36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 180
CONTENTS
Friday, February 12, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-61. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1005
| Mr. Bob Wood |
1010
1015
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| HOME INVASIONS
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| PERTH—MIDDLESEX
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
1100
| VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| MAPLE LEAF GARDENS
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| CITIZENSHIP WEEK
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1105
| NICOLAS FONTAINE
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| WESTERN CANADA
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| FLAG DAY
|
| Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos |
| HIV-AIDS
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| PARKS CANADA
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1110
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| GULF FERRY SERVICE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1115
| 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF ASBESTOS STRIKE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1120
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CANADIAN RURAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1125
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1130
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1135
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1140
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1145
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1150
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| CHILD LABOUR
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1155
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1200
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1210
| WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-61. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1215
1220
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1240
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CODE OF ETHICS
|
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Motion
|
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1305
1310
| Mr. René Laurin |
1315
1320
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1325
1330
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1335
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1340
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 180
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 12, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs
and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.) moved that Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans
Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and
Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans
Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the
Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend
certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
1005
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be here
today to speak to the improvements to veterans' legislation which
are contained in Bill C-61.
Because we will be debating the specifics in committee in the
days to come, today I would like to focus my comments on the
general reasoning behind the bill and, in so doing, show that
these amendments are in keeping with our longstanding tradition
of providing the best service possible to Canada's veterans.
A bit of background is in order. To understand the history of
our country we need only to know the sacrifices of those who
served in peacetime and in war throughout this country.
From the very early days of our nationhood, Canadians served
their country with distinction, often in places far from home,
and veterans' benefits were few and far between. The first world
war changed all that. We lost 66,000 of our young, which was
catastrophic for a nation of just eight million. The utter
devastation on the lives of those who survived that terrible
carnage demanded action on the home front. Military hospitals,
vocational training, re-establishment and job placement were the
orders of the day.
Another 45,000 Canadians were lost in the second world war and,
with the anticipated return of one million service men and women,
the government at the time recognized that a single department
devoted exclusively to veterans was needed.
In 1944 the Department of Veterans Affairs was born. In the
early years it was the repairing of broken bodies and shattered
spirits that took precedence, putting interrupted lives back on
track and bringing them back to the country where these heroic
men and women longed to be. For all those suffering permanent
injury, disability pensions were guaranteed.
Further, for the first time these pensions were given to members
of the women's auxiliary forces, the merchant seamen, commercial
fishermen, Canadian overseas firefighters and other civilian
groups which contributed to winning the war.
When body and soul were patched up as well as possible, it then
became a matter of making sure these valued citizens got a chance
to live the Canadian dream. For some it was assisting in the
buying of a small piece of property and for others it was
education and training.
We have come a long way since the veterans' charter that
codified these programs for veterans, from rehabilitation to
re-establishment, from land settlement to home construction, from
pensions to allowances and beyond. Canada provided then and
provides now a package of benefits that rivals any in the world.
The Department of Veterans Affairs remains committed to
providing the very best care and comfort to veterans whose
average age is now moving from the old to the very old. The
mandate continues to be quite simple: to take care of those who
took care of us; to take care of those who answered this
country's call in a time of desperate need. Although our
commitment to veterans has never wavered, the ways in which we
meet that commitment as we approach the millennium have changed.
In all that we do we try to look at our programs from a
veteran's perspective and ask the question: What do they want
and need at this stage of their lives? We have talked to
veterans and veterans organizations and they have responded.
They want to see a continuation of current programs, those with
which they have become familiar and often which they have come to
count on. So we continue to provide war service allowances to
those whose life circumstances have left them at the lower end of
the income scale as they live out their senior years.
We continue to provide an innovative veterans' independence
program which allows veterans to remain in their homes as long as
possible. VIP provides a cross-section of services to ease some
of the heavier burdens associated with living and taking care of
a home. With Meals on Wheels, housekeeping, grounds maintenance,
transportation and personal care, our at-home vets are able to
enjoy the comfort and dignity of independent living.
We continue to provide disability pensions and as a result of
new technology and internal improvements, and a lot of hard work
by a team of very dedicated staff, we have reduced the processing
time for pension applications by more than 50%.
1010
By the way, applications for disability pensions are not limited
to wartime veterans. Regular force members are also eligible and
their numbers are up, which is not surprising given Canada's
significant contribution to keeping peace around the world.
Disability pensions for the forces now make up almost 50% of new
applications in some of our district offices. Of course we
continue to provide for eligible veterans a broad spectrum of
other services, including comprehensive health care, targeting
the needs that the frailties of old age bring to us all. These
include the provision of prescription drugs, dental care and
access to long term care community beds.
Veterans want to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect,
as we all do. To this end, we work very hard to be sure that we
become their path of least resistance, not only when it comes to
getting information about our programs but, if need be, about
other government programs as well.
Our front line staff make sure that from the minute veterans
walk in the door, whatever the problem or question may be, from
veterans' benefits to income tax forms, from CPP to old age
security problems, we steer them in the right direction from the
start, and that is exactly how it should be.
With the millennium the average age of our remaining war service
clients will approach the 80 year mark. Their medical needs are
changing. Frankly, this is unchartered territory. We are
entering an era of health care never before known to governments,
taking on the needs of a substantial and very elderly population.
It is in this context of change that we are constantly examining
our legislation to make sure it keeps up with the times and
continues to be fair, timely and responsive, all of which brings
me to the bill before us today.
Its measures are consistent with our past practices and look to
the future needs of our treasured veterans and their dependants.
This is an omnibus bill, covering a cross-section of current
legislation.
Let me turn first to the prisoner of war recommendations. As
hon. members know, many of our veterans receive disability
pensions arising from an illness or injury they incurred as a
result of their service in peacetime or wartime, and if their
disability is sufficiently serious or disabling they may be
eligible for special benefits such as an attendance allowance
that assists those veterans in need of day to day personal care.
Similarly, exceptional incapacity allowances are awarded to
pensioners who are extremely incapacitated by their disabilities.
The dollar amount is based on the extent of the helplessness,
pain and loss of enjoyment of life and the shortened life
expectancy.
At the present time veterans who receive prisoner of war
compensation are not entitled to receive these special allowances
unless they are also in receipt of a disability pension. The
amendments to this bill will remove this bar. Former prisoners
of war will now be allowed to receive the special allowances if
they meet the eligibility criteria. These provisions recognize
the very particular needs of POWs, all of whom suffered greatly
by their incarceration, some for periods lasting throughout the
war years. In passing these changes the House will respond
positively to a key priority of the National Council of Veterans
Associations.
Another major provision of this legislation will result in more
Canadian survivors, more often than not widows of veterans,
becoming eligible for increases in their pension payments. This
change will potentially affect over 35,000 survivors where the
disabilities had been assessed at less than 48%. The Pension Act
will be amended to permit an application for increased pensions
for these survivors if they believe that their spouse's
disability should have been assessed at a higher level at the
time of their passing. In passing these changes the House will
respond positively to the number one veteran's priority of the
Royal Canadian Legion.
Bill C-61 also brings merchant navy veterans under the very same
legislation that applies to armed forces veterans, namely the
Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act.
This is by its nature largely a symbolic change. I say this
because merchant navy veterans have been receiving identical
benefits to their armed forces counterparts since 1992. Symbols
are important and this change of status is one that this group of
veterans has been requesting for quite some time.
1015
By using the same acts to respond to the needs of both merchant
navy and armed forces veterans we send a powerful signal that we
value the service and sacrifice performed by the merchant navy
during the wars. There are other actions which have been taken
in recent years to underscore the value placed on the
contributions made by merchant navy veterans.
In 1993 merchant navy veterans joined armed forces veterans in a
pilgrimage to Liverpool to commemorate the battle of the
Atlantic. They also accompanied the delegation that went to the
pilgrimage last year to commemorate the battle and have
participated in pilgrimages marking the 50th and 55th
anniversaries of the second world war.
Merchant mariners are also recognized in other veterans affairs
commemorative initiatives, including a teacher's kit, a CD-ROM on
the second world war and a recently released publication entitled
“Valour at Sea”.
Perhaps among the most significant symbolic gesture was the
instalment in 1994 of the merchant navy book of remembrance in
the memorial chamber. It lists the names of Canadian merchant
mariners who gave their lives during the first and second world
wars.
I want to assure members that merchant navy veterans are
veterans in every sense of the word and this bill underscores
that fact. There are other provisions in Bill C-61 dealing with
allied veterans residing outside Canada, changes to the
administration of the funeral and burial program, continuing
assistance to certain survivors of the Halifax explosion of 1917,
and amendments to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.
Although important in the scheme of things, they are perhaps
better left to committee debate.
Canadians have always felt that of all our citizens who made
sacrifices for their country, it was those who defended our
freedom in war we should honour above all others. Of those
veterans who returned from the two world wars and Korea, over
400,000 are still with us today. A good number of them receive
benefits in one form or another from veterans affairs. Over the
years we have been called upon to implement a substantial body of
legislation designed to meet their changing needs. One of our
strengths has been our ability to anticipate challenges and as a
result our programs in Canada have been ahead of the times.
So today we are called on once again to make changes to meet
these challenges. It is to the credit of successive governments
and parliaments that whatever their political make-up they have
continued in the tradition of providing Canadian veterans with
benefits that remain second to none. Let us continue in that
tradition by giving this legislation speedy consideration and
passage.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-61, an act to amend
the War Veterans Allowance Act and related legislation.
This is an omnibus bill that, when coupled with separate
assumed undertakings by the government to right past wrongs, caused
elderly merchant navy veterans to end their hunger strike on the
steps of Parliament Hill last fall.
As with much omnibus legislation, there are several separate
legislative initiatives, so that voting against the legislation
means that one could be seen to be voting against certain
provisions that actually improve matters for veterans, including
merchant navy veterans. In the alternative, one could vote
against the legislation based on what is not included in it.
There is much in this legislation that does little to improve the
the circumstances of merchant navy veterans in terms of their
well known grievances.
Voting against legislation based on what is not there is not
particularly constructive in my view. Voting against legislation
because all the provisions are not as one might wish is also not
particularly constructive. On the other hand, the parliamentary
practice of introducing omnibus legislation is not a particularly
fair or honest way of addressing primary grievances.
1020
I want the record to show that while I favour specifics of the
bill I do not believe that its format allows for a debate on this
substantial issue at hand, that of compensation to our merchant
navy veterans for past government wrongs, for past avoidance of
responsibilities.
To correct this I will propose at committee that a special
subcommittee be formed to examine compensation claims for years
of denial of equality from the war to this date. I am expecting
our government's wholehearted co-operation and participation in
this special subcommittee.
In this bill there are two provisions that should meet with
general approval in the House. Both relate to the lifetime
effects of war, effects along with memories that are rarely
erased. By way of amendment to the Pension Act former prisoners
of war may now apply for special allowances even though they are
not in receipt of a disability pension. An allowance of this
nature could be used to provide for an attendant. This amendment
would be welcomed in such cases where a prisoner of war never
claimed a disability pension but now finds there is need for
assistance. By this amendment there appears to be a general
recognition that experiences as a prisoner of war will always
have an effect on the enjoyment of later life even if no specific
disability can be traced to the prisoner of war experiences.
In similar fashion spouses of deceased veterans classified as
partially disabled at the time of death will now be able to seek
a re-evaluation of the disability status of the departed veteran
in order to receive increased survivor benefits. By this
amendment it is recognized that any war related disability may
become progressively more incapacitating even though the veteran
chooses not to inform veterans affairs as to his deteriorated
state.
Veterans have demonstrated time and time again that they are
proud people, proud of their service to the country and proud of
their independence. Veterans do not readily stand in the queue
for a government cheque. By this amendment it is recognized that
such independence of the veteran, while admirable, should not
result in financial prejudice to a veteran's spouse whose
post-war life was also affected by war related disabilities.
For example, a veteran may have suffered permanent hearing loss
as a result of bombing missions over Europe. The veteran was
assessed as partially disabled. However, his balance became
progressively worse due to the effects of diminished hearing. At
some point the veteran ceased to work due to difficulties with
walking and balance. What this amendment does is recognize that
once again a war related injury may have lasting and
progressively more serious effects on the well-being of any
veteran. The effects of war are again recognized as lifelong.
Many arguments have been made to deny merchant navy veterans the
benefits they have claimed. I will canvass the principal claims.
It has not been easy to obtain agreement as to these four points
given the various factions within the merchant navy veterans
organizations, although I did succeed in obtaining agreements
from all parties. There are four main demands of all groups
representing the various factions: to be recognized as war
veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive
compensation for years of denial of equality, and to receive
recognition on ceremonial days.
Bill C-61 addresses recognition of war veterans status.
Merchant navy veterans are war veterans for all purposes and in
all respects. Therefore formal recognition of merchant navy
veterans on ceremonial days, in particular on Remembrance Day,
should now occur as a matter of course. Equivalency of prisoner
of war benefits is also implicitly addressed.
The key issues not addressed in Bill C-61 is compensation to our
merchant navy veterans for years of denial of equality. As with
prisoner of war benefits, general benefits available to all
veterans have been available to merchant navy veterans since
legislative amendments in 1992. The fact that they may or may
not be treated equally now is not the issue. The issue not
addressed in this legislation and also not addressed in the 1992
legislation is retroactive compensation, to acknowledge that
merchant navy veterans despite their crucial and valorous service
in war were not placed on the same benefit footing as other
returning veterans after the war.
1025
An inequality of post-war opportunity leads to an inequality of
post-war outcomes. In short, the post-war lives of our merchant
navy veterans were short changed by the government.
The valour and sacrifice of our merchant navy veterans are well
known. They faced death more than any other Canadian fighting
force with one in seven merchant mariners being killed in World
War II. This horrendous statistic is evidenced by the fact that,
until corrected recently by veterans affairs, the commonly held
wisdom was that the death rate was one in eight, which is equally
horrendous.
Members of our Canadian merchant navy were vital suppliers to
the war effort. It is true that merchant mariners were not
subject to the same military discipline as those in the armed
forces. It is also true they were paid marginally more than
those in the armed forces. However, their service to Canada's
war effort was very different from those who contributed to the
war effort in factories and offices but who did not face death
daily. Their service to Canada's war effort was also very
different from those currently in receipt of veterans pensions
who were members of the armed forces but who never went overseas.
The reason we view members of the merchant navy as war veterans
is that the nature and dangers of their service were clearly no
different from anyone else on the front lines. Given the paltry
difference in salary between those in the armed forces and those
in the merchant navy, it cannot be said that merchant navy
veterans risked their lives for the money. Like others actively
serving in the war, they risked their lives for their country and
to preserve its freedoms. At minimum, they could be viewed as
resistance fighters for Canada and certainly should be treated no
differently from allied resistance fighters in other countries
who our political leaders have been so quick to compensate with
Canadian taxpayer resources.
Compensating our merchant navy veterans for years of wrongful
denial of equality is both a symbolic and tangible means by which
we can thank fellow Canadians for their efforts in preserving the
freedoms we enjoy today.
Consider that 12,000 men and women served in the merchant navy
in World War II. Many were older than the average age of
Canadians in the armed forces since many of these merchant
mariners had also served Canada during World War I. Members of
our merchant navy, in addition to playing a vital role in the
transportation of supplies in support of the war effort in
Europe, also defended Canada's shores during the battle of the
Atlantic.
In my capacity as opposition critic for veterans affairs, I
participated last year in ceremonies commemorating the 55th
anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic. The battle of the
Atlantic was the only battle of World War II that was waged close
to Canada's shores. German submarines reached as far as the
shores of Halifax and the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Armed
merchant navy carriers contributed significantly to turning the
tide as the battle of the Atlantic was being won by the allies in
1943.
Perhaps politicians have chosen to ignore the plight of merchant
navy veterans due to the comparative smallness of their numbers.
The merchant navy was comprised of no more than 12,000 seafarers.
Of the 12,000 who served in the merchant navy, 1,629 lost their
lives in World War II, 8 of whom were women. This represents
over 13% of the service or approximately 1 in 7.
Members of the merchant navy were not a world apart from those
in the armed forces. It should be remembered that at the
outbreak of World War II, the Royal Canadian Navy took control of
all shipping. It should also be remembered that all who served
in the merchant navy were volunteers. None were compelled to
sail but most did. Once signed on, merchant navy seamen were
subject to sail or jail orders just as the navy.
What was denied to the merchant navy veterans at war's end, such
that they did not have the equality of post-war opportunity
available to other veterans? The benefits denied are not minor
and clearly their absence would have lifetime impacts. Merchant
navy veterans received no financial assistance to attend
university as did other war veterans. Many of the leaders in
professions during the 1960s to the present are or were veterans
who received such assistance.
1030
Merchant navy veterans were not accorded priority in public
service employment as were other returning veterans. After the
war the employment of the public service offered the benefit of
economic stability and the opportunity to re-establish one's life
in an orderly fashion. It was a particularly important benefit
remembered by those whose youth occurred during the great
depression when employment in the public service was also often
the only gainful employment available. The denial of this
benefit to the merchant navy veterans had lifetime effects.
The third benefit denied to the merchant navy veterans was land
or its cash equivalent. Returning veterans were provided with an
opportunity to acquire housing under the Veterans Land Act as
well as income support. The opportunity to acquire housing
coupled with financial assistance to attend university, income
support and priority in public service employment meant that many
veterans could overcome the scars of war and look forward to
stable family lives and careers. None of this was available to
merchant navy veterans except in limited circumstances where such
veterans were disabled.
That this wrong has not been addressed for nearly 55 years after
the end of World War II is a national disgrace which will
hopefully not continue. It is true that as of 1992 merchant navy
veterans have essentially been “on equal footing” with other
veterans in terms of benefits. Now with Bill C-61 they will be
on equal footing under the same legislation and are therefore no
longer symbolically separate but equal.
This still does not address the issue that the lives and
families of every one of our merchant navy veterans have been
scarred by a government imposed inequality of post-war
opportunity.
There are several reasons given for this discriminatory
treatment at war's end. Some argue that it was because there
were many socialists in the merchant navy and it was believed by
the government of the day that any support accorded merchant navy
veterans would strengthen socialistic and pro-union sentiments.
That these beliefs continued into the cold war of the fifties is
understandable given the tenor of the times, though it does not
make them right.
To this day I can advise the House that organizations
representing merchant navy veterans represent a broad political
spectrum that results from time to time in a degree of fractious
discord. The fact that to this day merchant navy veterans have
difficulty speaking consistently with one voice should not be a
matter to be taken advantage of politically.
On occasion and quite recently I have been asked to detail my
goals with respect to my current role as official opposition
critic of veterans affairs. As has been publicly reported, I
stated that one dimension of this portfolio, the same portfolio
addressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is that many of
the files are not new. Many of these issues are not new. Some
of these issues have been going on for 50 or 55 years, far too
long.
For reasons best left to historians many of these issues that
could have been addressed by governments 20 and 30 years ago were
not addressed, let alone resolved. I support the bill as one
small step toward resolving the merchant navy concerns and I
encourage the government to do more.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with
great respect that I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois
to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-61, an act
to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the
Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the
Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension
Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence
thereof.
The purpose of this bill is to provide financial compensation to
make up for our governments' negligence.
1035
The government passed legislation providing numerous benefits
for armed forces veterans returning to Canada at the end of
World War II, but refused to help merchant navy veterans who
were trying to resume their lives, which had been interrupted
when they volunteered to serve their country, particularly
during the two world wars in the heavily torpedoed convoy lanes.
For over 50 years, the Canadian merchant navy veterans, the
fourth arm of the fighting services as they were called during
World War II, have been discriminated against by the government
because they were paramilitaries.
This bill will correct certain anomalies and has the support of
the Bloc Quebecois. But unless these individuals receive
retroactive compensation and the same treatment as their
military comrades, the injustice inflicted on them by our
government will never be erased.
It is important to give some background when talking about the
merchant marine. On November 16, 1939, two weeks after Great
Britain declared war on Germany, the first merchant marine
convoy left the Port of Halifax.
This convoy opened the war-time route to England and the Soviet
Union, carrying vital supplies to overseas allied forces, and
many of the crew members on these ships lost their lives. Their
losses were proportionately higher than those of all the other
military forces.
The merchant navy was the backbone of the supply system in the
North Atlantic that helped preserve the freedom of the British
and of their allies. At the beginning of the war, Canada's
merchant navy, which was governed by the very strict measures in
the Canada Shipping Act, had a total of 37 ocean going ships and
about 1,400 seamen.
The government played an active role in the evolution of the
situation. A Canadian interdepartmental merchant navy commission
was established. A crown corporation, Wartime Merchant Shipping
Limited, was set up in 1941 to look after the merchant navy and,
the following year, the Park Steamship Company was created to
supervise merchant seamen and ships under construction.
Recruiting offices were set up to send people where demand was
strongest.
Merchant seamen were under the authority of DND's naval section.
Ships left in convoys or alone, with sealed orders from the
British admiralty that were handed out locally by the commander
of the naval forces.
In spite of the casualties, by the end of the war, Canada had
157 ships and some 12,000 seamen, or an additional 120 ships and
10,600 seamen. We had the third largest merchant navy in the
world.
On February 8, 1944, C.D. Howe, the Minister of Munitions and
Supplies, said on CBC radio that “without our merchant seamen,
our combat forces would have been immobilized and the brilliant
campaign in North Africa would not have been possible. We would
not have succeeded in landing on the coasts of Sicily and
Italy”. Without our seamen, thousands of soldiers would not have
been transported to the battlefields of Europe or the Pacific,
as members of inter-allied operations clearly remembered.
They were also responsible for delivering Malta.
Their precious cargoes made them immediate targets for the Axis
powers. The German strategy was to follow the merchant marine
to cut the supply lines to Canadian ships. German submarines
and planes knew their itineraries and unmercilessly attacked the
merchant ships. In addition, the German submarines hunted them
up and down the Atlantic coast in an effort to find them,
monitor them and catch them.
In fact, in 1942, they penetrated deep into the Gulf of St.
Lawrence where they attacked a convoy and sunk six merchant
ships, including two Canadian ships and two of their Canadian
escorts.
1040
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill admitted, and I quote:
“I was much more concerned over this battle than I had been over
the glorious air battle known as the Battle of Britain”. He
acknowledged that all would have been lost had the merchant
marine failed. However, it succeeded and kept the British and
their allies in the war.
Before the start of the second world war, the German navy had
planned a campaign to attack allied merchant marine ships en
route from North America.
The destruction of the merchant marine ships, which were neither
well armed nor well armoured, became the prime objective of the
Nazi warships, planes and submarines.
Packs of 10 or 12 German submarines roamed the Atlantic to hit
and sink the supply ships. German aircraft bombarded them as
they approached the coast of Europe. German warships disguised
as cargo ships used their hidden deck guns to attack the
merchant marine fleet at sea. Alone or in convoy, these ships
faced the risk of attack at any point.
As the orders of the German high command indicate, the merchant
seamen were at the heart of the Battle of the Atlantic. As the
merchant ships were constant targets for enemy ships, the allied
warships were unable to detect or combat German submarines.
Until 1942, the mere sight of a submarine periscope was enough
to put convoys to flight. Slower replenishment vessels trailed
behind and were torpedoed. Merchant ships were not equipped for
serious fighting.
While they were required to carry anti-aircraft guns as well as
gas and fire protection equipment, merchant ships were seldom
able to defend themselves against torpedoes, bombs and shells
launched by heavily armed enemy ships. This was what the
merchant marine was up against during the war.
In other cases, the most valuable cargo was placed in the middle
of the convoy, the surrounding ships acting as buffers. The
ships on the outside were the easiest targets. When under attack
and heavily damaged, they were left to their own devices.
If the ship sank, seamen then faced the perils of freezing
water, icy gusts of wind and 10-foot waves. They knew they were
likely to die. The German submarine commanders had received the
order to take no prisoners. Fortunately, some did anyway.
It was not until 47 years after the second world war that
legislation was finally introduced in this respect.
In 1992, the government passed a bill to correct these
anomalies, namely the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian
War-related Benefits Act. This act provided wartime merchant
seamen with the same rights to all the benefits that were
currently available to the armed forces, but not retroactively,
and without recognizing the merchant navy as a paramilitary
force.
Bill C-61 introduces some technical changes by which merchant
navy veterans will be covered by the major pieces of legislation
that apply to veterans, but once again without retroactivity.
At the present time, benefits to merchant mariners fall under
the legislation applicable to civilians. This denigrates the
efforts of these veterans, yet they plied the same waters as the
navy, faced the same enemy aircraft as the airforce, had to
dodge the same bullets as the army. Canada did not, however,
consider them veterans. In all other allied countries, they
would have been entitled to the same benefits and the same war
service status as other veterans.
In short, this omnibus bill makes it possible to amend a number
of acts at one time with a very specific objective in mind.
Primarily, these changes will make it possible for the programs
available to veterans to be extended to merchant navy veterans.
1045
I repeat, the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with these
principles of equality, of recognition, of equity, and of
support for all those who risked their lives, or lost their
lives, in the cause of peace. Our greatest regret, moreover, is
that this government was so long in acknowledging the role
played by the merchant mariners in the two world wars and in
Korea, and most especially the fact that it refuses to grant
retroactivity for benefits merchant mariners did not receive,
while army, air force and navy veterans did.
The major features of this bill are as follows: inclusion in
the definition “member of the forces”; payment of a veterans
allowance under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance
Act; a prisoner of war allowance; assessment increases for
survivors of disability pensioners; deadline extension for
termination of war veterans allowance payments; regulations
assigning funeral and burial programs to a non-government body,
such as the Last Post Fund; continuation of pension payments for
those blinded during the 1917 Halifax explosion and provision
for the board to review earlier decisions.
Recently, three former members of the merchant marine staged a
hunger strike on the steps of the Parliament Buildings in order
to obtain compensation for something that should have been
sorted out right after the war ended.
As Bloc Quebecois critic, I recognize that merchant mariners
have suffered for too long at the hands of government
bureaucracy.
Former members of Canada's merchant marine have been fighting
for a very long time for recognition of their courageous actions
before, during and after World War II. Members of the merchant
marine were the first to enter the war and the last to come back
to peace. They transported our troops and supplies to Europe
throughout the war, and brought them back afterwards.
It is true that merchant mariners working on board the Park
Steamship Company's vessels formed a union in 1944 in order to
improve their working conditions, obtain mattresses, drinking
water, food, blankets and better wages, and that they were
reluctantly recognized by the government, although they had
promised not to strike.
Nonetheless, a special V-Day commemorative ceremony was organized
in February 1944 in Montreal to honour merchant marine veterans
and their contribution to the war effort. Newspapers ran
headlines reading “Merchant marine veterans demand soldier
status”. And throughout the war, they were constantly referred
to as Canada's “fourth armed force” by many of the politicians
of the day, including Prime Minister Mackenzie King, C.D. Howe,
the Hon. J.T. Michaud, Minister of Transport, and many others.
The idea was taken up by the media and the House of Commons, but
dropped when the war ended.
After the war, merchant seamen were no longer needed. The fleet
was privatized. It was estimated that less than 4,000 jobs would
be available to the 12,000 seamen, who were very badly treated,
even though they asked to be considered as veterans in order to
get the related benefits.
When we ask the minister why he will not retroactively give
merchant navy seamen what soldiers got, he says that merchant
seamen are entitled to the same benefits as other veterans. What
he does not say, however, is that they do not get equal
treatment when it comes to retroactivity. In my opinion, without
equal access to retroactivity, there can be no equal treatment
in terms of the benefits involved. This is why Bill C-61 is not
complete.
After World War II, merchant navy veterans were deprived of all
the benefits that other veterans enjoyed. These seamen were
paramilitaries.
Yet, they were ignored by the government for several decades and
this is why I plan to move an amendment to the bill, so that
they can be entitled to tax-free retroactive compensation.
This retroactivity would compensate merchant seamen for lost
opportunities, while also ending the discrimination practiced by
previous governments.
1050
Where these people discriminated against because they formed a
union so as to be treated like human beings, or because the
fleet was privatized?
Let me give you some examples of discrimination. The governments
denied that merchant seamen were the “fourth arm of the fighting
services” or the “fourth arm of the armed forces” as they were
called during the war.
They denied that merchant seamen were bound by their enlistment
contracts.
They could not leave at any time they wished; they were assigned
to their post by order in council and by ship's articles. They
were thrown in prison, if they were absent without permission.
The authorities denied that they had suffered the highest losses
of all the services, even though this fact was admitted during
the war. They were easy prey in the submarine war.
The authorities denied that they had criss-crossed dangerous
waters for the six long years of the war. The war went on in
their theatre longer than was the case for any other service.
The authorities denied that they had sailed under admiralty
orders.
They denied that the merchant mariners were badly paid. They
were not as well paid as their counterparts in the navy,
although government files indicate otherwise.
The authorities denied that they were subject to disciplinary
measures, although they reported to the judge advocate general
of the navy, and were part of the structure of the military
operations groups and could be incarcerated by the military
police and the RCMP.
The authorities denied they paid income tax.
After the war, they could build houses for their military
comrades if they worked in construction, but they could not get
one of their own.
There were not given the employment preference reserved for the
military in the public service. The Canadian Corps of
Commissionaires was not open to the merchant marine until 1989.
They had no say in the drafting of Bill C-84 in 1992.
In 1946, briefs were submitted to the special veterans affairs
committee of the House of Commons calling for their inclusion in
the veterans rehabilitation programs. Most of the demands made
at that time have never been dealt with.
They were denied representation at official Remembrance Day
ceremonies, although they had been represented during the second
world war.
And then there is the whole miserable history of the Hal Banks
period. In 1963, after nearly a year of investigation, the
industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping,
under British Columbia Justice Norris, brought down a report
that strongly denounced Banks, his methods and his associates.
In it, Banks was compared to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini
because of his dictatorial tendencies. Justice Norris described
the outcome of his acts as “industrial death”.
Sailors were deprived of the opportunity to work at sea and
labelled as communists and thus unemployable on land.
They were subjected to brutal treatment. One of the most
favoured means of dissuasion was to put a sailor's legs up over
the curb of a sidewalk and then to jump on them in order to
break them. These acts of brutality were not reserved for
sailors alone; even captains were attacked for something as
minor as delaying a sailing.
Since the merchant mariners' average age is 77, and that of the
prisoners 87, the following retroactive benefits are being
demanded: a public apology by the federal government;
reimbursement of income tax with compound interest;
reimbursement of forced savings and unclaimed wages;
compensation and benefits retroactive to the date of death or
injury for medicare and the veterans independence program,
benefits under this having been refused since its inception; a
tax-exempt lump sum payment for merchant mariners with wartime
service, with an additional amount for merchant mariners who
were POWs for more than 36 months; exemption from income tax for
the rest of their lives; and inclusion of unionized merchant
mariners in the programs available to their comrades.
1055
Government can afford to rectify the situation since there are
millions of dollars in unspent funds available, according to
Public Accounts of Canada, Volume II, part 1.
To conclude, given that neither Bill C-61 in 1961 nor Bill C-84
in 1992 rectified the situation, I hope this government will not
make the same mistake today with Bill C-61.
While the minister was seen on a number of occasions, at
memorial services in Europe, crying his heart out for those who
died 50 years ago, he remains ice-cold today, apparently unmoved
by the representations of their surviving brothers in arms, who
are suffering physically and mentally.
I think this circus has been going on long enough.
I ask that this government take action and rectify once and for
all the situation of merchant seamen and retroactively grant
them these benefits.
[English]
The Speaker: I will recognize the hon.
member for Halifax West now. With your agreement,
I would like to proceed to Statements by Members but I recognize
you now so that you will have the floor when we come back and you
will have one second less than you would ordinarily have.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
approved by parliament in 1988, the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act aims at protecting the health of Canadians by
preventing pollution through national standards and their
enforcement.
The act follows the traditional pattern of federal-provincial
relations in which the federal government takes the lead role. A
province can implement the act but it must do so at an equal or
higher standard.
The act is now being revised in committee. It has become clear
that the federal government is best situated to set national
standards and to enforce them. We live in times of greater
internationalization of environmental policies. We therefore
need a strong federal role in standards setting so as to better
protect the public from toxic substances and their effects on
human health.
* * *
HOME INVASIONS
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
sometimes judges make questionable rulings and sometimes they
make inappropriate comments. Occasionally we hear from a judge
with a finger on the pulse of the community. This week a B.C.
judge imposed a 14-year sentence on a parasite for his part in a
home invasion.
Home invasions have become epidemic in British Columbia. Primary
targets are the elderly but entire families have also been
terrorized. At least one murder has resulted. Charities are
suffering because people are afraid to open their doors.
Community crime prevention meetings are packed.
This judge has delivered a clear message by using what in his
words is “the only remedy the law now provides a trial judge”.
He also said “courts can do their part to preserve a citizen's
right to live in security by imposing progressively severer
sentences on those offenders who commit this type of crime”.
We can only hope that his colleagues at the appeal court level
will show the same commitment to their communities.
* * *
PERTH—MIDDLESEX
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to express my pride in the riding of
Perth—Middlesex. My riding has one of the best unemployment
rates in the country, standing at 3.6%. This rate has been
constant for quite some time but hides an interesting fact.
Thousands of new jobs have been created in the area through
private and public sector initiatives. The unemployment rate
remains the same only because thousands of people have renewed
hope and have returned to the work market.
1100
Perth—Middlesex is a microcosm of all Canada. Government
policies and the private sector initiative have given Canadians a
renewed hope and a bright outlook for the future.
* * *
VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
February is Big Sisters month in Canada. One of my joys as a
member of parliament has been to support the work of this
excellent organization that provides mentoring to young
Canadians, one of our best resources and a key to our future.
Volunteer members of our communities help young people. The
relationships that develop are a positive demonstration of the
best sense of community: people looking out for other people,
especially those who are most vulnerable.
Big Sisters and Big Brothers have a proud history in Canada. The
nature of their work has changed over the past few years but like
the children they mentor the organization has proven itself
adaptable.
I am pleased that the federal government is providing funding
for two innovative projects being launched under Health Canada's
population health fund. An amount of $164,000 will be used to
develop tests and programs to enhance and strengthen the
self-esteem and self-image of adolescents.
Under the leadership of Michael McKnight, Big Brothers and
Sisters of Canada continue to play a critical role in the lives
of young Canadians. I am pleased the government financially
supports programs to improve the lives of young Canadians.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Monday, February 15, is election day in Nunavut. There are 71
candidates competing for 19 positions as members of the first
legislative assembly of Nunavut.
The government of Nunavut will be responsive to the unique needs
of the residents of Nunavut. The Nunavut election is not party
based. In fact the new government will be a consensus one.
I am sure the voter turnout will be very high, an indication of
how excited Nunavut residents are about this historic vote. I
wish good luck to all candidates on Monday and I will be
listening as the results come in.
* * *
MAPLE LEAF GARDENS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow,
February 13, will be the end of an era. Canada's hockey shrine
on Carleton Street, the Maple Leaf Gardens, will host its last
hockey game for all to see on Hockey Night in Canada.
Nothing is as intrinsically Canadian as hockey. Nothing
captures the souls of Canadians like hockey, and Maple Leaf
Gardens has been the stage for many defining moments in our
history.
There was nothing quite like the feeling of attending a game at
the Gardens. It is like stepping back in time: the ghosts of
battles won and lost, the memorabilia of the glory days of the
original six, and the haunting voices of Foster Hewitt and Danny
Gallivan. That was hockey. Con Smythe, Foster Hewitt, Frank
Mahovlich, Darryl Sittler, Lanny MacDonald, Punch Imlach, Wendel
Clark and oh, yes, Harold Ballard, are just a few of the names
that will live on in the legacy of the Gardens and the Canadian
dream.
For generations of Canadians the home of hockey will always be
the house that Smythe built.
* * *
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP WEEK
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
Citizenship Week, and we are preparing for Flag Day and Heritage
Day.
These events represent an opportunity to recognize the
values that we, as Canadians, share and the enduring traditions
that have formed the fabric of our nation.
Canadians know that our nation's diversity is our nation's
strength. Just the very word heritage must in this diverse
Chamber instantly evoke different personal thoughts and
memories. Our heritage is a binding force that unites all
Canadians.
I encourage all parliamentarians to pay tribute to the
individuals and organizations that have been participating in
the program of special events in their communities
Let us take
this opportunity to further strengthen the vibrant, positive
community bonds that exist throughout the country.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank a very generous Toronto resident who made a
$525,000 donation today to the United Way.
This anonymous donor's only request was that the money be
directed to projects serving the homeless. Some of the money
will support a project known as 30 St. Lawrence. This new
construction project of 10 townhouses will house 40 people from
the emergency shelter network. The city of Toronto has
contributed the project site and $400,000 in cash equity.
Another project that will benefit from the donation is Dixon
Hall, an established community agency. The Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation has stepped in to provide a zero interest
project development fund loan for this group to build housing as
well as mortgage insurance for a loan of over $1 million. Human
Resources Development Canada has also pledged $150,000 in equity
toward the project.
1105
As a result of this partnership between the Canadian government,
the non-profit sector and one very generous individual, this
project will operate on a break even basis from the rents
collected as the shelter component of welfare.
* * *
[Translation]
NICOLAS FONTAINE
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last
competition of the season for the free-style skiing world cup was
held last Wednesday, in Altenmarkt, Austria. For the third
consecutive year, Nicolas Fontaine, a 28-year-old man from the
Sherbrooke area, won the prestigious title of world cup
champion.
This third consecutive title is all the more prestigious since
it is the first time a male athlete has ever accomplished such a
feat in that discipline. Once again, an athlete from the Eastern
Townships has achieved world fame, bringing honour to all the
people of our region.
Nicolas' fighting spirit and determination have helped him reach
a level of performance that is unprecedented in Canada.
On behalf of all the people of the riding of Sherbrooke, I want
to congratulate Nicolas Fontaine and wish him every success in
future competitions, especially in the upcoming free-style skiing
world championships to be held next month.
Again, congratulations, Nicolas.
* * *
[English]
WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while
the Prime Minister was swooshing down the slopes at Whistler his
minions in Ottawa were putting the finishing touches on a
frontier fact finding mission. A 10 member Liberal task force
will be dispatched to what they consider Canada's nether regions.
The mission is to find out why western Canadians continuously
reject Liberal overtures.
My constituents can hardly wait to speak to members of this
delegation. They are primed to tell them that it was the Liberals
who started the country down the slippery slope to debt and
deficit. They want to tell them that they cannot be bought with
their own money. They want to show them how high taxes are
hurting small business. They will also show them photos of their
sons and daughters who were educated in this country and driven
south by the insatiable Liberal appetite for taxes. They will
also tell them that they are tired of having their grain held up
by 20 or 30 strikers.
If members of this group want the facts they will hear them, but
will they accept them? Aye, there's the rub.
* * *
[Translation]
FLAG DAY
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Monday
is flag day.
[English]
On February 15, 1965, Canadians watched with pride as our new
maple leaf flag was raised for the first time on Parliament Hill.
Thirty-four years later we are still proud as the flag has become
an important symbol for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Throughout our history, the maple leaf has always been a solemn
symbol of the values that unite Canadians. The flag pays tribute
to all Canadian men and women, irrespective of race, language,
beliefs or opinions, who have built this magnificent country of
ours.
[English]
As a first generation Canadian, the flag has always represented
to me the opportunity that is available to all Canadians
including the privilege of being elected to the House where the
flag was first conceived.
* * *
HIV-AIDS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, communities
across the country are working hard to stop the spread of AIDS,
yet the federal government has not increased the level of funding
for the AIDS strategy in eight years.
The AIDS strategy funding does not take into account the
increased need for services or the money needed to support new
programs, prevention, support services and new clients. The
result is that many existing programs are actually receiving less
money than they have in the past.
In Windsor, Ontario, the Aids Committee of Windsor had its
funding cut by $100,000 this year even though Windsor has the
fourth highest HIV rate in the province. That means people
living with aids and their families may not receive the important
information and support they need. Despite the rising HIV rate
in Ontario only 20 out of 36 agencies that needed funding
actually received it.
We cannot afford to let these urgent needs go unmet. I call on
the government to address this serious problem and join
communities across Canada in the fight against the spread of HIV
and AIDS.
* * *
PARKS CANADA
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to say that yesterday an important step was taken to
protect and promote the grave sites of our former prime
ministers.
Through Parks Canada these 14 locations will have Canadian flags
and information panels installed. As well maintenance and
preservation work where necessary will be carried out.
Additionally a website will be developed to inform Canadians
about where the sites are and to provide information about the
lives of these important individuals.
The maintenance of these sites for today and the future is an
acknowledgement of their significance in contributing to the life
and development of our national heritage. Ceremonies at these 14
sites will be held during upcoming months to acknowledge their
contributions to our country.
* * *
1110
TAXATION
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
since 1993 Canadians have been paying more in taxes and getting
less back in services. The employment insurance program is a
good example.
Despite the claims that the Liberals have been cutting taxes,
payroll taxes have gone up steadily since 1993. The surplus in
the EI program is still running about $6 billion per year with a
total surplus of about $19 billion. That means that the
government has taken $19 billion more from the workers and the
employers than it gave back in benefits.
This situation is absolutely intolerable. In Newfoundland and
Labrador the EI changes have directly contributed to our massive
out-migration. Over 30,000 individuals in the last three years
have left Newfoundland. Throughout St. John's West from Bay
Bulls to Placentia our rural communities are being devastated.
This year in Newfoundland with an unemployment rate of 18% many
individuals cannot receive EI benefits, even though
Newfoundlanders this year paid $32 million in premiums more than
they received in benefits. It is time to use the EI fund for the
benefit of those who need it most, the unemployed.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this month we as Canadian citizens have many important dates
which allow us to express appreciation while recognizing our good
fortune to live in peace and harmony in our multicultural,
multiracial, bilingual nation.
Important days are flag day, heritage day and citizenship week,
while also celebrating Black History Month. The cultural, racial
and linguistic mix of Canada, its Constitution and charter of
rights are unique in the world and express rights and freedoms
and include values of caring, sharing and respect for differences
that have brought us world renown.
Community and government support for the safe, sound and
creative communities surrounding us is demonstrated by support
for the Matthew Da Costa Foundation in Montreal. Supported by
three levels of government, it is one of the models that was
designed and created by the black community.
Within the context of Black History Month I salute the
organization as well as many other black activist groups that
promote fairness and equality for black Canadians in their day to
day lives.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this past Wednesday night farmers in the Bengough area
of Saskatchewan jammed a community hall to discuss the growing
farm income crisis. This meeting attracted much media attention,
a portion of which was aired last night on CBC As It
Happens.
These proud prairie people are bending under an ever increasing
load of provincial and federal taxes, particularly the hidden
taxes on fuel, fertilizer and farm machinery, not to mention
escalating property taxes. Family relations as well as community
relations are approaching the end of their tolerance and
patience. Many of the people in our communities have already
given up and moved out.
Farmers told visiting politicians that they cannot survive under
present conditions. They also expressed their feelings stating
that the federal government and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax West.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the
first ever black member of parliament elected from Nova Scotia I
am especially proud to celebrate Black History Month.
The history of Nova Scotia and all of Canada reflects the
tremendous contributions by black Canadians from all walks of
life and often against incredible odds.
Black History Month, also known as African Heritage Month, has
been celebrated in North America since 1926. These celebrations
mark the contributions made by black Canadians through exhibits,
informative lectures, cultural events, political activities,
recognition ceremonies for distinguished black Canadians and many
other events.
I encourage as many people as possible to participate in black
history and African heritage events whenever they occur
throughout the country. There are over 160 events planned in the
greater Halifax metropolitan area alone. I am especially proud
the opening night for this year's celebrations in Halifax were
held at Hammonds Plains Consolidated School in my riding.
I encourage all Canadians not only to honour this event but use
it as an opportunity to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
* * *
GULF FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
gulf ferry service connecting the island of Newfoundland with the
mainland of Canada was guaranteed in our 1949 terms of union with
Canada. However this is not to say that we are provided with the
type of service we feel we deserve.
There have been many complaints over the years about service
quality, vessel cleanliness, the rate structure and the constant
threat of labour unrest at the start of our tourist season. The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, regional development
agencies and the local business community have all been
addressing these concerns on an ongoing basis.
1115
I call upon the Government of Canada to set up a
federal-provincial committee to examine the gulf ferry service
with a view to initiating improvements in that service. The gulf
ferry service is not between Newfoundland and Canada, it is in
Canada and, as such, should be a service that all Canadians can
be proud of.
* * *
[Translation]
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF ASBESTOS STRIKE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today marks the
anniversary of an important date in Quebec's history.
The workers and the people of Quebec as a whole owe much of
their freedom to the Asbestos strikers who, in 1949, threw off
the shackles impeding Quebeckers' march toward modernity. The
process was neither painless nor quick as their path was strewn
with doubts, despondency and suffering.
Asbestos workers were able to express and demonstrate the strong
desire of the people of Quebec to take control of their own
destiny through sheer resistance and willpower and with dignity.
The Asbestos strikers were instrumental in ushering in the Quiet
Revolution, which signalled the birth of the Quebec nation but
also brought significant scientific, economic and cultural
developments.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois remembers and reflects on all the
progress made in the past 50 years, which makes us very proud.
When we think about what the future might hold, the long way we
still have to go and the political shackles we have yet to throw
off, we should remember Asbestos and be inspired by this lesson
of resistance, perseverance and dignity.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government is now collecting $1,800 more from every
Canadian taxpayer than when it came to power in 1993. That is
just the increase in personal income tax alone. When we pile on
the Prime Minister's much loved GST and PST, and payroll taxes
like CPP and EI, the tax load is simply staggering. Yet over
this same five year period the government has contributed $1,150
less per taxpayer for health care. Why?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even in
difficult times, from our first budget, we started out with
targeted tax cuts to help Canadians who are most in need. We
started with students, Canada's disabled, the poorest families,
charities and the voluntary sector.
In the last budget we were able to take 400,000 Canadians off
the tax rolls. We introduced tax measures which cut income taxes
by $7 billion over three years. We were able to benefit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the government's intention was to cut taxes, it
missed its target. The government's tax policy is like Zeller's
in reverse: pay more, get less. Pay more taxes, get less health
care and other services.
This year the Liberals are squeezing $1,800 more in taxes from
each taxpayer than they did five years ago. But during the same
period they cut social program spending by $1,150 per person.
When tax revenue is at an all time high, why is health care
funding at an all time low?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we faced
these difficult circumstances, one of our first priorities was to
reinvest in health care. That is why our first major expenditure
was to put $1.5 billion into the CHST for health care.
That shows what our priority is. I ask the hon. member to wait
for our budget on Tuesday.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the truth is that this government decided long ago that
health care was not its number one priority. Total government
taxes are at an all time high and, of course, it continues to
steamroll $1,800 more in income tax out of each and every one of
us. Despite this record breaking tax collection, it has gutted
hospital spending by $1,150 per person.
With taxes at a record high and health care funding at a record
low, why does the government continue its pay more, get less
policy?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe there
is a much more fundamental question, one which goes right to the
heart of the credibility of the Reform Party itself. The Reform
budget calls for $54 billion in new fiscal goodies, but at the
same time it is assuming growth rates for the next three years of
5.5%. That is a Bre-X budget: full of hype, but bankrupt.
1120
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have truly earned the title of the pay
more, get less government of all time: pay more taxes, get less
to raise one's family; pay more taxes and wait in line for health
care; pay more CP and get less retirement income; pay more EI
premiums and get less when you lose your job.
Why can this government not realize that it has sucked the life
out of Canadian taxpayers? Why will it not give taxpayers a real
break, right now, right here, today?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,
we will have to wait four days for that when the budget comes
down.
Our priority has been a balanced approach, unlike that of
Reform. We have pursued a balanced approach by first getting rid
of the deficit, by now paying down the debt, by re-investing in
the necessary economic and social programs that are going to make
a strong future for all Canadians, and by implementing a program
for overall tax relief.
In the last budget we were able to give tax relief to 13 million
out of 14 million Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, here is the new Liberal ad for next Tuesday: “Come
on down to our newly expanded, pay more, get less store. We
guarantee you will get less for your money: less household
income, less health care, less Canada pension benefits, less EI
benefits. We guarantee to reduce your standard of living or our
name is not the Liberal government”.
Why are taxes going up again this year, while at the same time
this government continues to gut health care and every other
service that Canadians are getting?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member
wants to talk about cuts, the Reform budget would cut existing
programs by $9 billion. Guess what? Not surprisingly, it has
not told us where.
We remember in the last election how the Tories had an $8
billion black hole in their numbers. Now Reform has done them $1
billion better. They are perfect soulmates.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The federal government has decided to compensate farmers, in
light of the crisis they are facing. The Government of Quebec
has compensated pork producers to help keep them from
bankruptcy.
Are we to understand from the minister's remarks in the House
yesterday that he intends to penalize pork producers who have
received assistance from Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said in the House
yesterday and that is not what will happen. Provincial safety
net programs in some of the provinces have both federal and
provincial money, as well as companion program money from the
federal government.
When the new program is put in place, the new federal dollars
that will go into the program will free up federal dollars that
are already being used by the provinces in those programs to do
other things with their industry, in co-operation with it, so the
farmers will gain from that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is a simple one, but the response is convoluted, to say
the least.
The minister has been given clear recommendations by the
advisory committee. He wants to set very low floors on income
so as to penalize producers who are doing well, without taking
into account their indebtedness which, at the height of the
crisis, was as high as $40,000 a week.
Will Quebec's pork producers be penalized, yes or no? That's it,
that's all.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they will be treated exactly the same as
every other pork producer around the country.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN RURAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently announced the winners of
the Canadian Rural Partnership Program
competition, an unofficial and unannounced political patronage
event.
Can the minister tell the House what criteria are used in
awarding these funds?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what she means. If
the interpretation was right, she said unofficial patronage.
Maybe she would want to clarify it, if she has a supplementary
question.
1125
We put in place in the rural secretariat over $3 million for
pilot projects in Canada. I appointed an arm's length
independent advisory body to make the selections. Those
selections have been made and there are 68 pilot projects going
on across Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how does the
minister expect us to believe he is responding to urgent
problems in rural areas by coming up with funds for food
security in Longueuil, Boucherville, Chambly and Châteauguay,
and paying a nurse in Saint-Étienne-des-Grès in the Prime
Minister's riding to supervise health care?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the hon.
member is upset that the federal government is working with local
communities and the provincial government to strengthen economic
activity and co-operation among all of us and in rural Canada.
Rural Canada is a big and important part of this country and we
are going to do all we possibly can to strengthen it even more.
* * *
HEALTH
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The whole country knows that there is a health care crisis right
across Canada, in particular in emergency rooms. Canadians have
now sent out a distress signal, a 911 call, for their health care
system.
The minister said yesterday that he had no idea when the new
money would go out to the provinces from the budget on Tuesday.
There will be a budget on Tuesday, in four days. Can the
minister give the House an assurance and a guarantee that the
cheque will be cut on Tuesday and the provinces will get their
money for this emergency situation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the best way of dealing with the difficulties in health care is
for governments to work together toward the same objective, which
is to strengthen quality health care throughout the country.
In the days ahead the Government of Canada will be announcing
details of the contributions it will make toward that cause, not
only through money but through collaboration with our provincial
partners.
I can assure the hon. member and I can assure the House that the
manner in which we follow through will reflect the depth of our
commitment to that cause.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister blamed the provinces. His friend
Mike Harris is blaming the hospitals. This minister is sounding
more and more like Mike Harris all the time: procrastinating,
delaying and blaming.
Is the minister saying that he cannot cut that cheque on
Tuesday? If that is the case, would he agree to stop the
proceedings of this House right now to pass a unanimous
resolution asking that the cheque be sent to the provinces on
Tuesday? Would he agree to that if he cannot do it by himself?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in a few days the Government of Canada will table its budget and
we will follow through on our commitments.
I remind the House that there are two ways to endanger medicare
in this country. One way, of course, is to follow the counsel of
the extreme right over there, the Reform Party, which would
repeal the Canada Health Act and walk away from publicly funded
health care.
The other way is to follow the counsel, the folly of the NDP,
and spend until we are bankrupt. We are not going to do that. We
are going to take a balanced approach. We are going to make sure
that medicare is there for the long term.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government's dirty little secret is out. A recent headline in
the Wall Street Journal read that low productivity clouds
Canada's competitiveness and living standards.
The article cited a recent OECD report which said that high
taxes and regulation are reducing Canada's ability to compete.
The OECD predicts that in 20 years, due to high taxes and
regulation, Canada's per capital GDP will drop to 15% below the
OECD average.
Does the industry minister agree with what the OECD has said
about Canada's productivity and dropping living standards?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the issue of productivity gains is one of the
most important economic issues confronting Canada at the present
time. I agree with the hon. member to that extent.
I think, however, to be fair, he should look at a number of the
measures that have been taken over recent years which are
contributing directly to an improvement in Canada's productivity
performance, which in fact we did see in the 1997 statistics, the
last year for which we have those numbers, including the
investment in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, including
renewed investments in the university research granting councils,
including support for industrial research and development through
technology—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
should expect no more than that from a minister who once said
that high taxes help productivity.
Even a former senior Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Don Johnston,
now head of the OECD, says that our taxes are too high.
1130
Francesco Bellini, CEO of BiochemPharma, once the star of
Canada's pharmaceutical industry, blames high taxes for his
company's move to the U.S.
Will the government provide meaningful tax relief in next week's
budget and will it reindex tax brackets so that it is not taking
from the back door through bracket creep what it is pretending to
give through the front door?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
continue our broad based tax cuts which were begun in a very
meaningful way last year. I encourage the member to wait until
Tuesday to see what the next chapter is on tax cuts.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this last
Tuesday was my aunt's funeral.
When she was in the hospital she fell out of bed repeatedly
because there was no one available to answer her calls for help.
I want to ask the health minister how he can justify gutting
health care as the Liberals have done in the last five years
while they keep on increasing our tax load. We as a family are
offended by that.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the important thing is for governments to work together in
partnership to improve health care.
Our commitment is clear. We have made clear that health care
for us is a priority. We will reflect that in the budget we
table in the House next week. That is what Canadians expect of
us, to show that health is our priority.
We are there to work in partnership with the provinces which of
course must deliver services on the ground to make sure that
Canadians are well served by their health care system.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
easy to say that, but the record of the last five years shows
very clearly that the government has not delivered.
People like my aunt went through misery because of the health
plan the Liberal government has. Is it really going to do
something about it or is it just more words, hoping the Canadian
people will believe it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an odd sort of complaint to come from a party that would
gut the Canada Health Act, sweep away what it took generations of
Liberal governments to build, public health care in this country.
It is an empty and a hollow complaint from such a group who
favours the American approach to health care.
They may spend the coming days trying to unite the right. We
are going to spend the days uniting Canadians' fine health care
which we will strengthen for the future of this country.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
a news report broadcast by Radio-Canada yesterday evening,
information on measures to be announced in the upcoming federal
budget has been leaked by federal sources.
According to these sources, the federal government is planning
to increase transfer payments to the provinces for health, but
the terms and conditions for distributing the funds among the
provinces would result in Quebec no longer receiving its fair
share in two years.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister confirm that his government intends to change
the method used for calculating how transfer payments are
distributed among the provinces in such a way that Quebec's
share will continue to drop?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been much
speculation about what the upcoming budget may or may not
contain.
Fortunately, the hon. member will not have to wait too long as
the budget is to be tabled in the next four days.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if it is
this government's intention to distribute federal funding for
health on the basis of the provinces' respective demographic
weight, will the minister also start distributing his goods and
services contracts based on demographic weight as well, because
Quebec experiences an annual shortfall in excess of $2 billion
in this respect?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this still is speculation. I
would encourage the hon. member to wait another four days.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Surrey, B.C. is the fastest growing city in Canada. The only
hospital there is overcrowded.
At Surrey Memorial Hospital on Monday and Tuesday, day surgery
was cancelled because there were no beds available. Even
stretchers were full.
This Liberal government is to blame for the sorry state of the
health care system. It cut $16 billion in provincial transfers
in the first place.
1135
Why does the health minister not care about the patients—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said already, the important thing is for governments to
work together to make sure Canadians have access to high quality
health care. That is as true in British Columbia as it is with
the rest of the country.
This is the Reform Party, the party that would repeal the Canada
Health Act and do away with publicly funded accessible health
care and leave it to people's bank accounts to determine what
kind of care they receive. We will never choose that course. We
will never adopt the American style approach and I urge the hon.
member to reconsider his position.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the health minister tries to put
the blame on everybody else, over the past 15 years the federal
share of health care has been cut in half in British Columbia.
This translates into 1,000 fewer hip and knee replacements,
1,000 fewer heart surgeries, 3,000 fewer cancer operations and
7,000 fewer long term hospital beds.
Why is the minister blaming every province in the country when
the federal government is responsible for the crisis in health
care in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is important is for governments to work together. That is
why the Prime Minister has led us into the social union framework
agreement to allow us to work together for common social
objectives.
We are going in one direction to strengthen health care and the
Reform Party is going in the opposite direction. Reformers said
a few weeks ago in Victoria that if it were up to them they would
take the surplus, divide it in two and put one half toward
reducing the debt and the other half to tax cuts, leaving nothing
for health care. Canadians will see what we do on Tuesday with
health care. We are going to put our money where our mouth is.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Tomorrow, fishers, workers and residents from the Gaspé—Magdalen
Islands region will hold an important rally. They will once
again talk about jobs and dignity. The minister was invited by
the Liberal MNA for Bonaventure to come and see for himself the
perverse effects of his policies on the people in these regions.
Will we see the minister in New Richmond tomorrow?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not see the invitation to
which the Bloc Quebecois member is alluding.
I can tell you one thing though: I am always interested in
meeting people who want to talk about job creation and regional
development.
If I look at the concrete measures taken by our government, I
see that job creation in this country is at its highest level in
years, particularly for young people. I can assure you that
regional development and job creation across the country will
remain a priority for this government.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister could come, even without an invitation.
We realize that the minister is very busy. If he wants to go
skiing like the Prime Minister, he should come to New Richmond,
which has a nice ski slope.
Am I to understand that the minister, who bled the unemployed
dry with his quotas and his cuts to the employment insurance
program, refuses to come and meet—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: our
government's priorities will not change even though the Bloc
Quebecois wants to keep people in a state of dependency. The
Bloc is living in the seventies and saying “give us
unemployment”.
We know Quebeckers well. We know the people of the lower St.
Lawrence region. We know that what they want are jobs to
adequately support their families, and our government has made a
commitment in that respect. True dignity comes from working.
This is why we are taking active measures so they can join the
labour—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
* * *
1140
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights is quoted as saying that even one more pervert
on the streets is one too many. He is also quoted as saying that
he was incensed with Justice Shaw's ruling making possession of
child pornography in British Columbia legal. I agree with him.
Given that Justice Jardine has dismissed a charge against
another child pornographer based on the Shaw decision, is the
government still prepared to wait until the appeal on April 26
before it changes this law?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we had this debate in the House. Obviously the Reform Party was
not listening. This is before the appeal court. We have
intervened. The appeal will be heard on April 26 and 27 of this
year and we will be upholding the law.
To repeat what I said in the House, the law is still the law of
the land. It is only one court in the land that has ruled
someone can possess child pornography for personal use but we are
going to be appealing. We are awaiting the decision of the court
of appeal where we have intervened.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice has indicated in this House that
there is no federal urgency to overturn the B.C. child porn
ruling because it only affects British Columbians, a sentiment
now echoed by our justice committee chair colleague when he
stated if they walk anywhere, it will only be in B.C.
I wonder what the justice minister's position is on child porn
perverts in her province of Alberta. If this ruling affected her
province would she still support allowing child pornographers to
go free as she is now allowing in British Columbia?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the debate was not about perverts. I think that is a misuse of
what took place in the courts. The law is the law of the land
still in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. I repeat that there is
an appeal. It will take place April 26 and 27, and we are
intervening. We respect the law. Unlike the opposition we do
respect the due process of law.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning we learned that the federal government is
apparently preparing to invest $750 million to beef up the
federal bureaucracy for the specific purpose of policing the
provinces in the health field.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Does the minister
not realize that the people of Quebec and Canada do not want the
federal government to spend millions of dollars on policing the
provinces, and expect their money to be used first and foremost
to improve direct patient care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
have to wait for next Tuesday's budget.
* * *
[English]
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation. In the battle to eliminate the deficit and
debt all federal departments and programs, including CMHC, had to
do their share. What assurances can the minister give that the
savings within CMHC will be reinvested to assist low income
Canadians and the homeless?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in January 1998 the
Canadian government announced $250 million in funds for RRAP.
Furthermore, I announced in December an additional $50 million
for this year ending March 31. The money will go toward programs
for the homeless and persons with disabilities, the home
ownership program, home adaptation for seniors, emergency repair
programs and services for aboriginals.
Thanks to RRAP extended by the government, 7,500 Canadians have
been helped with their homes. If the province of Ontario would
have participated in RRAP we would have had more.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have asked
the Minister of National Revenue twice why organizations like the
B.C. Spaces for Nature, the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki
Foundation get a tax holiday as registered charities when they
act as a front and accept huge contributions from wealthy
American corporate and family interests to kill jobs and
investments in Canada. The minister said he did not have the
evidence and so I provided it to him yesterday. Now that the
minister knows the truth will he commit now to act and remove
this charitable status from these ecoterrorists?
1145
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I informed the hon. member yesterday,
if he provides evidence of any charitable group that is not
abiding by the law, we will look at it. If the member puts that
forward, I will do it.
Judging by the questions today by the Reform Party members, it
is no wonder they are desperately looking for an alternative
because they need one.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1997 an audit revealed that the Saulteaux first nation was
$71,000 in debt. At this point the community was asked to hire a
financial manager to clean up this debt and it went to $1.5
million.
The name of the financial manager was Jesse Primeau. It was
revealed in documents that he paid himself $8,000 a month plus
expenses, except for March where he paid himself three times.
Can the minister tell me if she approved of the hiring of Jesse
Primeau and what steps has she taken to correct this terrible
error in judgment?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will not comment on whether the minister did or did not have
any knowledge about the hiring of this particular individual.
However I can tell the member as he knows, in his own province
of Alberta we have been working extensively over the past number
of months with a number of bands to improve the financial
management. They have agreed in many instances and are working
currently with the Assembly of First Nations for example on
accountability practices not only of these selected communities
but generally across Canada.
We are working closely with the first nations to ensure proper
management and expenditure of those dollars to go to those people
in the communities.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
This is heritage week. Canada Post, CMHC and Heritage Canada
pay tribute to Canada as home in a series of stamps. Native
housing is depicted by longhouses 24 metres by 8 metres that held
three to five families. That was native housing in the past.
Today we have three to five families living in homes half that
size. Indian affairs has for years built houses at barely
acceptable standards, houses that could not withstand everyday
living. Conditions are so bad that the United Nations has
criticized Canada's treatment of aboriginals.
When is this government going to realize Canada is not home
sweet home to all Canadians?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has replied recently to a former question with
respect to housing increases in Canada, some $50 million, which
would include for example off-reserve aboriginal people.
In our department this year we are spending $160 million, an
additional $20 million, $43 million of which is going to
Manitoba, the member's own province. We are working very closely
with a number of bands, namely the Peguis Indian reserve and
Dakota Tipi for innovative housing projects which would involve
also the infusion of private capital.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are living in squalid conditions. Last evening CTV
reported on just how bad things are in Pine Lake and Red Lake,
Ontario. Surely the government was shamed by the conditions
these people are forced to live in. It is the same in Moose
Lake, South Indian Lake and throughout Canada.
Homelessness and poverty are a prescription for poor health. It
is a prescription for death. Why is this government turning a
blind eye to the poor and the homeless?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are very distressed about the videotape which was displayed
last night on CTV. We are aware of the situation. I have had a
briefing this morning with the member of parliament representing
those particular communities.
I would also like to advise the House that the local police
department is closely surveying those who are living in the bush
in these temporary housing placements to ensure there is no loss
of life.
I would encourage the hon. member to perhaps try to persuade the
provincial government that most recently closed 70 beds in that
community which has forced many of these unfortunate people out
of the Red Lake and Pine Lake communities into the bush. We are
going to continue to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
February 3 the Minister of National Defence said that Canadian
doctors tested fully the anthrax vaccine given to our troops.
Then on February 4, the next day, he claimed he never said the
drug was tested in Canada.
At a DND briefing this week which I attended, the military
stated the vaccine was never tested in Canada for use for our
troops. This vaccine was never approved by Health Canada and the
military only obtained special permission to inject it.
How can the minister claim to have done this to protect the
troops knowing full well that this drug was not licensed or
tested in Canada?
1150
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has
always worked in good faith and in the best interests of the men
and women of the Canadian armed forces to provide them with the
best protection possible in what we must remember was a
potentially dangerous operation.
We have been open and transparent on this issue and have been as
forthcoming as possible with members of parliament and the media
in explaining the facts, while respecting the rights of
individuals who are before the courts to a fair trial.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of defence repeatedly claims that the Canadian doctors
and the Canadian government were informed and well informed from
the U.S. on the anthrax vaccine. If that is the case, how come
Ian MacKay, a Health Canada official, said that no one in the
military told him the U.S. FDA had repeatedly threatened to
revoke MBPI's licence for producing the anthrax vaccine because
of its serious regulatory violations.
Once again, who gave that order to inject our troops with this
potentially dangerous and non-Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister has
said on a number of occasions in this House, the majority of the
people who took the anthrax vaccine had no problems whatsoever.
Only a very small percentage of people had any reactions to it at
all.
* * *
CHILD LABOUR
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a horrendous problem
of child labour around the world. What is Canada doing about
this problem of child abuse?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the International Labour
Organization is developing a new convention on the elimination of
the worst forms of child labour. Canada strongly supports the
key objectives of this initiative and played an important role
during the first discussion last June. Our goal is to ensure the
ILO adoption of new instruments which are effective and can be
universally ratified.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers still reeling from the income crisis have now
been hit with rotating strikes by the grain weighers. Grain
shipments are off 200,000 tonnes costing farmers more money. The
government has had since 1993 to negotiate a new union
settlement.
Will the Treasury Board minister guarantee farmers that this
dispute will not cost them another dollar?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are in the process of negotiating with the union. It has
taken a long time. It has taken a long time because the two
parties have been trying to get the best possible conditions. We
are offering to the table two blue collar workers the same amount
of money that we have offered to the rest of the public service.
Eighty percent of them have accepted it. I hope this will be
settled very quickly and that the grain farmers will not suffer
the consequences.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Canada today, 1,600,000 households spend more than 30% of their
annual revenue on rental accommodation.
Since 1994, the Government of Canada has cut more than $200
million from the budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
Since by March the corporation will have achieved the downsizing
objectives assigned it by the Minister of Finance, will the
minister now give it a clear mandate to develop public housing
in accordance with provincial jurisdictions as the mayors of
Canada's major cities are requesting?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation did not wait for the member's request to invest the
savings it made through good management.
In January 1998, as I
mentioned earlier, $250 million was invested in the RRAP
program, from which Quebec is benefiting fully. Moreover, I
announced a further $50 million in December.
I would also like to inform the House that we are working with
various levels of government and the private sector to build
affordable housing; 2,800 affordable units were built in 1998
and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one truth is definitely out there. Regional rates of
pay policy by this government is economic discrimination among
the lowest paid of the public service workers. Today marks the
end of the fourth week of rotating strikes by the table two
employees and Treasury Board has refused to meet with them since
mid-December.
Next week the strike will escalate clear across the country.
1155
My question for the minister is why are you refusing to meet and
why do you not end the regional rates of pay at this time?
The Speaker: I know you forget once in a while my
colleague, but always address your questions to the Speaker. I
will permit him to answer the question.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
regional rates of pay are there for a good reason. The good
reason is that we respect not only provincial regulations about
trades such as plumbers and electricians, but because if we offer
more or less than the local market conditions in for instance
Fredericton, we will create problems of recruitment, or we will
simply not be able to get the tradesmen.
These regional rates of pay are fair. They respect provincial
regulations. They have been there for a long time. They are
what should be the rule and we will keep them.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the ever evolving Newfoundland fisheries, fishermen are being
hampered by out of date regulations. In particular now that
individual quotas are in place, there is no need for length
restrictions on vessels so as to limit the harvesting.
Three fishermen from Petty Harbour, Messrs. Howlett, Chafe and
Madden, are being forced to cut four feet off a recently
purchased vessel. Conforming to the old regulations will cost
them an additional $10,000, as well as force them to fish in a
less safe boat.
For the safety of these and other fishermen, will the minister
authorize temporary vessel registrations for 1999?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been vessel limitations in
place in the Atlantic region and in Newfoundland for many years
as a method of reducing the capacity of the fleet. We have fleet
capacity in addition to buy out of licences.
The member has actually asked a very perceptive question in that
there are safety concerns involved in this as well. We revised
the rules back in 1997, 18 months ago. We attempted to take into
account safety and comfort considerations of fishermen and the
constant pressure to increase the size of vessels, thus the size
and capacity of the fleet.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The issue of housing and homelessness has been a very important
topic of discussion, especially this week. Our aboriginal peoples
are in dire need of adequate, affordable and safe housing. Why
is this ministry not doing more for aboriginal Canadians?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member on this side of the House for that question. I
only regret it did not come from the Reform Party, the official
opposition, to ask that kind of a question about the plight of
aboriginal people in Canada.
I can tell the hon. member, as I said earlier in my first
response, we are working closely with the communities to ensure
that they are looked after. It goes beyond the question of
providing housing for aboriginal people. We need to settle land
claims with the aboriginal people of Canada to give them an
opportunity to participate fully in Canada and enter the 21st
century.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last fall I asked the justice minister why she was
prosecuting defenceless poor farmers for exporting their own
grain while wealthy ones were being ignored. Her answer was that
the prosecutions taking place were on the basis of due process of
law. Four months later, why is the government still prosecuting
these same poor, defenceless farmers while for three years it has
refused to prosecute a wealthy farmer who can afford to defend
himself and challenge the government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has an obligation obviously to
uphold the law, not in a selective manner but broadly and even
handedly across the board. That is in fact what we do.
In terms of individual prosecutions, of course the hon.
gentleman will also know the appropriate role of the provincial
departments of justice. The hon. gentleman refers to specific
cases where he thinks there is some discrepancy in the
administration of justice. Obviously all of those cases are
looked at very closely to ensure that justice is even handed.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three official
reports from three different sources have referred to the
federal government's inability to honour its commitments to
francophone communities.
One of these, the Savoie report, proposed the creation over five
years of a $60 million fund for francophones outside Quebec.
1200
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Would it
not be time, in order to better co-ordinate programs providing
support for francophone minorities threatened by assimilation,
to create a secretariat with the means and the autonomy to meet
these commitments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Savoie
report is an important report, and we are currently studying it.
However, I would like to reconfirm at this point the
government's firm commitment to the official languages and its
intention to honour it.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 26
Canadian prisoners of war held by the Nazis in the notorious
Buchenwald concentration camp have been insulted by the Minister
of Veterans Affairs and the Government of Canada.
After years of presenting their case for compensation to deaf
ears in Ottawa, these veterans were presented cheques of barely
over $1,000 each. This compensation is nothing short of a
disgrace. My constituent, Bill Gibson, wrote “refused” across
the cheque and sent it back.
Will the minister do the right thing by offering our veterans a
just and honourable settlement?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's statement because
after the announcement was made on December 11 I called some of
the proponents who said they were delighted. They said it was
not the money, that it was the principle of the thing.
Notwithstanding that, a few weeks ago when he was in Germany the
Prime Minister, as a result of the initiative taken by this
government to provide compensation to the Buchenwald veterans,
discussed this with the Chancellor of Germany. Mr. Schroeder
said that he would be looking into the issue to see what
follow-up action could be taken.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is again for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
As I mentioned earlier, many of the regulations of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans need to be changed because the
Newfoundland fishery has changed.
Will the minister appoint an independent commissioner to review
the present regulations with the intention of replacing or
removing all unnecessary regulations so the fishermen will not
have to spend half their time in the fisheries offices? Further,
will the minister approve temporary vessel registrations until
this study is completed?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier response to
the hon. member's question, this study was undertaken and the
results were reported in 1997, some 18 months ago.
We did look into the issue of vessel size. It is a complex
problem. On the one hand there are safety considerations with
respect to larger vessels being safer vessels, which is a brief
way of putting it, but at the same time larger vessels mean that
fishermen will stay out longer in the face of adverse weather and
they will go farther. So the safety issue tends to equalize.
On the other hand we have the major problem of increasing
capacity in the fleet, which this government is spending some
$250 million in the Atlantic region to reduce. It is a complex
issue.
Again, I appreciate the hon. member's question, but we have done
the study which he has requested.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to six petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 57th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee on
Health.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the report later this day.
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), I have the honour to present,
in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing
Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations concerning sections
G.06.001(1) and J.01.033(1) of the food and drug regulations.
The text of these sections is contained in this report.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 57th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs be modified as follows: Roy Bailey for Gurmant
Grewal; and that Gurmant Grewal be added to the list of associate
members.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1210
[Translation]
WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-61, an
act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the
Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the
Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension
Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence
thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
proud to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-61.
[English]
I rise in support of Bill C-61 on behalf of the federal New
Democratic Party caucus.
While this bill does have some shortcomings, and a very serious
one which I will get to a bit later, the legislation does
represent a step forward.
This bill, as has been mentioned, is an omnibus bill which
touches upon many aspects of veterans affairs. It touches upon
benefits for prisoners of war and benefits for widows of
pensioners. It touches upon the Veterans Review and Appeal
Board, the Halifax Relief Commission and so forth.
One very important aspect of this bill is that it seeks to put
merchant marine veterans on an equal footing with regular forces
veterans.
I was quite interested in hearing the hon. member opposite
referring to that aspect of the bill as being symbolic only. It
is a very important aspect of this bill. Perhaps because of the
omission concerning compensation for past grievances it does
become symbolic within the framework of this legislation.
However, I want to commend the merchant marine veterans, their
organizations, families, activists and supporters for bringing
this bill into being. It is only through their efforts and hard
work that we are able to discuss this bill today.
At the outset, let me make it very clear that my comments and
this bill in itself do not in any way take away from regular
forces veterans, but seek to bring the merchant marine veterans
up to an equal footing.
The monster Adolph Hitler issued a directive in 1941 which
included the following: “Attack shipping, especially when
homeward bound, by all methods. The sinking of merchantmen is
more important than attacking enemy warships”.
These brave Canadians who sailed the corridors of hell played a
central role in our war effort, as central a role as the regular
forces.
As the Halifax-Dartmouth branch of the Merchant Navy Veterans
Association for my region put it in a submission to the
provincial legislature in July 1998, “The ships carried
explosives, fuel, food, oil, gasoline, tanks, airplanes, iron ore
for the hungry British smelters, butter and flour, bacon and
beans”. Yet they were fitted with often obsolete breech guns,
castoffs, antiquities better suited for military museums than
defending the lives of Canadians at sea. In short, these
Canadians risked their lives and often gave their lives to
support our war efforts.
The tragedy of the matter is that when I say they often gave
their lives, the figures speak for themselves. It has been
estimated that a full 13% of merchant mariners who played an
active role in our war effort were killed.
Last fall I went on a pilgrimage of remembrance to honour our
war dead in Belgium and France. I was struck deeply and
irrevocably by what I saw and what I learned. To have had the
opportunity to see the trenches and the remnants of artillery and
war equipment, and having felt the cold and damp biting winds
blowing across the fields of Flanders, eating into one's very
bones, certainly gave me an appreciation in part of what our
Canadian young men who fought and died experienced.
Having stood in cemeteries where there were tombstones, row upon
row, as far as the eye could see and knowing that thousands of
bodies lay in those graves and many more lay unaccounted for in
the surrounding farms and fields left me with the haunting image
of man's inhumanity to man. The question still rings in my mind
as to how we can do this to one another. Even worse is the
knowledge that we are still doing it today throughout various
parts of our world. As human beings, all of us must do our part
to bring an end to the senseless slaughter of war.
As a start we must remember those who fought and died for
freedom, those who sacrificed themselves so that succeeding
generations might live in peace and harmony, free from oppression
and tyranny.
While many of those who we remember and honour today are those
who served in the regular military, we must not forget the many
others who served their country in an unique yet important way as
special construction battalions or merchant marines. That is why
the Liberal government's apparent unwillingness to negotiate a
fair compensation package for Canadian merchant marine veterans
is so unacceptable.
1215
The current treatment of merchant mariner veterans is one that I
personally and as the federal NDP spokesperson for veterans
affairs find deeply disheartening. When it came time to serve
their country Canada's merchant marines did so with dedication
and courage equal to their military comrades. Why then are the
merchant marines not receiving equal treatment in terms of
compensation?
While the bill seeks to establish current equality, which my
caucus colleagues and I support, it does nothing to compensate
for all the lost opportunities suffered as a result this
discrimination. There is no reason to continue to deny merchant
marines the full compensation due them. I urge the government to
let the second reading of Bill C-61, which in words grants full
equality, be a springboard to action, negotiation, compensation
and hence real reparation.
The Liberal government has a choice. The government has the
capacity to choose to set matters right and get negotiations for
just compensation back on track. While the federal government
was finally prodded into introducing the bill, others acted
sooner, in some cases much sooner. Britain accorded full veteran
status to merchant mariners in 1940. In the United States these
veterans were realized as having the same status as regular
forces veterans in 1988. Australia recognized full equality in
1995.
How many merchant mariners have passed away in Canada who would
have appreciated this gesture from the government at an earlier
stage?
In a letter I received from George Conway-Brown in January of
this year he quotes Canada's Rear Admiral Leonard W. Murray, who
served as commander in chief, northwest Atlantic, from 1943 to
1945: “The battle of the Atlantic was not won by any navy or air
force. It was won by the courage, fortitude and determination of
the British and allied merchant navy”.
These mariners often encountered the Nazi Donitz U-boats, the
grey wolves that deprived so many Canadian families of their
loved ones. Closer to Europe merchant mariners were attacked by
Germany's FW-200 Condor air force.
But what happened to Canadian merchant mariners upon their
return to Canada? In Britain they returned as full and equal
veterans with equal access to post-war programs, services and
benefits.
In Canada they returned to virtually no support. They were
denied upgrading courses at technical, vocational and high
schools offered to regular force veterans. There were denied
health support and employment opportunities available to army,
navy and air force personnel.
This discrimination weighed heavily on so many merchant marine
veterans. I mentioned earlier that I am glad to see the bill
being brought forward, even though it is too late for many
deceased merchant marine veterans. That is what makes the
actions of this government concerning compensation for these
brave Canadians all the more odious.
The government saw fit to provide an ex gratia payment to Hong
Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war of $23,950 each.
This payment was promised just this past December.
It is unconscionable and meanspirited that this government has
betrayed Canada's merchant marines by refusing to compensate them
for the discrimination they faced upon their return home from
serving in Canada's war effort.
It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the
rate of about 12 per month. A St. Albert veteran said in an
interview earlier this month in the Edmonton Sun: “The
whole thing is a run around. We figure [the federal government]
is waiting for us to die of old age”.
On November 24, 1998 in response to a question I put to him, the
minister said concerning compensation negotiations for merchant
mariners: “I am there to listen”.
Debating Bill C-61 before the House surely signals the time to
act, not just listen.
1220
Justice delayed is justice denied, particularly when the death
rate among these veterans who served Canada so nobly is so high.
As merchant navy Captain Hill Wilson wrote in a letter in
January of this year, other countries have made reparations for
these veterans. He refers to a veteran living on Vancouver
Island who sailed on Norwegian ships during World War II and
receives a pension of over $2,000 a month from Norway for his
merchant navy service. He also cites examples from the French
government and the United States government for Vietnam war
merchant navy veterans.
While on the issues implied in Bill C-61, it is essential to
refer to another atrocious act of negligence and outright scandal
perpetrated by this Liberal government on Canadian veterans who
were sent to concentration camps by the Nazi government. These
men, survivors of the horrors of Buchenwald, were recently sent
cheques in the amount of $1,098 to supposedly compensate them for
the horrors faced in Buchenwald.
My constituent, William Gibson, returned the cheque, a comment
on this government's sad failure to successfully negotiate
reparations from the German government.
The U.S.A. has recently negotiated an enviable settlement from
the German government. This Liberal government has failed so
miserably where others have succeeded and may be trying to hide
its shame by offering these paltry sums to Canadian forces
survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp.
I will conclude my comments on the second reading of Bill C-61
with an anonymous poem which pays homage to Canadian merchant
navy veterans:
All hail to our soldiers, our airmen, our tars,
Who in these dark days are the victims of War,
All hail to these heroes who flash on the screen,
But what of the men of the Merchant Marine?
No halo, no glimmer, just duty that's all,
Day in and day out through the heat or a squall
Grit, courage, endurance and bearing serene,
These are the men of the Merchant Marine.
How much do we need them, these sons of the sea,
Without their devotion, how could we be free?
For one vital cog in the great machine
Is filled by the men of the Merchant Marine.
And so if the cares of these days dark and clear,
Weigh down your spirits and cause you to fear,
Remember the hardships and dangers unseen,
And pray for the men of the Merchant Marine.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak in support of Bill C-61, but I feel there is
something left out with regard to Bill C-61 and I wish to address
that.
Bill C-61 will allow more veterans to qualify for benefits and
it will place them under the War Veterans Allowance Act. We all
know that in 1992 the PC party put the merchant navy men under
the Civilian War Veterans Allowance Act. However, many things
were left out for them over the years.
Look at what the men and women of our army, navy and air force
received when they came home from the war, and rightfully so.
They received a clothing allowance, rehabilitation grants,
transportation to place of enlistment, war service gratuities,
re-establishment credit, reinstatement or preference in civilian
employment estimate, out of work allowance, education assistance,
treatment for pension disability including appliances, Veterans
Land Act or housing assistance, business or professional loans
and waiting returns allowance. All that at that time would total
$30,590.
In addition, veterans were entitled to a number of other
benefits, including veterans independence program, prisoner of
war benefits, education assistance for children of the war dead,
legal assistance for preparation of pension claims and
counselling and referrals, and rightfully so.
The above figures are based on the fact that a former member of
the merchant navy would be in receipt of either a war disability
pension or a war veterans allowance if he did not receive both.
I have met regularly in my riding office with the merchant navy
veterans. As members know, many of them were here on the Hill on
a hunger strike.
I have never seen that happen in Canada with any veterans who
felt they had to go to that degree to get the attention of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
1225
After World War II the Canadian government had the task of
demobilizing over one million troops. Some of these troops were
offered positions within the military, but not the merchant navy
men. Others were offered many advantageous opportunities that
were not offered to the merchant navy men.
Merchant seaman Ossie MacLean informed me of how he went to the
local veterans office to inquire about a business start-up loan
after World War II when he was no longer with the merchant navy.
He thought he could receive a loan to start his business like the
loans being offered to other veterans. When he arrived he was
asked for his service number. He gave them his merchant marine
number and he was told that he did not qualify for any of the
programs.
Mr. MacLean was there when this country needed him yet we failed
him when he needed us. Mr. MacLean was one of the merchant navy
veterans who stood outside this House on two separate occasions
last year on that hunger strike. He was joined by other fine
gentlemen, Randy Hope, Ward Duke, Willis Marsolais and Doug
McMartin. Together these five brave men drew more attention to
their cause in a few weeks than ever before. Now we are at a
second reading and these men feel along with their 2,300
surviving shipmates that they deserve a payment from the
government once again. Is is possible to do this? Yes, it is.
I know the minister says that we cannot deal with retroactivity.
We are saying he does not have to deal with retroactivity but he
can deal with these men in manner in which he can give them a
grant. With the formula in the Cliff Chadderton report some
would get $5,000 for putting their lives on the line and taking
over all the goods, ammunition and equipment needed by our men.
If they only went on one trip the report said give them $5,000
but some were in the merchant navy during the whole war. All of
us know the number of lives lost. One in eight of our merchant
navy men lost their lives.
As I was putting my notes together I was thinking about what it
must have been like to be on one of those boats. The Germans
knew exactly what they were carrying so the Germans were steadily
looking for them. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to
torpedo. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to get. They
knew if we did not get the ammunition and materials over to our
forces our forces could not do anything.
It is time for us to take the necessary steps to completely make
them equal. Bill C-61 puts them under the War Veterans Allowance
Act but this is 1999. What about in 1945? What about in 1939?
They were not equal in those days.
In 1992 when the PC government of the day brought in omnibus
Bill C-84, it allocated $100 million to be used for benefits to
serve our merchant navy veterans. That total was later reduced
to $88 million which would still be ample money to cover and
offer sufficient benefits to these veterans. But when this
government took office for some reason it put that money in
general revenue. It was never set aside for what it was intended
to do for our merchant navy men. After being put into general
revenues the money could never be allocated specifically for the
merchant navy. When the minister was at one of the meetings I
asked if they could please tell me where the $88 million went.
Nobody seems to know.
1230
However, the Department of Veterans Affairs has had surpluses
every year between 1992 and 1997. These surpluses have ranged
anywhere from $20 million to $154 million. We received this
information from the Public Accounts of Canada. The money was
there and it is still there today.
Recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself has recognized
the role of the merchant navy in World War II. Each merchant
navy veteran has been forwarded a copy of Valour at Sea.
This is a book that was commissioned by veterans affairs to
recognize the role of Canada's merchant navy in both world wars
and in Korea. The letter that accompanies the book states “It
describes the role of Canada's merchant navy in the defence of
freedom and democracy”. It also states “The armed forces and
the merchant navy helped secure supply routes that sustained
Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the
liberation of Europe”.
Imagine. The minister has put out a book called Valour at
Sea which is beautiful. It really is. And he is stating to
our merchant navy men that they helped secure the supply routes
that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made
possible the liberation of Europe. Our merchant navy men did
that. This letter, as I have stated, was sent by our Minister of
Veterans Affairs.
The Canadian merchant navy was considered to be the fourth arm
of the armed forces. The odds of dying in the second world war
was greater for the merchant navy than for any of our other
troops. These men were some of the bravest. They kept our troops
supplied on the front lines and they braved the intolerable
elements of nature to do so. How many of us today would know what
it was like to stand on the bow of a boat loaded with explosives
in the middle of winter on the North Atlantic pushing back the
ice and the mines and wondering if a German U-boat had us in its
sights?
These men know what it was like. They lived it. Mr. Speaker,
they lived it for you and for me. We would not be in this House
of Commons today, not one of us, not one of the 301 members of
parliament and not any of the others that are here, if it was not
for those men.
When this bill is referred back to committee for further study,
there will be a motion that I put before the committee on
November 26 last year. It deals with the issue of a one-time
grant payment for the men and women of the merchant navy in lieu
of benefits not received after duty to their country.
I put forward the motion, as I stated, on November 26 asking
“that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs recommend that the merchant navy veterans be recognized
as war veterans,”—and they are being recognized under Bill
C-61—“that they receive prisoner of war benefits”—and that
will happen under Bill C-61—“that they receive a one-time
payment in lieu of benefits afforded to other veterans of World
War II and that they be recognized as veterans on ceremonial
days”.
When this bill is referred back, we will once again be dealing
with my suspended motion. I trust that all of my colleagues on
both sides of the House will agree with it.
It is time to act on behalf of our veterans. Bill C-61 is a
piece of legislation that should be passed and we will support
it. I know many of our veterans and their widows want to see it
passed. Many of these veterans are in their mid to late 70s and
approximately 13 die each month in Canada.
I want this House to know that this bill and the motion that I
have before the committee should not be deemed as partisan and
should not be considered along partisan lines. We should not be
partisan when it comes to our veterans.
I join many of my colleagues in congratulating the government in
its recent decision to compensate the Hong Kong war veterans for
their service to their country. I felt that we should have
pressed harder to have the Japanese government recognize these
veterans and the unacceptable merciless treatment they endured.
But the bottom line is when it came to doing the right thing for
the Hong Kong veterans, it was done and I am pleased. The
government and the House did the right thing.
There is one other thing I would like to bring to the attention
of the House with regard to our veterans.
1235
A lady came to see me. Her husband, a veteran, had died. She
thought that we would be paying to bury him. It was not until
after the burial that she found out the means test used to be
$24,000 just for the veteran but then in 1996 it was reduced to
$12,000. That was $12,000 for husband and wife; it used to be
$24,000 just for the veteran. They thought that she had too much
money. She had $6,000.
I looked at all of her expenses again. I went over to the
Department of Veterans Affairs and asked “Do you not take into
consideration the expense of the coffin and the funeral and take
that from what she had and then tell me she still has $6,000?”
In the end the department said that it was wrong and it would pay
for his funeral.
I feel very strongly about this. There are so few of them left.
For us to lower the means test to $12,000 is an insult to our
veterans. We are forgetting the role they played. I sometimes
wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that some of the
younger people on the Hill do not understand the role the
veterans played to save Canada and bring it to what it is today.
I say to the minister that yes my party and I will be supporting
Bill C-61. But I am also telling him, and I want it on the
record, that I will not go away until the merchant navy men
receive some form of recognition through a grant.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. Based on previous discussions I think you will
find that there is unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30
p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments
on the member's speech? I think there are. I assume that if we
are calling it 1.30 p.m. it would mean that Government Orders are
at a conclusion.
The hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
both a question and a comment on the speech of the hon. member
for Saint John.
Sometimes I think Canadian citizens and members of the House
forget the lesson that was taught to all of us by World War II.
Quite simply, we were taught in the history books that this war
was fought on European soil and in European waters, in Asian
waters and in Japanese waters when as a matter of fact much of
that war was fought in our waters.
During World War II we captured prisoners of war. We captured
German spies in Halifax with theatre tickets in their pockets.
They knew what boats were going out in convoy. There was a
submarine net across Halifax harbour which had to be raised in
order for our troops, soldiers and supplies to get to Europe.
A comment I remember well was from my father who was a veteran
of World War II. He never saw action. He was a military
policeman stationed in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were
dozens and dozens of dead merchant marine sailors floating in the
waters from torpedoed ships off Newfoundland, in Canadian water,
black with coal oil. This was the very essence of war and the
part of war none of us wants to think about.
I ask the hon. member, is that a lesson which we should all
remember, that the war was not fought all on European soil and in
European water, that the war started on our doorstep when we had
a 12 mile limit in Canadian waters?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Nova
Scotia is absolutely correct.
I want to tell him that one in eight of all merchant navy men
were killed during the war. He was commenting about his father
in Newfoundland. In Saint John, New Brunswick on Partridge
Island we are the most Irish city there is in Canada and there
were bunkers there.
Our men were in those bunkers because those German ships were
right outside Saint John, New Brunswick. They were looking for
the merchant navy men and were ordered to get them before they
could get overseas to Europe with the supplies that were needed.
1240
It has been estimated that a Canadian merchant ship with 10,000
tonnes could carry enough foodstuff to feed 225,000 people for a
week. Cargo could also include clothing, fuel, steel, aluminum,
lumber, aircraft, tanks, jeeps, trucks, guns, munitions and
whatever else was required for the war effort. Not surprisingly
they became the prize targets for enemy surface raiders and
U-boats. That is exactly what they were. That is the reason for
it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 1.30
p.m. in accordance with the suggestion made by the hon.
parliamentary secretary earlier?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being officially 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CODE OF ETHICS
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.)
moved:
That a humble Address
be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be
laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code
for ministers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see so many of the
government members in the House today. I know they are here
because they want to have a bit of enlightenment about what it
means to run an ethical government. Members from all parts of
Canada are here today.
I am really pleased to speak today during Private Members' Hour
on a votable motion which I put before the House. This motion
goes to the very heart of what an open and transparent government
should be and the way it should operate.
We remember in 1993 and 1997 in the famous failed red books of
the Liberal Party how the Liberals talked continually about
openness, transparency, integrity, honesty, straightforwardness
and being in touch with the people. In general, they promised
the people that they would operate in an ethical and responsible
manner. Canadians across the country heard that promise in 1993
and they heard it again in 1997.
The problem is that Canadians first have not seen much openness,
transparency, ethics and honesty from this government. But the
most important thing is that no one seems to know exactly what
kind of an ethics code this government wants us to believe it
operates by. We have never seen the so-called ethics code which
is parked away somewhere in some forgotten drawer.
One would think that in this great country of Canada, where the
people embrace such values and such integrity in their lives,
that any government that is looked upon for leadership would want
to pride itself in being open and accountable to the people that
it has sworn to serve.
1245
But this concept, this incredible thought, has never focused
with the Liberal government of Canada. Liberals are very
familiar with expressions such as secrecy, behind closed doors,
under the table, cooking the books, cutting corners and pulling
the wool over the voters' eyes. These are all words and phrases
that are very familiar and near and dear to the hearts and minds
of the government.
It is these words and phrases that sort of highlight the Liberal
way of governing which can be roughly translated as do not let
anyone know what the government is up to or there will be a
revolution, or it may have to be explained. That is what
compelled me to prepare today's motion, that a humble address be
made to his excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for
his ministers.
Is that such an unreasonable request to come from me, the
members of my party and members of the opposition parties, from
the people of Canada? Is that such an unreasonable request to
ask the Prime Minister to put before the country the code of
ethics that he expects his ministers to be bound by? I do not
think so.
What I am getting at is quite simple and I will try to say it in
language the Liberals can understand and that you can understand,
Mr. Speaker. I know you are a very learned gentleman so I could
probably talk lawyer talk and you would understand it but for the
sake of the Liberals who have been having a hard time getting
their heads around this ethics code, we will try to keep it
simple.
The private sector, banks, businesses, major industries,
charitable organizations, associations and service clubs all hold
dear to their hearts some sort of a code that their members,
employees, managers and volunteers should be operating under for
day to day activities.
They believe in that. They believe that if they cannot be
accountable to some code of conduct then they can be accountable
to nothing. The Liberals do not see it quite that way. They
have not allowed their ethics code to see the light of day.
I will take a moment to explain to the Liberals just what an
ethics code is. I will explain it at a level that these members
here today, and there are lots of them from across the country,
can understand.
An ethics code is a system that sets out proper conduct and
behaviour, just like at home. In our own homes we try to set out
a code of conduct and behaviour for our family, for our kids, so
that they can have role models to look up to and that they can
understand the right and wrong way of doing things.
If the Government of Canada cannot have a code of ethics that is
clearly demonstrated, that is clearly visible to the Canadian
people, what kind of leadership is that? What kind of message
are the Canadian people to take from that? Is it that the
supreme governing body of this country refuses or maybe does not
even have some sort of code that directs and gives it sort of a
guideline for proper behaviour and conduct?
What is more important about this so-called code of ethics that
we have not seen yet is that the average Canadians would think
that the person administering the ethics code of Canada, and I
find this absolutely disparaging, would think that he or she
would be required to report to the Parliament of Canada so that
we all know what is going on, so we all know how the ministers
are conducting their jobs and to ensure their jobs are not
interfering with or conflicting with or enhancing their private
lives in some way, their private well-being.
1250
One would think that would be just the natural thing to do, that
this ethics counsellor would report to all MPs and therefore to
all Canadians. But no, the ethics commissioner reports to only
one person, the Prime Minister of Canada. He tells him whether
his ministers are, we expect, doing their jobs in an upright and
honest manner and with great integrity. If they are not, how is
anyone else to know if the Prime Minister will not tell us?
For this Liberal government, when it comes to a taxpayer funded
institution, zero accountability is simply the order of the day.
Why does one have to tell Canadians what one's ministers are
doing, how they are spending their money, how they are using
their budgets or how they are using their government credit
cards? Is there any reason? I can think of only one. Maybe they
would like to know. Maybe they would like to be in a position to
judge how the cabinet ministers of this highest government in the
land are operating. Maybe they would simply like to know so that
they could form some opinion. Maybe they would like to hold them
accountable. Is that not a strange concept?
The longer Canadians are in the dark about what this Liberal
government is doing the better the government likes it. That is
just the order of the day. I bet if they thought they could get
away with it, the Liberals would pass a bill to make Canadians
wear blindfolds and put in earplugs so that in addition to not
knowing what the code of ethics was they could neither see nor
hear what the government is doing.
This is the kind of thing we simply have to change in the House.
This is what Reformers came to Ottawa to do. This is why the
Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada and
the New Democratic Party of Canada do not like Reformers, because
we came here to break up the very comfortable country club they
had here where they hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.
Any of the evil going on is all within the country club members.
We told them we did not want a membership to that country club
and that is why they just despise our being here. The more they
despise us the better we like it because we know that we are
getting to them. We know that we are bringing things out in the
public sector that people are beginning to get upset about and
that really upsets the government, the Tories and the NDP.
That is what we are trying to do once again with this motion, to
force the Liberals to show us their ethics code. Put it before
the House for not only us to see but for all Canadians. If they
are so proud of it and if there really is one, let us have a look
at it.
So far the Liberals have been unwilling to fulfil this very
basic and straightforward request. We have asked them in the
House. We have asked them in committees. We have asked them at
every possible opportunity. The answer has always been no. It
is absolutely unbelievable and appalling for a supposedly
democratic country having a supposedly democratic government
within a supposedly democratic parliament that time and time
again the government, which is the keeper of this code of ethics,
has been asked to put it forward so we can see it and has simply
said no.
The Liberals never told us whether there really is one or not but
they certainly have not been able to let us see if there is one.
If there is one we could not see it anyway.
1255
These guidelines have never been made public. They are locked
away inside the Prime Minister's desk. The Liberals have
swallowed the key. They are keeping their mouths tightly shut
and their lips tightly sealed so the key does not get out.
The Liberals have been demanding and we will continue to demand
that the Prime Minister cough up the key to the drawer and show
us and Canadians this so-called ethics code.
For example, my colleagues and I have been calling in committee
and in the House in question period for this ethics code. It has
not come. Every time we have made a motion in the House it has
been ruled out of order. But not today, because this is a
votable motion. It is clearly written. Even the Liberals can
understand it and they are going to be forced to vote on it. If
they say no they will have to back to their ridings and tell
their constituents why they voted against making public the code
of ethics that the government is supposed to be operating by.
I do not envy Liberals in that task. We are certainly treading
on taboo ground when we request a code of ethics. That is the
ground we came here to Ottawa to shake up. Now Reformers are
demanding in parliament that the code be released at long last.
What is different this time is we are all going to have a chance
to vote on it. Let us see them show their colours.
This government does not want taxpayers to know what is going
on. It does not want taxpayers to know all the dealings it does
on a daily basis. It does not want taxpayers to know what the
ministers are doing and how the contracts are let and how hotels
are sold in this country, how grants are handed out, how loans
are given from government crown corporations. The Liberals do not
want taxpayers to know that.
Canadians want to know. Whether it is the current government or
our party after the next election, they want to know the
guidelines the government operates on. If the government is not
prepared to bring it forward we can bet after the election the
Reform government will be prepared to bring it forward. Is that
not what democracy is all about?
I know we all know about democracy and is that not what
democracy is all about, being open and accountable to the
citizens of your country? Canadians are tired of being held in
the dark. They want and deserve to know what the government of
the day is doing, especially considering some of the things that
have gone on recently such as the APEC issue, the golf club, the
hotel and the list goes on and on.
What is the Liberal version of ethics? Why are Canadians not
allowed to see the ethics code? If Canadians know this much
about what is going on with the government in APEC, the tainted
blood, the anthrax vaccinations, the hotel sales, the golf course
stuff, they must ask what else is going on that they do not know
about.
How are government members and especially cabinet ministers
supposed to operating? Are they not supposed to be telling us
all this stuff? Canadians are asking is this Liberal secrecy a
sign of more funny business going on and is there more to come.
How are Canadians to know?
1300
The real question is, how are Canadians to know they can trust
this government if they do not know the guidelines and the proper
conduct they are supposed to be operating under? How are they
ever to know? We just have to look in the newspapers. When it
comes to ethics, it is most likely about Bill Clinton and the
Olympic committee.
Is this the kind of image that we as Canadians and
parliamentarians want to show to the rest of the world? I say
not. I say let us put a code of ethics front and centre so that
when Canadians look at parliament, at this House of Commons, at
the government and at the ministers, they can say they are proud
because this country's politicians have a standard by which they
operate and they like that standard.
Will they ever get that chance? Never. Not as long as this
government is in power. That is why we have to get rid of this
government, which would be the most ethical thing the Reform
Party could ever do.
This motion is all about ethics, openness and transparency.
This motion is simply asking the Liberals to present their ethics
code. That ethics code has to be backed up with an independent
ethics commissioner who is answerable to parliament, not just the
Prime Minister. That is what is known as open government. It is
a basic political concept that the Liberals are going to have to
learn because today Canadians expect and deserve open government.
That is what they want.
I challenge the Liberals, when it is time to vote on this
motion, to stand and vote on behalf of their constituents. If
they do they will have no other choice than to vote yes for this
motion.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say a few things in response to my
hon. colleague, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
First, the hon. member said that we Liberals despise Reformers.
I actually have a great deal of respect for this motion. I think
it is quite legitimate for the opposition to put the government's
feet to the fire, as was said, about the whole issue of ethics,
accountability and openness. I commend the member for bringing
this motion forward. However, I do not agree with it. I will be
quite happy to vote against it and I will be quite happy to
explain to my constituents why I am going to vote against it.
Let me make another point about Liberals generally despising the
Reform Party. We do not despise the Reform Party because we know
that as long as the Reform Party exists we can look forward to
governing for a long time.
An hon. member: You wait.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, I look forward to the next election
and the election after that. I say that in all humility and with
the greatest amount of respect for the Reform Party.
I am proud to be a member of a government which has made
integrity a top priority. All that my laughing colleagues in the
opposition need to do is look at how this government is viewed by
Canadians today and compare it with previous governments. How
many cabinet ministers have we had resign because of conflict of
interest violations or ethical implications? Zero. We have a
great record and that is why Canadians will re-elect us again and
again.
Our promise about integrity goes back to the 1993 red book
commitment to restore honesty and public trust to our political
institutions and regain the confidence of Canadians in their
government. Canadians wanted a fundamentally different approach
to politics than they had experienced in the nine years before
this government took office.
Once elected, this government acted decisively to deliver on its
commitment. We have put in place many initiatives. First, we
introduced amendments to strengthen the Lobbyist Registration Act
by increasing the transparency of lobbying activities and by
giving the ethics counsellor the power to investigate complaints
about lobbying. All lobbyists now have to reveal more about
their projects. Not only must they disclose their fees, but they
are prohibited from including contingency fees in their
contracts. There are also stiff penalties for lobbyists who do
not adhere to the rules, up to and including prison sentences.
Second, the Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest
code for public officeholders in the House on June 16, 1994.
Perhaps hon. members opposite might take the time to read this
very public document.
1305
The code is a public document and is available to the public.
The code demonstrates that this government recognizes that
restoring public trust involves strengthening the system from
both the public office and lobbying side. Cabinet ministers are
bound by it. All public officeholders are bound by it.
The code sets out key principles that apply to all public
officeholders: ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary
secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council
appointees.
Canadians would be pleased to see that this code of conduct
clarified old obligations and added new guidelines for government
decision making. It also requires that ministers, secretaries of
state and parliamentary secretaries disclose the assets and the
activities of their spouses and dependants.
The new code has clear rules and the government is committed to
upholding them.
I am sure that all members would agree that we have a
responsibility for maintaining the trust of Canadians in their
political institutions. As the Prime Minister said in the House
in 1994, “Trust in the institutions of government is not a
partisan issue, but something all of us elected to public office
have an obligation to restore”. We all have a responsibility to
serve Canadians with integrity and to be accountable to them.
Third, a new ethics counsellor was appointed with
responsibilities in two related areas, conflict of interest and
lobbying. This office administers the code of public
officeholders.
The ethics counsellor investigates allegations against ministers
and senior officials and reports his findings to the prime
minister. The ethics counsellor also provides guidance to
lobbyists on their dealings with government and may investigate
complaints about lobbying activities. As hon. members will know,
the ethics counsellor provides an annual report to parliament on
matters related to lobbying.
As we promised in the red book, we have worked to restore trust
and relevance to the House of Commons. For example, members of
parliament now have greater influence in the legislative process.
This government has supported increasing the opportunity for
policy debates in the House on issues such as peacekeeping, and
MPs are engaged in the budget planning process before the budget
is presented.
We also promised to change the pension plan for members of
parliament to end double dipping, establish a minimum age for
entitlement to benefits and cut the cost of the plan by
one-third. With all-party support, including my hon. friends in
the Reform Party, changes were made last June to maintain the
plan's fairness.
I have just mentioned that the government has already made the
conflict of interest code public, and I would be happy to send
hon. members a copy.
The prime minister also provides personal advice, and just as
cabinet deliberations are confidential, just as the advice that
bureaucrats give to their ministers and the advice that
bureaucrats give to the prime minister and the advice that
ministers give to the prime minister is confidential, so too is
the personal advice that the prime minister gives to his
ministers.
The prime minister provides personal advice on a wide range of
government issues. As such, this advice is protected from
release under section 69 of the Access to Information Act as a
cabinet confidence. Some things in government need to be kept
secret. Those that do not should be made public, but some things
need to be kept secret.
In this regard, I would note that section 69 states that the
Access to Information Act “does not apply to confidences of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada, including records used for
reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the
crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions
or the formulation of government policy”.
I understand why the workings of cabinet would be foreign to
members of the opposition as they have never been in cabinet and
are not likely to be in cabinet for a very long time.
However, in passing the Access to Information Act parliament
decided that documents which constitute advice from the prime
minister to his ministers would be protected.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the important principle
of cabinet confidences with my hon. colleagues.
The heart of the Canadian system of government centres around
collective responsibility. This means that the government is
responsible to parliament and the government must maintain the
confidence of the House in order to govern.
But for ministers to fulfill their collective responsibility to
parliament and Canadians they must be able to discuss their views
frankly and fully.
1310
Cabinet confidentiality allows ministers to debate issues openly
among themselves and to concentrate on the objective of our
system of government which is taking good policy decisions for
the benefit of Canadians.
I note that Canada shares with a number of other foreign
jurisdictions, for example the United Kingdom, Australia and New
Zealand, provisions similar to those in the Access to Information
Act which protect cabinet confidences. That is why the
government has responded to Motion No. P-31 by stating “The
information sought by the hon. member is considered a confidence
of the Queen's Privy Council, and in keeping with Beauchesne's
446(2)(i) and section 69 of the Access to Information Act, I
would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion”.
In conclusion, we are proud of our record on integrity in the
government. We have acted to deliver on our promises on
integrity and ethics, just like we have acted to deliver on our
promises on economic and social issues and national unity. We
have made integrity a cornerstone of our government. That is one
reason why Canadians chose to re-elect our government in 1997.
The Prime Minister has already tabled a comprehensive conflict
of interest code that applies to public office holders, including
ministers.
I therefore call on all hon. members to oppose this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the motion of my
hon. colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley was read, I
noted the potential for confusion, as he is calling upon the
Governor General to cause the Government to lay before the House
a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.
In addition to the conflict of interest and post-employment code
for public officer holders, federal government ministers are
subject to a code of ethics adopted in June 1994. In addition
to this code, federal government ministers are also governed by
ministerial guidelines. These guidelines are only partially
known, because the Prime Minister has always refused to disclose
them.
In light of what the two previous speakers have had to say, we
now understand that the motion refers to the Prime Minister's
guidelines for his ministers.
In the wording of their motion which is being debated here in
the House today, the Reform Party is calling for a copy of this
ethics code to be tabled in the House.
Given that the conflict of interest and post-employment code for
public officer holders is already known, we understand, and I
repeat, that they are referring instead to the guidelines for
ministers.
If the Reform members had been referring to the code I have just
mentioned, their motion would, of course, have been pointless,
since that document already exists. Now we know this point has
been settled.
The guidelines for ministers set out a framework for ministerial
conduct to ensure that they not only conduct themselves properly
but are perceived to conduct themselves properly. It is not
enough for them to act correctly, but they must also appear to
be acting correctly.
Two of these guidelines are now known to the public.
One of these guidelines deals with conflicts of interest, while
the other concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals.
With respect to conflicts of interest, the rule is simply that a
minister who believes he may be in a conflict of interest or may
find himself in one in the future must phone the ethics
counsellor to let him know. That is what we know about this
first guideline given by the Prime Minister to his ministers.
1315
As for the second guideline, it concerns relations with
quasi-judicial tribunals. Here is what the Globe and Mail of
October 10, 1996, had to say on this issue:
[English]
“Basic Principle. Ministers shall not intervene or appear to
intervene on behalf of any person or entity with federal
quasi-judicial tribunals or any matter before them that requires
a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity unless otherwise
authorized by law”.
[Translation]
We realize that ministers must not interfere in any way in
proceedings or with the quasi-judicial tribunals.
This guideline extends to ministerial staff as well. It is also
a practice that ministers and their political staff must go
through the appropriate ministerial office rather than deal
directly with the officials of another department.
Obviously, many criticisms and comments may be made about these
guidelines for the ministers. Here are a few.
First, the guidelines should be made public immediately, because
it is a matter of public interest. The government must be
transparent.
And if guidelines on the ministers' integrity are in effect,
hiding them totally defeats the purpose of such guidelines,
which is to establish a trust relationship between the
government and the public.
These guidelines are seriously flawed from a democratic point of
view, given that they were established in 1994 by the Prime
Minister and that no one, not even the duly elected
representatives in this House, has yet been able to discuss them
in a fully informed manner.
Third, the trust relationship between the government and the
public is further weakened because we know that, in the case of
a conflict of interest, the only known directive is, for a
minister, to report to the ethics commissioner, Howard Wilson.
Does this mean that a minister could report to the commissioner
and the conflict of interest be settled without the public
knowing about it?
Similarly, given the lack of transparency concerning these
guidelines, are we to understand that a minister who is at fault
for whatever reason is ultimately judged only by the Prime
Minister, who then becomes both judge and jury?
The Prime Minister is not prepared to release these guidelines.
It is as though he is telling himself “I will decide whether I
should demand that my guidelines be complied with, or whether I
will tolerate that a minister does not comply with them. And
since no one else will know what happened, it will be easier for
me to decide if it is appropriate or not to implement my
guidelines, to be more or less tolerant, to cover a mistake made
by a minister or a senior public servant that could be
embarrassing for the government, or to say nothing about it”.
The Prime Minister retains this prerogative, whereas if the
guidelines were known, public, any member of the House of
Commons could say “Prime Minister, here is a case where a
minister did not follow your guidelines. What are you going to
do? Will you explain these rules? What are the consequences?”
At this point, the Prime Minister would be obliged to provide an
accounting. He would be obliged to tell the House why he did not
apply his own directives. Transparency in such cases is vital.
It is like the first principle, which states “It is not enough
not to be in conflict of interest, there must also appear to be
no conflict of interest”.
1320
This same reasoning works with the application of the Prime
Minister's directives with his ministers. It is not enough for
the Prime Minister to apply these directives and have them
followed by his ministers, there must be the appearance that
these directives are being followed. The only way for these
guidelines to appear to be applied fairly is for them to be made
public and the other members to be able to judge, discuss and
see how the Prime Minister uses this instrument of justice and
fairness for all members of parliament.
The Bloc Quebecois will support this motion, because it is an
instrument of democracy. As we are in favour of transparency and
of furthering democracy, we will support this motion with
pleasure.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion.
Like some of my colleagues, I was a bit confused with the motion
when I read it because it reads:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that
he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime
Minister's ethics code for ministers.
The code I have seen is a conflict of interest and
post-employment code for public office holders. This was
produced in June 1994. This document is available. If we are
talking about that, I do not see a need to have it laid before
the House.
I gather from the discussion and from the comments being made
that one is looking for more than this document. One is looking
for perhaps guidelines or directives that may have been issued by
the Prime Minister specifically and apart from this document.
I will address my remarks to the document since I do not have
anything else before me in terms of any other document. This
document has some good points in it but there is a serious
problem with it. The preamble talks about ethical standards,
public scrutiny, decision making and a lot of very important
issues for our democratic society. For example, under ethical
standards it talks about how public office holders shall act with
honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public
confidence and trust in the integrity of the activity and
impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. No one
would disagree with that. It is a very important principle.
The difficulty with this document is the manner by which it goes
about to enforce this code and to try to follow up on the
principles stated in this code. It appoints an ethics
counsellor. There is nothing wrong with appointing an ethics
counsellor, but the difficulty is that when we real about the
ethics counsellor it states that under the general direction of
the clerk of the privy council the ethics counsellor is charged
with the administration of this code and the application of the
conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part as
they apply to public office holders.
It does not put the ethics counsellor in an independent
position. The ethics counsellor in essence ends up reporting to
the Prime Minister in secret, and that is wrong for our
democratic system.
One of the things that is very important is openness and
accountability to the public if we are to carry on the functions
we are elected to on behalf of the public. It is very important
that if there is any code of ethics set up or any kind of code of
conduct that there be an independent ethics counsellor, someone
who is accountable to parliament, to the elected representatives
of the people.
This is very important. If we read further in this code we see
where it talks about compliance arrangements. It states
arrangements being made by public office holders to comply with
the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this
part. They shall be approved in the case of ministers of the
crown by the Prime Minister and in the case of all other public
office holders by the ethics counsellor. We see that the
ministers of the crown are above this scrutiny by the ethics
counsellor. In terms of this kind of accountability, they
account only to their boss, the Prime Minister.
1325
This is something that is really deplorable when talking about
openness and integrity for government. There was a release on
June 16, 1994 by the Prime Minister, announcing the appointment
of the first ethics counsellor.
It sounds quite admirable when listening to the words: “The
Prime Minister today appointed Howard Wilson as Canada's first
ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister also announced a
comprehensive package of measures to help promote public trust in
national institutions including tough new restrictions on
lobbying”.
Yet we see a lot of the lobbying that takes place and we see a
lot of things happening that cause us to wonder exactly what kind
of accountability there is in the government structure and who
can scrutinize when things go wrong.
We look at the APEC affair and what happened there. We see that
the Prime Minister does not want to be held accountable for any
role he may have played in that incident. We have seen various
other incidents of things happening right across the country
where people have called out for accountability and always it
comes right back to the Prime Minister, but there is no
independent body looking at the activities of what is taking
place.
One very important principle of being an internal or external
investigator, or external complaint handler, is independence. As
a former ombudsman this is a principle that we as ombudsmen held
very dearly, the idea that we must be independent of the system
and must be able to report independently. The findings should be
objective, clear and when the report is made it should be made in
a manner that people know they have had a fair hearing.
Certainly if someone has a complaint against a minister and
feels the minister is not operating in accordance with proper
ethics that person will not be comforted by the Prime Minister
saying it's okay. They might have more confidence if an
independent ethics counsellor were to review the matter and
report independently to parliament.
It is important that independence be there in a very real and
meaningful way. Another section of the code talks about various
permissible activities under the code. Where the Prime Minister
or a person designated by the Prime Minister is of the opinion
that it is in the public interest, full time governor in council
appointees to crown corporations, as defined in the Financial
Administration Act, may retain or accept directorships or offices
in a financial or commercial operation and accept remuneration
therefore in accordance with the compensation policies for
governor in council appointees as determined from time to time.
Again, the Prime Minister can decide that his friends or whoever
can have directorships in these corporations while they are still
carrying on public duties which may or may not conflict.
There is a need to really go through this code, to see what it
says and to see where the ultimate responsibility lies. The
biggest problem with this code is that there is no real
independent method to enforce it or to ensure that the noble
values outlined in it are properly protected.
Another example of the same sort of thing comes from the
military. We recently saw a military ombudsman appointed, but
who is that person accountable to? The ombudsman is certainly not
independent. That person is accountable to the minister. How can
someone objectively review and make recommendations if that
person is accountable to the minister responsible for the exact
organization that is being investigated?
If the government is serious about accountability it would know
that if something is being done right there is nothing wrong with
scrutinizing it. Far too often we do our public servants a
disservice by hiding things, by saying we cannot give this
information, that it is secret and confidential. Far too often
we do a disservice because if the information is given quite
often it clarifies what is being done, why it is being done and a
reasonable person will accept and understand that.
That is one of the biggest things we found in the ombudsman
business. A lot of the complaints from the public were because
people did not know what was being done. When an impartial
investigation revealed what was being done quite often members of
the public were willing to accept that the government had done
right once it was clarified.
It is this fear of the unknown that people are concerned about.
Because there is not openness and accountability it leads to
problems.
1330
I will not dwell much longer on this code because it is in need
of severe fixing. I see I only have one minute remaining and I
cannot fix it in one minute. The biggest point is that there
must be an independent ethics counsellor.
I appreciate the spirit of the motion and would certainly
support it because it intends to get at the secrecy of the
government and the fact that it will not hold itself accountable
in a very real and meaningful way.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion for the production
of papers, sponsored by the member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
As has been mentioned previously, the Motion No. P-31 reads as
follows:
That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that
he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime
Minister's ethics code for ministers.
I would be remiss in commenting on the motion without quoting
from a great work of fiction called Creating Opportunity: The
Liberal Plan For Canada. The Liberal's red book in the 1993
election stated:
A Liberal government will appoint an ethics counsellor to advise
both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application
of the code of conduct for public officials. The ethics
counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders
of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly
to Parliament.
The Liberal government in fact appointed an ethics counsellor
back in June 1994. Howard Wilson was assigned to take the job
but his office was not independent. It was not developed in
consultation with the other political parties. It was not
legislated as accountable to parliament.
While the ethics counsellor reports to parliament on matters
related to lobbying, he reports to one and only one person on
matters related to ethics, the Prime Minister of Canada. The
Prime Minister makes the decisions about the enforcement of
ethics.
The question then arises, if the Prime Minister is the final
judge of the ethics of his cabinet ministers, who judges the
Prime Minister's ethics? That is why we need to have full
transparency with respect to government ethics.
Motion No. P-31 is extremely timely in light of the efforts put
forward by my caucus colleague from Markham to get answers from
the Prime Minister in the Yvon Duhaime affair. I would like to
review the troubling revelations that have recently come to
light.
In April 1993 Les Entreprises Yvon Duhaime purchased the
inventory, furnishings and ongoing business of the Auberge
Grand-Mère located in the Prime Minister's riding of
Saint-Maurice from 161341 Canada Inc. At the time the opposition
leader of the day, now the Prime Minister, held a 25% stake in
the numbered company.
In September 1997 Duhaime's company received a $615,000 loan
from the Business Development Bank of Canada Tourism Investment
Fund. At the same time he also received a $50,000 loan from the
Canada Economic Development Fund for the Quebec regions. These
loans were to be applied to a 24 room addition to the hotel. The
expansion plans were expected to total $1.2 million. Duhaime
said he discussed the proposed expansion with Chrétien's special
riding representative and was told where to apply—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows
that he must not refer to other members of the House by name;
only by title or by the name of the member's constituency. I
know he will want to follow the rules in that regard.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Duhaime
added that the location of the inn in the Prime Minister's
Saint-Maurice riding undoubtedly helped him to get the loans for
the expansion and get them fast. He further claimed that he
applied for federal loans after his local caisse populaire credit
union even declined to finance the expansion.
Duhaime's company already had a heavy debtload from building a
previous addition to the hotel that included a large banquet
hall.
1335
The money flow from the Prime Minister's former property did not
stop with Industry Canada or Canada Economic Development.
According to internal Human Resources Development documents
Duhaime also received $188,799 from five grant programs during
the 1997-98 fiscal year. These grants included $164,000 from the
transitional jobs fund program, $10,350 from local labour market
partnerships, $9,293 from youth internships, $4,356 from the
targeted wage subsidies program and $800 from summer career
placements.
Who is Yvon Duhaime and what qualified his company to obtain so
much cash? He failed to follow the Business Development Bank
rules by not disclosing some of his personal records on the BDC's
application form which clearly states that applicants list
information about those same personal records on which his
application could have been denied.
I am not saying that we should not forgive those who have made
mistakes in the past. I am not saying that they should be
excluded from government programs to which they are legitimately
entitled. However Duhaime's past problems certainly point to
someone less than credible in seeking financial support. Duhaime
has since claimed the expansion to be a profitable success.
From my own professional experience I know how useful it is to
check with contractors to determine a project's success. One
local contractor on the Auberge Grand-Mere expansion filed a
business lien against the property in July 1998, claiming that he
was owed $172,000 by Duhaime's company for work completed in the
spring of 1998. While Duhaime has since reduced the debt to
$47,953, according to recent land registry documents the
contractor filed legal notice on January 7, 1999. The contractor
states that if he is not paid within 60 days he will ask the
sheriff to seize the Auberge Grand-Mere property and to sell it
at an auction to recover his own debt.
Mr. Duhaime, a man who does not follow application requirements,
is assisted by the Prime Minister's riding office and then gets
over $840,000 in loans and grants. Will the Prime Minister
answer questions on this matter? No, he will not. Can the
ethics counsellor investigate? Yes, he can but he reports in
secret to the very person he potentially investigates. This must
change.
Thankfully my colleague from Markham was successful yesterday in
getting the industry committee to summon the ethics counsellor
for questioning. He did so after much difficulty from the
government members and indifference from Reform, NDP and Bloc
members. We should not have to fight tooth and nail to get
information from the ethics counsellor. He should be an
independent officer of parliament, accountable to all. He should
have a public code of ethics for the Prime Minister and all
cabinet ministers.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I support
Motion No. P-31 and I urge all hon. member to do likewise.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was alarmed to note that the first speaker on the
government side deliberately tried to mislead the House and
confuse the issue in that he claimed that they had a code of
ethics. We were not talking about the general code of ethics and
government members know that. We are talking about a public code
of ethics and we are asking for a copy of the ethics code which
the Prime Minister has for his ministers. It is two different
things.
Let me put it this way. Every speaker on this side of the House
knows full well the difference. They have stated so. When
ethics counsellor Howard Wilson reports, he reports only to the
Prime Minister.
1340
That reporting is in secret. That is exactly the thing the
Reform Party is trying to clear up before not only this House but
this nation. Canadians deserve an independent ethics counsellor
accountable to parliament and who will operate under the
authority of a public ethics code. That is what my hon. friend
from Prince George has in his motion. That is what Canadians
want. That is what we will be voting on. I fail to see how the
party opposite can continue to confuse a very simple issue.
I have a copy of the Ottawa Sun which states that the
auditor general says that the defence department is blocking his
bid to investigate buying practices. It goes on to say that
almost a year after tabling detailed department questionable
equipment purchasing practices the auditor general told the
Commons defence committee that he is still being stonewalled. By
whom? None other than the defence minister, a member of cabinet.
That is the real guts of this motion. This is what Canadians
want.
The private sector, the banks, the businesses, the major
industries all pride themselves on having ethics codes. But not
this government. When it comes to taxpayer funded institutions
such as the House of Commons, what do we get? Stonewalling. This
is zero accountability.
In the life of this parliament we have seen what is happening.
Look at the APEC inquiry to judge the actions of the RCMP. What
does the government do? It orders in a whole troop of lawyers.
The government is not being investigated. When the students want
lawyers, no way. That in itself is a real conflict. Canadians
are seeing it as a conflict.
There is a growing trend. The last survey that I saw on the
accountability of government listed professions that are
respected the least. Who topped the list? Members of parliament.
Who came a close second? Lawyers.
I asked a group of grade 11 students to write down what was the
most common thing they had heard or what they thought about the
House of Commons. The leading comment was that they were a bunch
of crooks.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the member can go on and he
will have that opportunity. The next time this matter comes up
for debate he will five minutes remaining in the time for his
remarks.
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.
[Translation]
It being 1.45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.43 p.m.)