even though I disagree with it in
principle and will vote against it.
I think history is important. It is important for us to not
dismiss issues such as this and the question of the legitimate
status as veterans for those who fought in the MacKenzie-Papineau
Battalion.
I will take a slightly different perspective from that which
prevailed in this debate. It has been suggested that those 1,300
Canadians who entered into the Spanish civil war of their own
volition did so out of a commitment to democracy and out of a
desire to fight and defeat fascism.
1820
I have no doubt that they felt so motivated, that they felt
called and they felt the courage of their convictions in engaging
in this war. Nor do I deny that many of these veterans acted
heroically in the action they faced. The fact that so many of
them died is one of the tragedies of war which we all mourn.
Several people who have spoken to this motion have rendered a
simplistic and incomplete picture of the history of 1937 and the
Spanish civil war. They have painted the contribution of the
MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and the Republican forces in the
Spanish civil war as being, without question, beyond repute and
on the side of the angels. They have suggested that the forces
they were fighting were merely an extension of the unquestionably
evil forces of fascism which were then gaining force in Nazi
Germany.
I think it is important for us to recognize that when this House
and this Parliament gave passage to the Foreign Enlistment Act in
in 1937 it understood the greater complexity of the situation as
it then unfolded in Spain, as did the Canadians who left to fight
in Spain on behalf of the Phalangist cause.
No argument can be made that there was a unanimous view in this
country about which side in this very complex and messy war had
the moral upper hand.
I believe it was the hon. member for Laval West who said that
the Foreign Enlistment Act, which prohibited Canadians from
enlisting in a foreign war which was not recognized by this
country, was passed in part under pressure from a fascist
constituency in the Canadian electorate. I really think that
does a disservice to Canadians, now and at the time. It does a
disservice to our history. It is based on a gross
misunderstanding of the reasons for this enactment.
The reality is the Spanish civil war was not a battle between
good and evil. The Spanish civil war was a complex war between,
on the one hand Republican forces which included communists,
Stalinists, Trotskyites, anarchists and, admittedly, democrats.
It was a strange and tempestuous coalition which itself came to
blows internally. In fact, some of the most brutal actions in
the Spanish civil war, as any historian will say, were within the
republican movement itself, as the communists and Stalinists, fed
by the tyrannical designs of the Russian Stalinists, attempted to
seize control of the Republican movement and were largely
successful in so doing.
On the other side, it was not simply a uni-dimensional coalition
of fascists supported and motivated by Adolf Hitler. Indeed the
German and Italian fascists supported elements of the Phalangist
cause, but there were democrats, monarchists, catholics and
others who opposed the Republican cause because they saw it as an
encroachment of a foreign tyrannical political movement,
communism, and its threatened imposition on Spain.
The reasons different people were motivated to take different
sides in this war are complex. We do a great disservice to
history and to those Canadians who fought on both sides of this
war to suggest that it was as simple as has been presented here.
1825
In fact, we have heard from many speakers about the atrocities
committed by the Franco forces in the Spanish civil war, and
understandably so. One can make no moral apology for the evil
that was done in that respect.
However, it is important to enter into the record some
historical consideration of the kinds of terrible evils
perpetrated by the Republican cause which was supported by the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion. I do not suggest for one moment
that the Canadian combatants in that war were engaged in these
kinds of atrocities, but the fact is they fought alongside
Stalinists and Trotskyites and anarchists and others who were
motivated as much by a kind of anti-Christian and anti-catholic
hatred as by a desire to establish democracy in Spain.
The eminent historian Hugh Thomas in his book the Spanish
Civil War published in 1961, somebody regarded as generally a
pro-Republican historian, detailed in his book the kinds of
atrocities committed by the Republicans during the war. Among
other things, he says that of the 86,000 people killed under the
Republic, 7,900 were clergy or religious, 12 were Bishops, 283
were nuns, 5,200 were priests, 2,500 were monks and 250 were
novices. These were not people killed as innocents in the war.
These were religious people, not direct combatants in the war,
who were sough out and killed by Republican forces.
He reports that nuns were raped and murdered in Pozuelo de
Alarcon near Madrid. He reports of parish priests being seized
by leftist militia men, scourged, tied to wooden beams, given
vinegar to drink, crowned with thorns and then shot. He reports
a crucifix was forced down the throat of a mother of two Jesuits.
He reports that 800 faithful Christians were thrown down a mine
shaft. He reports that in Cernera rosary beads were forced into
monks' ears until their ears ruptured. The historical record
shows priests having been castrated and their castrated organs
being forced into their mouths. He reports priests who were
burned alive.
These are all documented incidents. Faithful Christians were
burned alive after digging their own graves. Others were burned
or had their eyes gouged out. Churches and convents were
indiscriminately sacked and burned. There were 150 churches
totally destroyed and nearly 2,000 more than half destroyed.
That is just one small historical review of the record of the
wonderful Republicans in the Spanish civil war.
I submit that in considering this bill and in considering the
history of the passage of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which this
motion essentially seeks to undo retroactively, we must be
mindful of the historical complexities of the time and must not
allow ourselves to be the victims of the kind of historical
revisionism which suggests that one side in this combat was all
sweetness and light. That is not what the record shows.
Because Parliament still recognizes the Foreign Enlistment Act
some have argued that we cannot and should not extend veterans
benefits to the remaining surviving Mac-Pap veterans. I would
argue that if people engage in civil disobedience, as these
people knowingly did, they agree to accept the consequences.
John Stuart Mill, the great political philosopher, says in his
magnum opus On Liberty that those who engage in civil
disobedience do so while accepting the sanctions the state
imposes for such civil disobedience. Those who engaged in the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion knew full well at the time and with
conscious deliberation decided to act with civil disobedience.
I suggest that 60 years later we cannot undo a decision they
made at that time. I call on my colleagues to oppose this
motion.
1830
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
COURTS IN CAMPBELLTON
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
February 6, I brought to the attention of the House the fact that courts
in the Restigouche region were overloaded.
Let me give a brief historical overview of this issue. In 1992, the
number of judges sitting in Campbellton dropped from two to one. A few
months later, the only judge serving the region was transferred to the
judicial district of Fredericton.
While waiting for a replacement, the region of Campbellton was
without a permanent judge for about three months. The ensuing backlog
would probably not have been insurmountable, except that the court
registered an increase in the volume of cases, including family law
cases.
The judge who is currently sitting is making superhuman efforts to
hear as many cases as possible, but it is now obvious that his valiant
efforts are not enough to ensure quick processing of the cases. Not a
single small claims case has been heard for a year now, and some civil
cases will not be heard before 1999.
Some members may think this is a provincial matter. Normally, I
would agree. However, there have been a number of developments in which
politics clearly impeded the judicial process.
The new chief justice in New Brunswick did everything within his
power to find a solution to the court's backlog. Now, the bar
association in Restigouche, the crown attorney's office, the chief
justice of New Brunswick and the New Brunswick bar association all agree
on the solution: Campbellton needs an additional judge. The two levels
of government are the only ones dragging their feet.
When I raised the issue in the House, the solicitor general—the
Minister of Justice was not present—said that the federal government
was aware of the situation. If so, what is it waiting for to act?
We were told by the federal Department of Justice that nothing can
be done until a written request is received from the provincial
government.
Meanwhile, the New Brunswick justice department tells us that the
request was made and that they are waiting for a reply from the federal
government.
It is my hope that the provincial and federal governments will
quit passing the buck on this and will finally accept their
responsibilities, so that access to justice will no longer be
jeopardized in the region.
The government's inaction impacts very heavily on the human
level. Mothers can wait up to eight or nine months for a support
order to allow them to feed their children properly.
Since small claims court cases have not been heard for a year,
business owners really have no recourse when they have been
wronged. I have also heard of accident victims who have had to go
on welfare while waiting for their cases to come up.
This situation cannot continue. The people feel there is no
longer any justice for them, and it would seem, unfortunately, that
they are right.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would first reassure the member that the Minister of Justice shares
his concerns on the delays in the legal proceedings. However, as
the hon. member mentioned, the matter is a provincial
responsibility.
That said, the Province of New Brunswick will determine the
number of judges appointed to superior and provincial courts. The
Minister of Justice simply appoints judges in the event of
vacancies in the province. Currently, all positions on the court
of Queen's bench in New Brunswick are filled.
[English]
The issue here is one of ensuring the effective allocation of
existing judicial resources.
The level of judicial service in any part of the province is the
shared responsibility of the provincial attorney general and of
the chief justice of the court of Queen's bench.
1835
It is not a political problem as the member would like us to
believe. The minister has heard from the attorney general of New
Brunswick and is in discussions with the New Brunswick minister
on this issue. There are ongoing discussions.
It is also important to clarify that the minister supports all
initiatives that will take place to the access to justice and to
reduce delays in legal proceedings.
[Translation]
Today in fact, the minister also announced a federal
initiative to promote the unification of family courts. At the
request of a number of provinces, new judges may be appointed to
simplify access to the justice system on family matters.
These initiatives testify to the importance the government
places on the right of all Canadians to have access to the justice
system. The minister shares the hon. member's concerns on the
situation faced by the residents of Campbellton, and I can assure
him that the matter will be raised with her New Brunswick
counterpart.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tonight I
have the opportunity to say a few words about the state of health
care in our country.
I notice with interest that at the Liberal convention coming up
in a few hours there are a number of resolutions pointing out the
concern of delegates from across the country attending the
Liberal convention regarding the state of health care in Canada.
They are pointing out that in their judgment some cases are
actually at a crisis level. I think the Minister of Health
actually used that word in a couple of comments in the last
little while.
Overall it is fair to say that the Liberal government does not
take health care seriously. Canada is now 17th among the 28
industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development in public spending on health care.
Between 1986 and 1997 the public portion of Canada's health tab
declined from 77% to 70%. By 1999 it is expected to drop to only
60%.
Today private spending in Canada's universal public system
exceeds the total of federal health care dollars. I might add
that only 20% of Canada's health care funding now comes from the
federal government.
Since 1986 Ottawa has slashed a total of $36 billion from health
care according to Dr. Fuller of the Health Sciences Association
of British Columbia.
I also want to mention that medicare's complete privatization
appears to be the goal of at least two provincial governments
these days, the governments of Alberta and Ontario.
I read with interest just a few days ago how impressed the B.C.
Reform member for North Vancouver was at the service he received
in a Florida hospital while he was on vacation. He said “It
really put to shame what happens in Canada. I do not think there
is any harm in having some competition. I know it is widely
supported in my riding and there should be some competition to
get efficiency into the system”.
As a result of these fiscal and ideological pressures on our
system, privatization is well under way across the country. In
Manitoba people with means to do so are hiring their own nurses
to care for them in hospital. The fact they have to do this is a
reflection of the crisis in our health care system.
Last week apparently with the blessing of the Alberta
government, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Alberta Medical
Association reached an agreement that will see patients able to
charge uninsured medical services on their credit cards or debit
cards right at the doctor's office.
I could go on at some length. I think it is fair to say that if
there was a poll conducted across the country, Canadians
everywhere would consider that we are in a crisis.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that health care in Canada
has become a $75 billion marketplace. United States based
international corporations armed with free trade agreements
threaten to dominate the provision of services shortly with the
support of some provincial governments, most large employers and
a large section of organized medicine.
For profit companies are benefiting from government
participation in joint ventures, lucrative contracts with
ministries of health, outsourcing arrangements with hospitals,
generous tax breaks for venture capital investors, access to
medicare payments and direct grant allocations.
One could go on and on. I can summarize by simply saying our
health care system is in serious trouble. Medicare is being
challenged from coast to coast. It is time that the federal
government took this issue more seriously than it is at the
moment.
1840
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question
has arisen as to when Canadians can expect the federal government
to come forward with a financial commitment for home care.
Home care is already an integral part of our health care system.
It is not an add-on or a new idea. It is an essential component
of the care that many Canadians receive on a regular basis. What
is new is how home and community care can be used within the
system in this era of modern technology and the potential of home
care to meet needs created in the system by the extensive
restructuring and reform seen in most jurisdictions.
The time has come to examine home care programs in all
jurisdictions and, as members might expect, that task will not be
a simple one. While we are committed to taking steps toward the
future, delegates at the recent national conference on home care
have made it clear that the task is large and complex. Delegates
urge all levels of government to work together on the development
of a national home care approach.
We recognize the need to develop a national approach to home and
community care for Canadians, an approach that will ensure
Canadians that wherever they go across the country, they can
receive the care they need. Recognizing that there is a need and
knowing in detail how to meet that need are two different
matters.
To develop a national approach of this calibre, we must work
together in partnership with provincial and territorial
governments, with care providers across all parts of the health
system and with Canadians in all walks of life. We need the
results of pilot and evaluation studies that are being sponsored
by the health transition fund and other research studies that
have been undertaken to inform our discussions.
At this point an immediate new financial commitment in respect
of home and community care is not appropriate, but I can say that
the government will be there to fulfil its responsibility with a
contribution in an appropriate amount when we see the size and
the shape of the solution—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the former chairman of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Commission,
I have a strong and keen interest in the generation of
electricity in the province of Ontario. I have a particular
interest in the use of nuclear power and the generation of that
electricity.
Ongoing concerns have been expressed in relation to the use of
nuclear power in Ontario. The safety of the system has been
repeatedly questioned. I am not here to debate whether or not to
use nuclear power. Rather, I think it is important to ensure
that residents of Ontario have faith and confidence in Ontario
Hydro. This includes the use of nuclear power.
Accordingly, I was dismayed recently when the Atomic Energy
Control Board was reported to have said that Ontario Hydro's
failure to show detailed plans on how it will improve slipping
nuclear safety was “entirely unacceptable”. It would appear
that there are ongoing concerns on the part of the Atomic Energy
Control Board regarding missed promises and commitments by
Ontario Hydro in this regard. This is unacceptable to residents
of Ontario.
In any event, people in Ontario need to know and be reassured
that everything is being done to ensure a safe and secure system
in the generation of electrical power in Ontario. I would ask
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
to give that assurance today to both this House and to the people
of Ontario.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Atomic
Energy Control Board is responsible for regulating all nuclear
facilities and activities in Canada. Its role is focused
strictly on health, safety and environmental protection. It is
not mandated to interfere in the business practices of its
licensees unless those practices have safety implications.
The problem with Ontario Hydro is one of management and
operational performance, not public safety. Public safety and
environmental protection are the Government of Canada's highest
priorities. Safety has never been compromised. We have very
high nuclear safety standards and strong enforcement of those
standards through the AECB which played a key role in getting
Ontario Hydro to take aggressive corrective action.
Technology is not the problem. The Candu technology is one of
the best, if not the best in the world, as demonstrated by the
excellent safety and operating performance record of Candus
around the world. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, has
taken a proactive role in assuring its customers that this is an
internal management problem at Ontario Hydro and that its Candu
technology is sound and robust.
1845
As you are well aware, the Atomic Energy Control Board has
concluded that Ontario Hydro nuclear generating stations continue
to be operated safely under the conditions of its licences and
for the duration of the licences. This conclusion is consistent
with the findings of Ontario Hydro's own investigation and with
the report of the Ontario Select Committee on Ontario Hydro
Nuclear Affairs.
The public may be assured that the AECB will continue to monitor
the situation very closely. The AECB has inspectors on site to
monitor operations and to ensure that anything of safety
significance is dealt with immediately. If there is any evidence
to cause any source of concern, the control board will not
hesitate to impose restrictions as it always has.
The new Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its supporting
regulations which are expected to come into force in late 1998
will provide the board with modern regulatory tools to enhance
its regulatory capabilities. The government's intention is to
ensure that Canada continues to have a strong independent nuclear
regulator which focuses on the safety of people and environmental
protection.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until Monday, March 23, 1998 at 11 a.m., pursuant to a
special order.
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)