CONTENTS
Friday, February 7, 1997
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7821
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7824
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7828
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 7831
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7832
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7833
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7833
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7833
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7833
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 7837
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 7839
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 7839
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 7840
Bill C-368. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7841
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7841
Consideration resumed of motion. 7842
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7846
Division on motion deferred 7851
Consideration resumed of motion 7852
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7857
7821
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 7, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ) moved:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having
full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of
Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry
until December 31, 1997.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on January 10, the Minister of National
Defence announced he was putting an end to the Somalia inquiry,
conducted by the Létourneau commission and designed to shed
light on what happened before, during and after the incidents in
Somalia.
Needless to say that, like many Canadians and Quebecers, the
official opposition is very disappointed with this decision. Today,
we will attempt to demonstrate to this House that extending the
mandate of the commission is not only necessary but also
beneficial to Canada as a whole.
(1005)
When this commission was established, the Prime Minister of
Canada stated, and I quote: ``For the first time in a long time a
government has had the courage to ask for an inquiry into the
operations of national defence. Never has it been done before''.
This statement was made by the Prime Minister of Canada on
September 16, 1996. He stated further: ``In the meantime we have
to respect the commission and let it finish its work. After that we
will make our decision based on its recommendations''.
At that time, the Prime Minister of Canada told us it was a
precedent to establish a commission. But on January 10, the same
government, through its Minister of National Defence, decided to
put an end to the commission's deliberations. That too is a first in
Canada. Never before has a government dared to shut down so
abruptly an inquiry commissioned by itself.
Throughout this period, the Standing Committee on National
Defence hardly ever met. Again, while this government felt it was
important for the commission to get to the bottom of the incidents
that occurred in Somalia, we realize today that this is not going to
happen.
Of course, we will be hear about what happened before the
incidents in Somalia, about how willing and prepared our troops
were to be deployed to Somalia to fight on behalf of Canada. We
will definitely be told about that. In the end, Canada was not ready.
We decided to send troops over there, but they were not ready for
the mission. We will probably also find out what happened, in
terms of the actual events, including the two alleged murders that
took place in Somalia. The inquiry's mandate was to restore the
honour and the integrity of the Canadian forces.
I have the pleasure of sitting on the House joint committee with
the hon. member for Charlesbourg, where we proposed a whole
slew of amendments. I have been sitting on the defence committee
for three years, and we are constantly being told that the morale of
our troops is not good. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise you right now
that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Charlesbourg. As I was saying, morale was not good three years
ago and it is no better today. It has not been good for a long time, I
think.
The inquiry must find out why the morale of our troops has
deteriorated so much. This is what matters. It is as though the
defence minister and the Prime Minister finally decided that the
Létourneau commission was not important, that it would make
recommendations, but that- So, the minister decided to set up
another committee to look at the issue of morale, without waiting
for the inquiry's findings. And this is tragic.
The truth is that this government set up the inquiry in the hope
that the Conservatives, the previous government, would suffer the
political damage. However, the more the inquiry moves along, the
more obvious it is that there are links with this government and that
the period yet to be reviewed would involve friends of the
government, friends that the government does not want singled out.
Remember the great search of April 9, 1996. Commander in
chief Boyle decided that a thorough search would be conducted
everywhere, even in garbage cans, filing cabinets, under chairs, in
tanks, etc. to find documents that had been lost. This exercise was
just a big farce and Canadians know that. For six months, the
7822
Canadian forces refused to co-operate and, all of a sudden, a
``search day'' was declared.
(1010)
That day, everyone from the top brass on down turned everything
inside out in an attempt to find the documents. For six months the
Canadian armed forces had been refusing to co-operate with the
commission. But the main reason this inquiry was set up was to see
what went on afterwards. That is what is important. When you want
to correct a situation, when you want to improve the morale of the
troops, do you not have to find out what is not working?
Who is it they want to protect? There are some very important
people who will not be able to take part, whom it will not be
possible to call as witnesses. First of all, there is Robert Fowler,
who was deputy minister under the Liberals, the Conservatives and
again under the Liberals, a survivor. Now he is Canada's
ambassador to the UN. It will not be possible to call him to appear
before the commission; there will unfortunately not be time. He is
probably one person who knows quite a bit about the affair. There
are others. There is also John Anderson, chief of defence staff when
the events occurred. He was named ambassador to NATO. He is
another one who will not be questioned.
There is former Prime Minister Kim Campbell, who will also not
appear before the commission. She is consul general in Los
Angeles. So this person, who said she was intimidated at the time,
was told: ``Hold on there! If you want it to go well for you, keep
your lip zipped''.
What are they doing now? It is very simple. I would describe the
Minister of National Defence as the government's firefighter.
Members will recall this minister's career; he was at transport. He
decided that there would be no more trains in Canada. Then he was
sent to human resources; he was the one who decided to close down
employment centres all over the country. He did the dirty work.
Now he is at the defence department to do the same thing. They
have decided to put a lid on it.
They had realized that the Liberal government would take quite a
beating. Members will recall what the Prime Minister told us. That
was the first time they had set up such a commission of inquiry. It
is probably also the first time they have wrapped one up so quickly.
It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois, Canada's official
opposition until the next election, and aware of its responsibilities
as the opposition, is asking the government to change its mind.
In closing, I will read you the motion, which says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having
full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of
Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry
until December 31, 1997.
If this is not done, we will never know the truth, and it will never
be over. We will have thrown away $25 million without even
knowing what really happened.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member of the Bloc Quebecois is trying hard to tarnish
even more the Canadian army's reputation. We know full well that
members of the Bloc have no intention of trying to improve the
situation with regard to the Department of National Defence. They
just want to drag this department through the mud.
As a matter of fact, was the member who just said-or should I
say he was mumbling-all kinds of things about DND not the one
who wrote to our military personnel before the referendum to try to
form his own separatist army? If it was not him, it surely was his
colleague or another one of these separatists who are out to destroy
DND.
(1015)
Yes, we had problems in Somalia. The government knows that.
When did these problems occur? They occurred under the
Conservative government, before 1993. The Prime Minister has
fulfilled his responsibility and conducted an inquiry. The inquiry
has already been granted extensions two or three times. Will it be
allowed to drag on until the year 2025?
We must immediately implement procedures that will improve
the military. That is what the defence minister is doing right now.
The main objective of this government and of all parliamentarians
is to improve our national defence department, not drag it through
the mud as you, separatists, are trying to do.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, as we saw, the hon.
member rambled on a wide variety of issues. He obviously was not
well briefed on this issue.
All I want to say is that, when we look back on the history of the
Canadian Armed Forces, we see that there are many shortcomings,
a total lack of leadership, and that the measures undertaken by
successive defence ministers did not settle anything. Quite the
opposite, the situation is getting worse all the time.
We have a commission of inquiry which, I acknowledge, is
costing us a lot of money, but it would not cost a whole lot more to
let it continue its work. Unless the minister changes his mind, on
March 31, the commission will start to prepare its report. So, from
March 31 until June 30, nothing will happen, and on June 30, the
commission will submit its report. This is totally unacceptable.
The work of the inquiry is not done. For six months, the armed
forces tried to hamper the inquiry and hide the truth from it. Some
documents were tampered with, others were shredded. Some were
made to disappear. These people are professionals. Mr. Justice
7823
Létourneau is an extraordinary man, who wants to get at the truth,
just like every Canadian and Quebecer. We want to know the truth
so we can correct the situation.
The hon. member is just babbling away. Once Quebec is
sovereign, we will have armed forces based on what Canada
currently has, which is why we want a solid and determined
Canadian army, with good leadership and some kind of vision.
When we send Canadians to keep the peace in other countries, we
want them to be prepared and proud to act on behalf of all
Canadians and Quebecers.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
always happy to speak in this House although some issues are
rather sad and distressing to discuss.
I will not remind you of the decisions that were recently made by
the new defense minister but rather give you some background to
shed some light on the problems in the armed forces, whose
reputation the Bloc is trying to tarnish according to some Liberal
members. I will go over certain facts and give you some
background.
In 1985, the now dead-and-gone airborne regiment was under
investigation. Of the 568 members of that regiment, 112 had a
record with the military police and 89 with the civilian police.
Military leaders were ordered to take steps to remedy the situation,
but things did not improve.
In 1992, at CFB Petawawa where the now defunct airborne
regiment was based, Colonel Morneau indicated to the then Chief
of the Defence Staff, General John de Chastelain, that the regiment
was not adequately trained for this kind of mission and
recommended that it not be deployed in Somalia.
General de Chastelain was near the end of his mandate, but he
nevertheless ordered the deployment of the regiment, knowing as
he did that the following month he would be the new consul in
Washington, in the United States. That was in December 1992.
(1020)
In January 1993 there was a new Chief of Defence Staff, John
Anderson. He travelled to Somalia in February and early March
with Bob Fowler and other generals. All were well placed to see the
somewhat aggressive or racist behaviour already reported.
Moreover, if memory serves, the commander there at the time was
reprimanded. This was Commander Seward, I believe. He was
reprimanded, and fined as well, for excessively aggressive
activities toward the Somalis.
During that visit, neither Mr. Fowler nor General Anderson
reported any abnormal incidents. Curiously, General John
Anderson was there two days after the first incident involving
young Shidane Arone on March 4, but there was no report.
Six weeks later, the military police decided to launch an
investigation. We know what happened then. They immediately
found one guilty party, Kyle Brown. He was charged and sentenced
to five years in prison. The officers and non-commissioned officers
were found not guilty. There were a few reprimands, promotions
were frozen; that was it.
Time passed. In 1993, public pressure for something to be done
started to build up. Incidents continued to occur. You will recall
that, in February and March of 1994-some members will say that
it was the Bloc again trying to sully the name of the armed forces,
which is far from the case-it was reported that certain members of
the Airborne Regiment at Petawawa were going around with Ku
Klux Klan pennants and flying Nazi flags on Canadian Forces
vehicles. Colonel Kenward was in charge at the time, and this was
tolerated-no problem.
The situation just went from bad to worse. It was not simply the
Somalia affair, but a combination of everything that was going on.
Under public pressure, the former Minister of Defence, the hon.
member for Don Valley East, announced the creation of a
commission of inquiry into the Somalia incidents, stating that the
full truth would be known, and that everyone would be called to
testify before the commission.
It should be recalled that around the month of October 1995, in
this Chamber, members of both the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois accused the Minister of National Defence of the day of
having contrived with the armed forces, to a certain extent, to
prevent the inquiry from obtaining documents.
I recall very well that the then minister of Defence had blown a
fuse, much like the current minister did yesterday. It was quite a
show. How dare we question the integrity of our armed forces?
I would like to point out that if we are simply listing facts, it is
not to tarnish reputations, as some may think. I regret, but these are
facts. Members will recall that things which happened in 1994 were
revealed recently.
The funny thing with the armed forces is that the truth always
comes out, two to three years after the facts, like the incidents of
Bacovici, sexual abuse at Wainwright, or fraud and embezzlement
at CFB Valcartier. The list goes on and on. It might be added that
even a civilian working for National Defence headquarters
managed to organize a pornography ring from within the
department.
This situation must certainly be due to a glitch in operations.
Early in 1995, I read a report of Brigadier-General Jeffries which
said that the problem in the armed forces which could lead to some
7824
shall we say deviant behaviour among some of the military was a
lack of leadership. I did not say it, a Brigadier-General did.
In another report, Colonel Oehring mentioned that there was a
flagrant lack of leadership and discipline and a complete distortion
between the top brass and the rank and file. I would remind all
members that at one point the media revealed that some soldiers
and sailors had applied for welfare and even went to the soup
kitchens in western Canada.
(1025)
On the other hand, look at some of the officers. Consider
Admiral Murray with his cavalier and arrogant testimony, who
lived in a 6,000 square feet house for the astronomical sum of $581
per month. For a regular soldier who sees how these officers
behave, it is pretty demoralizing.
In fact, this is all par for the course. Look at all the players in this
case. John Anderson was aware of what happened. He went to
Somalia, he knew exactly what was going on, and to punish him for
his lack of leadership, he was appointed to NATO. Bob Fowler was
deputy minister of Defence for many years. He was in Somalia in
March 1993, but said nothing and saw nothing. And then, around
the end of 1995, Mr. Fowler was appointed as Canada's delegate to
the UN. Interestingly, if we go back even further, we see that he
was a political assistant to Mr. Trudeau, the former Liberal Prime
Minister, in 1983-84, and he also happens to be the new Governor
General's brother-in-law. It looks like the old boys' network.
There is also John de Chastelain, who came back as chief of
staff. He was ambassador in Washington, where he was replaced by
the Prime Minister's nephew, Mr. Chrétien. Hon. members will
recall that when the regiment in Somalia was abolished or
eliminated, General John de Chastelain tendered his resignation,
which was refused by the Prime Minister. Finally, in December
1995, General de Chastelain resigned and left the scene, and then
we had Mr. Boyle.
You are signalling to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only two
minutes left. I could go on and on, but I will now get to my
conclusion. My point is that the former Minister of National
Defence, the hon. member for Don Valley East, as well as the
current defence minister and the Prime Minister declared, in
November 1994, October 1995, March 1996 and June 1996, that we
needed to get to the bottom of this. That it was not just about the
deployment of the Airborne in Somalia but that there were other
incidents which, as I pointed out, prompted some officers to point
to a lack of leadership.
What we are doing now is a matter of ethics. I would even say
that it no longer matters that the commission of inquiry is being
wound up. Look at the conduct of Admiral Murray. We will never
know the truth.
I think that refusing to give an extension shows a lack of ethics
and does nothing to enhance the public's confidence in this
government. It took the armed forces nearly a year to hand over
certain documents, and when we look at other commissions of
inquiry which went on for five years and were about far less serious
matters, one really wonders about the way the present government
is behaving. I think we can assume Canadians realize that when the
Liberal government decided to wind up this commission, it was
clear there were people it wanted to protect, and I do not think
Canadians or Quebecers will go along with this.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate my colleague on his presentation. As you know, he
was vice-chairman of the standing committee on national defence.
He was also on the joint committee of the House of Commons and
the Senate that proposed changes to the Canadian Armed Forces.
I have a question for him. Does he think that the current standing
committee on national defence has changed from what he knew of
it in the three years he was on it?
They will say anything across the way, but it is a well-known fact
that Bloc members share in the activities and work very hard to
move things along. I think the member opposite would do better to
remain quiet and listen to the question.
(1030)
I would like to ask my colleague from Charlesbourg whether he
thinks the Canadian armed forces have changed? I would like him
to explain.
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, there have indeed been changes. There
have been changes in ministers and in chiefs of staff. But I do not
think the mentality has changed much. My colleague spoke of the
standing committee on national defence. True, the Bloc
participated and often made very constructive suggestions. Some
of my Liberal colleagues opposite know very well that the Bloc
members tried to resolve certain problems and to take part in
discussions.
The auditor general's report and other reports indicate that the
Department of National Defence was often accused of
mismanaging its assets, spending unnecessarily and other things.
I am happy my colleague is allowing me to talk about financial
matters. On Monday, the new Minister of National Defence said
that all this had cost a lot and that the Bloc was complaining that
the Department of National Defence was spending too much
money. It will cost $25 million to find out the truth, who is
responsible in the chain of command, where the problems lie, how
improvements can be made and who is guilty.
The defence committee often pointed out that there were too
many generals and that these generals often lacked leadership skills
or authority over the soldiers. Very often, the corporals and the
ordinary soldiers bear the brunt, while the officers get off lightly.
7825
This happened on a number of occasions. The subject was
discussed in the national defence committee.
If the mentality as well as the behaviour is to be changed, I do
not think the way to go about it is to decide the commission has
dragged on long enough and that it will have time to hear the last
witnesses, which is not the case. However, we must, for various
reasons such as restoring the armed forces' honour or giving
soldiers back their pride, stop living in the past and pretending that
Canadian soldiers lived in honour and that everyone is proud of
them.
If we go back three or four years, not everyone is proud of what
went on in the army. I do not think everyone is proud of the money
spent for various reasons. With a little effort, the government could
change all that.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in today's debate.
When I hear my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois talk about
integrity, harp on what happened in Somalia, and repeat the litany
of problems every Canadian knows only too well, I have trouble
reconciling this preoccupation with whether or not the Canadian
Forces have any ethics with the Bloc's approach.
My hon. colleagues mentioned the issue of leadership in the
Canadian forces, I agree with them, there are problems. We will
have to find ways to address them. Do the hon. members from the
Bloc Quebecois expect us to apply the same ethics, the same
behaviour to the Canadian forces as they did to their former
leader's staff?
Should we fire people in order to compensate them? Is this the
kind of ethics they are promoting here today by preaching at
Canadians, the government, members of the Canadian Forces? Are
they not the same people who, when there is a referendum, are
trying to create a rift within the Canadian forces with alleged plots?
(1035)
Is this the kind of integrity the Canadian forces should emulate?
I hope not. Probably because the two hon. members who spoke
today will not be candidates in the race to the Bloc Quebecois
leadership, they do not apply the kind of ethics which has been
reported in the medias lately.
[English]
I think the important thing that Canadians have to address here
today is whether we as a country are going to benefit from the
production of historical documents well into the end of this century
based on an incident that took place in 1993.
I refer to a document that reflects comments made on the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation national news, January 13,
1997. The CBC, in doing its own calculation, looking at the agenda
of the Somalia inquiry, looking at the time frame that it wished to
cover, looking at its own work plan, arrived at the conclusion that
proceeding at the rate that it had up until the date of this broadcast
it would take the commission approximately six years to complete
its work. That is not the government's view. It is an assessment
made by the CBC in dealing with this issue.
I have said before and I say again that Canadians who are
interested in what occurred in Somalia know who pulled the
trigger. They know that the incidents in Somalia were totally
unacceptable. We know there were severe weaknesses in
leadership. We know there were serious flaws in how we responded
to what occurred in Somalia with respect to the military justice
system, how the military investigation was conducted. We
understand that.
I believe the Canadian forces and Canada as a country have to
move on and turn the corner on this issue by no longer necessarily
just repeating the litany of events that we all know too well but
beginning to grapple with solutions.
I am acutely aware of the tremendous burden we are placing on
the men and women of the Canadian forces. I have just returned
from Bosnia. It is of no value to anyone in Bosnia who is walking
the streets of devastated towns looking at children with hollow eyes
to tell them that we are conducting or we are going to extend the
final date of the Somalia inquiry. Those men and women want to
know what people in this place are going to do to ensure that they
are trained properly, that they are equipped properly, that they have
guidelines and frameworks within which they can function.
What the government has done and what I have committed to do
is present to the Prime Minister of Canada, to the Government of
Canada and to the people of Canada by March 31, 1997 a
comprehensive plan and a set of proposals on how we can move
ahead with restoring the integrity and the pride of one of the finest
military institutions in the world.
That is a considerable challenge. We expect to be assessed, we
expect the recommendations to be analysed and we are trying to
draw in as much support as we can from as wide a population in the
country as possible.
Unlike my hon. friends this morning, I believe the one solid
foundation on which we can proceed is the enormous reservoir of
public support for the men and women in the Canadian forces.
There is no question that Canadians are disgusted by what
happened in Somalia. There is no doubt that they question the
quality and the training of some of the leadership that has been
around in the Canadian forces for a number of years.
Does it serve any purpose in terms of the objective of providing
Canada with a very efficient and capable military institution to
simply recite the problems that we know a great deal about, or
would it be useful for the Bloc Quebecois and for other hon.
7826
members in this House representing all parties in the House to set
forward their views on what we should be doing?
To be very fair about this and not to try in any way to minimize
what occurred in Somalia, what occurred before Somalia or what
occurred after the incidents were discovered, we still have to look
at the overall context in which the Canadian forces operate. A
peacetime environment; some would say yes. I can assure you, Mr.
Speaker, if you were in Bosnia today it would not look very
peaceful, although day to day it is these days, but when you see the
devastation you know how quickly that situation could become
very dangerous again.
(1040)
We have Canadian forces in Haiti. The Canadian forces are as
much a part of the image of Canada as the Rocky Mountains or the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, wherever one goes in the world.
With all the problems we have encountered, when they are put in
the context of young men and women risking their lives all over the
planet and seeing how other military institutions have had to
function in these similar kinds of environments, I am not excusing
the very serious mistakes we have made in the past. What I am
saying is fair minded Canadians, and they are fair minded people,
will understand that on balance the Canadian forces are still one of
the most highly respected military institutions in the world.
We can spend a lot of time debating whether inquiries in this
country should be constituted on the basis that once they begin they
have carte blanche to go to the end of whatever they feel is an
appropriate level of inquiry. I do not dispute that. If this place
decides through legislation that when inquiries are established they
can continue until the commissioners of inquiry, all the parties
involved and their legal counsel are satisfied that every document
has been looked at, every issue has been addressed and every
question has been asked, if that is what the Canadian people and
people in this place wish to do we should debate that.
To make sure to put the record straight, this commission was
established on March 30, 1995. The original reporting deadline to
which the commissioners agreed when they accepted to undertake
this work was December 20, 1995. We are now in the process of
debating whether a third extension was appropriate. It was
extended until the end of June of this year, the third extension. The
first extension was to June 20, 1996. The second extension is to
March 31, 1997, and now a third extension to June 30, 1997. The
commission will have work in excess of two years by the time it is
asked to bring in its conclusions.
I understand the frustration of the commissioners and I
understand the concerns of members of this place when they say
they will not have heard every witness, they will not have been
able to see every document and they will not have been able to
address every question. What we must hear from my friends, which
I hope we will hear in the discussion today not only on the basis of
the Somali inquiry but in terms of future arrangements of this
nature, is whether we develop a process that is absolutely open
ended until everyone is satisfied that everything has been done. If
that is what people are prepared to propose then I believe at some
point we should debate that in this place because it has enormous
implications.
What about the people who are in leadership roles? We have
heard of individuals who have been reassigned and named to new
positions. What will happen if we get a report seven, eight or ten
years after events? As an historical document it may have some
value but in terms of applying the lessons learned from the
mistakes that occurred, of what value will they be? Where will the
people be who were in control and in leadership? Worse than that,
what happens in the interim to these people? Nothing? We have
chosen to move on.
I want to make clear that we have never said who should be
called before the commission. I have never commented on
testimony heard before the commission. I have never commented
on the work plan or the agenda of the commission because I have
been around long enough to know that Canadians understand that
the incidents in Somalia that resulted in the deaths of the Somalians
killed by Canadians are unacceptable.
We also know, as my colleagues would be aware, that we have
had murder trials in this country where more than three, sometimes
more than five and in fact more than ten people have been killed.
These trials, looking into the events involved in murders
committed in this country, have taken place in a matter of months,
not years. I believe that Canadians who understand what is
important with respect to the Canadian forces recognize that the
government had to come to a decision after three extensions to set a
final date on inquiry.
I would also point out to my hon. friends in this place that
recently another inquiry in a provincial jurisdiction was given an
extension looking into a matter of great importance in a province in
this country. When the provincial government in question provided
the extension for the inquiry it also set a final date for reporting.
(1045 )
I understood that it was very much in the same position as we
were. It did not want a historical document on what had occurred
and why it had occurred years after the fact. It wanted to be able to
move with some solutions to the questions with which it was faced.
We indicated to the Canadian people through several
mechanisms our concern about what had happened in Somalia.
However, to be very honest, a number of other events clearly
indicated that
7827
serious measures had to be undertaken with respect to the future of
the Canadian forces.
I was very pleased when the retired chief justice of the supreme
court, Brian Dickson, took on the job of reviewing the military
justice system. A lot of what is so bad about the Somalia incident,
as brutal as the murders were-God knows there is no excuse for
that-what happened afterward was equally if not more troubling
in the sense that the system did not respond adequately.
The investigative system did not respond adequately. The
military justice system has not responded adequately. We have
empanelled and empowered a group of outstanding Canadians,
along with Mr. Justice Dickson, J. W. Bird and General Belzile to
come to the government with specific and comprehensive
recommendations on the reform of the military justice system and
commentary on how best to exercise the capacity of investigation
that is now done by the military police.
In addition to that, we will be reporting to the Prime Minister
and to the people of Canada on accountability in the Canadian
Armed Forces, on the system of promotions, on a wide ranging
questioning of ethos and ethics in the military.
Beyond that, the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs has been asked to look at what I describe as the
people needs of the Canadian Armed Forces; looking at benefits, at
support systems for families, at accommodation and all the
socioeconomic requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces.
All of this has been done in the last couple of months in response
to the wide array of challenges facing the Canadian forces. I have
great faith in the Canadian people and I have great faith in the
Canadian forces but I also have enormous respect for this place.
That is why I hope, through this process today and also in the
weeks to come, we will get concrete proposals from my colleagues
in this place on what they think should be done with the Canadian
forces, not simply to continue an inquiry into an incident that we
are very familiar with, but to tell us, in a concrete way whether they
are committed, for example, to funding for the Canadian forces.
Are they committed to the kinds of levels that we have
established for personnel: 60,000 in the regular forces and 30,000
in the militia reserves? Are they committed to the re-equipping of
the Canadian forces? Do they believe we should be spending
money on making sure that we have a combat capable military
institution and organization that can adequately represent Canada
around the world as we are called on by our allies to participate in
various kinds of missions?
Are they prepared to say to the men and women of the Canadian
forces-it is important to hear this today-what is the position of
the various parties. If they were elected, would they reopen the
Somalia inquiry? Are they serious about saying it is in the best
interests of the Canadian forces to continue the Somalia inquiry or
is it important to move on and learn from the lessons of Somalia
and the events that surrounded those incidents?
It is critical because we talk about the morale of the Canadian
forces as though somehow, by saying things here or elsewhere that
reflect specific concerns about incidents, this is going to help.
I have had the great privilege of being the Minister of National
Defence since October. I have visited nearly every base in Canada
and I have travelled with the troops in Bosnia. I say without
equivocation, not just based on my personal observations but
having been exposed to my colleagues in NATO, having met with
our NORAD allies in the United States, that every Canadian should
feel absolutely comfortable about recognizing and respecting the
role, the capability and the professionalism of the Canadian forces.
There is no doubt that the incidents that my hon. friend related at
Petawawa, at Val Cartier, in Somalia and more recently even in
Haiti are cause for grave concern. The Canadian forces are an
institution made up of tens of thousands of men and women. In
every organization in Canada of that size, in every community in
Canada of that size, every day there are events that take place that
are unacceptable and intolerable. They are criminal acts. They are
assaults. They are abuses of privilege, abuses of leadership
capacity or roles in life. These things occur everywhere, even in
professional hockey. That is not to say that in any way we diminish
the importance of what happened or the fact that the events were
totally unacceptable.
(1050)
Canadians are fair minded. They understand and recognize that
the Canadian forces cannot be judged any differently or any more
harshly than any other group of people in the country. They work in
a very different environment. Very few Canadians sign up to put
their lives on the line. That is what members of the forces do. They
are trained to do things that are not terribly pleasant. They also
have to be properly trained to maintain the kind of appropriate
relationships among themselves and with the people where they are
deployed.
Surely Canadians are not going to accept an argument that says
that 125 years or more of service around the world is going to be
swept away because in today's society things that may or may not
have been acceptable or even heard about years ago are now
common knowledge. Surely fair minded Canadians and members
of this place understand that the Canadian forces are faced with
challenges that very few, including myself, would ever care to
undertake on a day to day basis in Bosnia or in Haiti.
I want to say this one thing to my friends in the House.
Regardless of what happened in Somalia, we have to ask: Who
would the Minister of National Defence want to cover up for? What
could have happened that would be more heinous than the beating
and shooting of young people in Somalia? Why would it be
7828
political advantageous to me or to the government to shut down the
Somalia inquiry from a political point of view?
It has been alleged that the deputy minister of the Department of
National Defence at the time of the incident in Somalia used
various tactics to somehow confuse the then Minister of National
Defence. The then Minister of National Defence subsequently
became Prime Minister of Canada and left that person in the role of
deputy minister at the Department of National Defence.
I hope that all of my colleagues will be very clear in their
presentations with respect to what they believe we and Canada
should be doing for the men and women of the Canadian forces.
How can we make sure that in the future if any incidents like this
should re-occur-and heaven knows we all hope that they will
not-how should we respond to them. That is the question and the
challenge facing all of us today as far as the Canadian forces and its
future is concerned.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the minister's comments when he said he was first and
foremost a member of Parliament; how fortunate that he could
participate in this debate.
On October 9, 1996, the minister said: ``We want a thorough
investigation of everything that happened in connection with the
situation in Somalia- I am sure all members of this House-and
no doubt he included himself-realize that one should not interfere
with the work of the commission of inquiry''. Well, to order the end
of the inquiry, is that not to interfere with its work?
We are asking the minister and the government to let the inquiry
carry on for a few more months. The minister says five or ten years.
He talks about a document of historical scope. This is not what we
are asking for. We simply ask that they grant an extension so that
the inquiry can hear witnesses who have not been heard yet and
who, we feel, are crucial to the whole issue.
Today, the minister, calm as always, spoke as an expert and tried
to quietly sweep the whole issue under the rug. As you have surely
noticed, this is not always the case, but it did happen today. He tried
to explain the situation slowly and delicately; he spoke about the
grassroots, he tried to appeal to our sympathy for those people in
the forces.
(1055)
We know that the people in the Canadian armed forces are
professionals, the members of the official opposition do not
question that. We only want to know what is happening because it
seems that the rotten apples are in the top brass. They way things
stand now, we will find out what happened before the incident and
during the incident, but unfortunately, we will never know what
happened after, we will not get to the bottom of the attempted
coverup by this government; that is what we are concerned about.
That is what Canadians are worried about these days.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, to get back to our trying to cover up
what happened, as I said previously, the government agreed to
extend the mandate of the Somalia inquiry first until June 28, 1996,
then until March 31, 1997 and now until June 30, 1997.
Is the hon. member convinced? Does he have proof that a further
extension of three months, six months or nine months will bring us
closer to a point where all three commissioners as well as the
counsel for the witnesses will sit together and say: ``Yes, we are all
agreed, it is all over, we have shed light on everything''.
It is interesting to note that 150,000 documents, totalling two
million pages, have been handed over to the inquiry and that more
than 100 witnesses have already been heard.
I believe that Canadians genuinely interested in the future of the
Canada Armed Forces know full well what happened in Somalia
and they want to make sure that our forces can operate in an
effective and professional manner in the future. Listing past
problems over and over again the problems will not reach that goal,
we have to move on to concrete solutions.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question about
ministerial accountability, specifically contempt at the military
headquarters level for the civilian authority of the armed forces.
Shidane Arone was tortured and killed on March 16. On March
18, two days later, the chief of defence staff, John Anderson, and
the deputy minister, Bob Fowler, briefed the minister saying at that
time that an unfortunate incident had happened in Somalia.
The defence minister at the time, Kim Campbell read in
Maclean's magazine that there was a suggestion of criminal intent
on March 18 at the same time that she was briefed without being
told of criminal intent. It was not until March-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have a chance to
finish his question after question period. We are into oral
statements now.
7829
7829
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, February 10 I will be travelling to Brandon, Manitoba for
the hearing of grain farmer, Bill Keriens. His crime is crossing the
border to sell his grain. Subsequently, he will be fined for this
crime and will be brought into court in leg irons and handcuffs.
I have to ask, does the punishment fit the crime? All we have to
do is look at the repercussions of Bill C-41. It was intended to deal
with petty criminals who pose no threat to the community but the
reality is that it has been used in cases involving drug trafficking,
sexual assault, bank robbery and other assaults. These convicts, in
some cases, are serving nothing more than house arrest.
It is obvious we have to define who is a threat to society and that
the punishment should be in line with the crime. This grain farmer
in no way is a threat to society. Certainly he does not deserve the
threat of jail time to be served in the same cell block with other
criminals as wheat farmer, Andy McMechan, served.
Why is it the heavy hand of the law punishes law-abiding
citizens who are merely fighting for the principle of freedom while
violent criminals walk free?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, despite the rhetoric and the promises of a bright future,
1997 has had a bad start for Quebecers and Canadians. The market
is still in a slump. While Canada has 1.5 million unemployed, only
500 new jobs were created in January. And there are fewer jobs for
young people.
(1100)
Self-employed people were responsible for many new jobs
created in 1996. Yet, the government is doing nothing to help them.
The new unemployment insurance reform is supposed to give
wider coverage to workers, but this is only deception. In fact, these
new jobs that are emerging for self-employed people are protected
neither by unemployment insurance nor by the vast majority of
social security programs.
The Liberals were elected under the slogan ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
The fact is there are ``no jobs, no jobs, no jobs''. When Canadians
and Quebecers realize that the situation is disastrous, they will pass
harsh judgment, and the government will pay the price.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fight against
the deficit is being won. Who would have thought a mere three
years ago that the deficit could be reduced by over $20 billion by
today? This reduced deficit has meant a strengthened economy and
record low interest rates.
As the Minister of Finance prepares his budget, I would urge that
he stay the course. We need to eliminate the deficit as soon as is
reasonably possible. Now is not the time for irresponsible Reform
Party inspired tax cuts which will slow the decrease in the deficit or
compromise essential programs.
Eliminating the deficit will ensure that our children and our
seniors have a secure economic future.
I am proud to have supported the Minister of Finance's deficit
reduction targets in the past three years and look forward to his
presentation of another successful budget on February 18.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that the Canada infrastructure works
program is a success. Just look at some of the statistics which help
to tell the story.
For example, in my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River, more
than $9 million has been invested. These types of projects have
included road repairs, the development of water systems, culvert
replacements and the construction of bridges.
The Canada infrastructure program is a great benefit to rural
areas. Almost 62 per cent of the projects were for rural Canada.
In order to market our goods and services locally and abroad,
another program is necessary for our communities' continued
development.
The Canada infrastructure works program is contributing to a
stronger rural Canadian economy, including my riding of
Dauphin-Swan River, and that is what I am working toward.
Without a doubt the Canada infrastructure works program is a
major accomplishment.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I
have found out something that has been going on for a few weeks.
7830
The double tracking of Canadian Pacific between Winnipeg and
Thunder Bay is being torn up. This was a wonderful infrastructure
program that was the pride of many previous governments to
speed up the delivery of grain, potash, sulphur and so on. Along
with this we are watching the deterioration of the terminals in
Thunder Bay and the tearing down of some of them. This was the
big infrastructure program the country was so proud of. The
seaway has now become redundant. It has been described by
transport officials as a wonderful heritage park.
If the government were truly interested in jobs and
infrastructure, it would have taken more care with its other policies
of deregulation and of signing international trade agreements
which have made those infrastructure investments redundant and
useless.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
international development week gives us the opportunity to reflect
upon the unique role that Canada is playing worldwide in
international development.
The main players in development are the developing countries
themselves. It is within their governments, their volunteer
organizations, their institutions and their communities that the real
development experts are to be found.
However, in co-operating with these partners, Canadians have
also done their share. From Peru to Zimbabwe, Canadian
technologies and communication equipment have freed many
communities from their isolation. By providing legal support, the
Canadian program has helped countries such as Haiti and South
Africa develop laws to ensure the respect of human rights and of
the rule of law.
In our typically Canadian way-which respects countries and
cultures and aims at concrete results-we have helped developing
countries. International development week is the opportunity to
celebrate these achievements and to anticipate future successes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Christian Island and Georgina Island are home to the Beausoleil
and Georgina Chippewa Bands. The islands are the location of
cottages belonging to hundreds of non-natives and they are the
destination of thousands of visitors.
(1105)
[Translation]
In 1995, the Governments of Canada and Ontario agreed to
jointly fund the replacement of the ferries that provide service to
the islands, an improvement essential to economic development.
The Government of Ontario, a Conservative government, now
refuses to honour its commitments in spite of the fact that
transportation is a provincial jurisdiction.
This is not unlike the unilateral and arbitrary decision made by
the Government of Ontario to renege on the agreement reached
with the First Nations on the distribution of the Casinorama's
revenues.
[English]
An agreement is an agreement. It is sad enough that our history
is littered with agreements we did not honour but it is an outrage
that agreements with the ink barely dry are being unilaterally and
summarily dismissed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to the parents of sick
children. We often forget how courageous and dedicated they are.
The Séguin family, of Saint-André-d'Argenteuil, is a model of
love, courage and dedication. Two of the Séguin children, Sylvie
and Patrick, have muscular dystrophy. For their parents, caring for
them is a full time job. Patrick no longer has the use of his upper
limbs. His condition requires constant care and assistance, as spinal
muscle atrophy causes severe muscle tissue degeneration.
Sylvie is a bit more independent; still the condition of her lungs
is extremely fragile. Mr. and Mrs. Séguin have invested time,
energy and money. Without the assistance of the Muscular
Dystrophy Association, they would not have been able to buy all
the necessary equipment.
To give to the associations and foundations providing assistance
to those suffering from this disease is to recognize their courage.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, democracy
works only when well informed voters have accurate data about
their options. Therefore I deplore the vast amount of
misinformation about Reformers. I am deeply hurt when people
incorrectly label me, attributing prejudices to me that I do not have.
As an employer I hired people based on ability and merit. Some
of these people are called visible minorities here in Ottawa but I
did not notice. As an instructor I had students who had different
7831
coloured skin or spoke with different accents but I did not notice.
We have members of our family who have different racial
backgrounds but we love and care for them and do not notice. My
wife and I were especially proud that our son and daughter-in-law
worked as volunteers in Rwanda. They looked after 400 beautiful
children whose parents were killed in the awful conflict over there.
I joined and became involved in the Reform Party because I was
attracted to its policy of equality for all citizens regardless of race. I
believe in being charitable and kind. How I wish my colleagues in
this House would extend this same charity to me.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Ontario government is currently examining changes to the Ontario
building code whereby the amount of insulation required in new
homes would be reduced by one-third. This ill-conceived proposal
will increase heating and cooling costs for homeowners and
subsequently result in more carbon dioxide emissions into the
atmosphere compounding the problem posed by climate change.
This shortsighted proposal to reduce insulation in new homes is
advocated by the Ontario Home Builders' Association. Instead of
yielding to this lobby, the Ontario government should act in the
interests of future homeowners and the environment to ensure that
the building code becomes more energy efficient and respectful of
environmental concerns and consumers.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nova
Scotia is Canada's leading fishing province. My riding of South
Shore is heavily dependent on fishing and related employment
opportunities. I have been working with industry for over a year to
document the impact of user fees. This week the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard testimony about the
cumulative effects of service fees.
Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board announced that a
multi-sectoral committee of stakeholders has been formed to study
this issue with a view to easing the burden on businesses caused by
the imposition of service fees.
I congratulate the minister for making this commitment to
review fishing and related fees. He has my full support in this
undertaking.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Air Commodore Len Burchall was hailed by Sir Winston
Churchill as the saviour of Ceylon for warning the defenders of the
island of an imminent attack by the Japanese. On April 4, 1942 his
plane was shot down after he spotted the Japanese fleet and radioed
his message. He was held as prisoner by the Japanese for the
duration of the war.
(1110)
On Wednesday, Len Birchall received from His Excellency the
Governor General the fifth clasp to his Canadian forces decoration.
He is the first Canadian ever to have been so honoured. The clasp
recognizes 62 years of good service in the Canadian Armed Forces.
As his member of Parliament, I was privileged to witness this
event. As Canadians, we salute his service to his community, his
patriotism and his valour. Len Birchall is a great Canadian hero.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the people of Saint-Bonaventure and the entire riding of
Drummond, I would like to pay tribute today to a local hero, whose
name has become synonymous with courage, talent and success:
Patrick Lalime.
On January 15, this goaltender recruited by the Pittsburgh
Penguins broke Ken Dryden's legendary record by winning his first
16 games in the National Hockey League, with three shutouts as a
bonus.
He pursued his dream without ever giving up hope, putting all
his energy into his work. He made his way up the ladder of success
one step at a time, with courage and confidence, reaching for his
goal. Patrick's feat reminds us that no dream is out of reach for
those who put in the time and effort.
I wish Patrick Lalime a long and successful career in the NHL.
We are proud of you, Patrick.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over 30
years ago the Liberal Pearson government changed Canada's flag
and created the B and B commission. Then for years Pierre Trudeau
led the onslaught of the government's divisive language legisla-
7832
tion. One by one they were forced to succumb to linguistic
engineering: the civil service, Parliament, the armed forces, crown
corporations, and yes, even the RCMP.
Over the years the billions of dollars spent have added $50
billion to the federal debt, all in the guise of promoting national
unity. I have not even mentioned the weekly chauffeur driven
limousine service between Ottawa and Montreal for the languages
commissioner, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers.
Now the twins from Quebec are talking of granting distinct
society to the separatists. My gosh, what else will they give the
separatists to keep them in Canada, the rest of the country?
What this distinctly Canadian dilemma deserves is a fresh start,
Reform's fresh start.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, FRE
Composites Inc., a company located in Saint-André-Est, in the
Argenteuil region, was part of the last Team Canada mission in
Asia.
Team Canada's visit to Thailand turned out to be beneficial to
this Quebec business, which currently employs 85 people. The
company signed an agreement with a Thai partner to jointly build a
production facility in Bangkok. FRE Composites will provide the
new venture with its manufacturing technology and its skills. The
project is estimated at $4 million.
Team Canada opened the doors for this Quebec company to
export its state-of-the-art technology. This, dear Bloc members, is
another example of the benefits to be gained from being part of the
Canadian team.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Wednesday, Governor General Romeo LeBlanc, Commander in
Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, honoured 52 members of the
regular and reserve forces with the Order of Military Merit,
reminding us that despite current problems, Canada's military has
distinguished itself not only in armed conflicts but in peacekeeping
missions and rescue efforts.
Eighty-one year old Air Commodore Leonard Birchall was one
of the 52 distinguished with the Order of Military Merit and is the
first Canadian to receive the fifth clasp to the Canadian forces
decoration, signifying 62 years of honourable military service to
Canada.
While on a reconnaissance patrol on April 4, 1942, Squadron
Leader Birchall sighted Japanese ships swiftly moving in for a
surprise attack on Ceylon. He alerted the British fleet of the
impending attack but was then shot down and taken as a Japanese
prisoner of war.
As the senior prisoner, he made continual although not always
successful efforts to protect his fellow prisoners from brutality. For
his efforts he was awarded the British Empire Medal for Gallantry
and Winston Churchill dubbed him the saviour of Ceylon.
I am sure this House joins me in congratulating Len Birchall.
* * *
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is time all levels of government start taking measures to address the
issue of the underground economy, which is getting worse. This
situation is largely due to the over-regulation imposed by the
governments themselves, unions and other stakeholders.
All these regulations have a price, which is paid directly or
indirectly by the public, mainly consumers, who find they have to
pay a lot of money for services. It is obvious that the problem of
clandestine work will get worse.
The time has come to implement reforms to make clandestine
work unappealing, not only for workers, but also for consumers.
One of the first measures should be that all bidders who are
awarded government contracts comply with the law and be
subjected to a compulsory verification.
_____________________________________________
7832
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Twenty-two groups from the cultural sector of Canada and of
Quebec, representing 900,000 workers, have unanimously
petitioned the Canadian government to maintain and strengthen
existing cultural protection measures. This request comes on the
heels of the statement by the Minister for International Trade that
cultural protection measures that have been around for 30 years are
going to be scrapped.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told us that cabinet was
unanimous on the cultural question. If that is the case, how can she
explain the statements by her colleague at international trade, who
said that the rules of Canadian ownership and Canadian content are
obstacles to the cultural development of Canada and of Quebec?
7833
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that when we
respond unanimously to the demands of cultural groups this
morning, it is by saying that we wish to do everything we can not
just to strengthen existing cultural protection, but to improve it
for the twenty-first century.
We know that we are living in a time of turbulent change, and we
want to be prepared and to be on the cutting edge when it comes to
new cultural possibilities, as we were when we became the first
country to set up a CRTC.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we were perhaps the first country in the world to set up a
CRTC, but we are perhaps also the first country in the world to
have sold ourselves down the river, when we look at what happened
with Ginn Publishing, Power DirecTv and DMX.
Given what went on in the past, how can the Deputy Prime
Minister expect us to believe her when she tells us that her
government is defending the cultural sovereignty of Quebec and of
Canada?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the
hon. member deserves a very serious answer because Canadian
culture gives us two opportunities as a country. First is it tells our
story to ourselves which is essential for our survival as a country.
Second is it creates almost a million Canadian value added
knowledge based jobs.
When we came in as a government three and a half years ago, we
pledged to do everything possible to create Canadian jobs for
Canadians. One of the great success stories in Canadian job
creation over the last decade has been the cultural sector. Certainly
we are going to be working very closely with all departments to
make sure that not only do Canadian cultural jobs continue to grow
but most important that Canadians have the opportunity to tell
Canadian stories to ourselves.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, really, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is living on
another planet. Her government has not created jobs, jobs, jobs in
the cultural area. It has cut, cut, cut those jobs, with all the funding
it took away from the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC, to name
a few. Enough is enough.
(1120)
When the American secretary likes what the Minister of
International Trade is saying, we have a problem.
The heritage minister seems to be the only one in cabinet who
thinks that measures are necessary to protect and develop the
Canadian and Quebec cultures. Can she guarantee the House that
she will give it her full attention?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
will take the minister's word for it. Since she will be giving it her
full attention, I would remind her that the four CBC ex-presidents,
Al Johnson, Pierre Juneau, Tony Manera and Laurent Picard, as
well as the Commissioner of Official Languages, say that the CBC
no longer has the means to fulfil its mandate. The Liberal
government has cut its appropriation by $414 million since it was
elected.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain to us the
difference between the Reform Party, who wants to cut budgets by
a third, and her own government, which has already cut the CBC
budget by a third?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is incorrect
to claim that we have cut the CBC budget by a third, Second, we
have followed the advice of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, who said on March 16 1995: ``If any cuts
are needed, there are big ones to be made at CBC''. That is what we
did, we followed the advice of the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
newspaper headlines spoke of an ``Unprecedented crisis at CBC''.
Need I remind the minister of the words of her colleague at
National Defence, who said the existence of the CBC is no longer
justified?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, concerning the
abolished positions, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is showing
her total lack of consideration for the CBC and its employees. Last
December 15, she claimed only 19 people had lost their jobs at
CBC, whereas the total is calculated at 4,000.
If the minister really has the CBC's interests at heart, and if she
has the unanimous backing of cabinet, will she cancel the $200
million in budget cuts slated for next year?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon.
member's statements are wrong. If the hon. member is really
honest when he speaks of cuts, why does he not go and talk to his
colleague, the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications,
who has cut half the jobs at Télé-Québec? There were 580
employees in 1995, and only 329 were left in 1996.
7834
We have made some hard decisions, but we have acted fairly,
and have made fewer cuts and abolished fewer positions than his
colleague, the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications
cut at Télé-Québec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a disturbing pattern emerging with respect to the
government's handling of public inquiries into wrongdoing causing
death.
When it came to the tainted blood deaths and the murder
cover-up in Somalia, the Liberals were very eager to investigate
Tory wrongdoing. However, when the inquiry started to get too
close for Liberal comfort and too close to the top, there were
government induced delays, government induced legal challenges,
document tampering by government officials and political
interference.
In the case of the Somalia inquiry, after the government had
caused half of the delay, it tells the commissioners they are out of
time.
What is the government going to do to ensure that Canadians
learn the truth, the whole truth and not just the Tory truth about the
tainted blood tragedy, the Somalia scandal and the botched airbus
investigation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the time
is rapidly coming to a point where the hon. leader of the Reform
Party is going to have to state clearly what his view of inquiries
should be.
As I have alluded to on a number of occasions in this place, in
September he was asking us to guarantee that we would close down
the Somalia inquiry before the election was held.
(1125 )
To go beyond that, it is very important for the Canadian people to
know whether the leader of the Reform Party believes that once an
inquiry has begun it should be allowed to continue until everyone
who is involved with the inquiry, either as a commissioner, a party
or a lawyer, is satisfied that everything has been done. If that is the
position the hon. leader of the Reform Party is taking, then he
should say so because it has huge implications for Canadians and
for inquiries to get to the truth in a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister does not answer my question, but I believe he
makes reference to my remarks to the Prime Minister when I asked
him to guarantee that the results of the Somalia inquiry would be
made available before the next election; not half a report, not a
cover-up report, not a whitewash report but results that answer the
questions.
Does the minister understand the word results: names, dates,
times, acts committed, acts not committed by ministers, Liberal
and Tory, deputy ministers, generals, high ranking officials who
had anything to do with murder and cover-up in Somalia?
How can the minister guarantee that those results, the whole
truth, will be forthcoming from an inquiry when government
induced delays and political interferences are making it impossible
for it to complete its work?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a lot of
Canadians are paying a lot of attention to this. I want to make sure,
again, that I provide the opportunity to the leader of the Reform
Party to explain to this place and to Canadians what he really
means.
What he said on September 17 was: ``To ensure there is no
ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister
guarantee to this House that the results of the Somalia inquiry will
be made fully public before the next election?''
He can play all the semantic games he wants. He knows that you
cannot go to an inquiry and force it to hear witnesses it does not
want to hear; nor can you force it to give results before the election
if the inquiry is not over. Results are provided when the work is
done, and that is what we have asked it to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister, as is his custom, resorts to bluster and fluster
to avoid the real question, what the government has done from day
one on Somalia and on Krever and on the botched airbus
investigation.
If I had to sum up the Liberal government's approach to integrity
and accountability-and that is what we are getting at-I would
have to say that it has gone from the red book to whitewash. The
Americans have Whitewater; what we have here is whitewash.
Answers to the Krever inquiry, whitewash; answers to what
happened in Somalia, whitewash.
Why has the government chosen to whitewash the facts rather
than give Canadians the truth about the tainted blood scandal and
the Somalia murder cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sooner or later
my hon. friend, the leader of the Reform Party, is going to have to
decide how he wants to do this.
This is the manual prepared by the Reform Party to guide it
through question period and its strategy for this session. This is a
direct quote from section 13 of the Reform manual: ``Questions
should not be used to get straight information. That is a primitive
use of question period that we have now passed''.
7835
What is the point of trying to get to the bottom of something
when the leader of the Reform Party says that he does not want
any straight answers? The shame of it is he cannot even ask a
straight question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court gave its decision on the disclosure
of the victim's records in sexual cases. In a five to four decision,
the majority of the justices ordered a stay of proceedings in a case
of sexual assault, because a rape crisis centre had destroyed the
records of the victim, which the accused had requested in his
defence.
How is it that the bill introduced in June 1996, which was
intended to severely limit access to victims' records, has not yet
been passed? This bill was introduced in June 1996, and still today
the minister has done nothing to move it along. Will the minister do
anything to hasten the passing of this bill?
(1130)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, Bill C-46
was introduced in June to resolve all issues relating to personal
records for complainants in criminal matters before the courts.
Last Tuesday, we began debate at second reading of this bill. I
hope that in the coming days and weeks we will complete debate at
second reading and be able to send the bill to committee.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since June 1996, the Supreme Court has had time to hand
down two decisions against victims. I can assure the minister of the
full co-operation of the official opposition in passing Bill C-46 as
quickly as possible.
Will the minister undertake to have Bill C-46 passed before the
next election to ensure victims of sexual crimes enjoy full
protection?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I undertake to do everything within
my power to ensure that the bill is passed as quickly as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister blurted out yesterday that the shredding of sensitive
documents from the blood committee was wrong. Those
documents happened to cover the period of time, 1982 to 1984,
when the Liberal government was in power.
Victims of this tragedy want to know why the shredder was
rewarded with a golden handshake instead of being punished, for
surely wrong is wrong.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would pay some
attention to what the government has done to this point.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Volpe: It is not a priority of the Reform Party to have
members in government respect to due process. What the member
will appreciate is that the department followed all the guidelines
dictated by-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Volpe: I gather you do not want the answer, but I am going
to give it to you anyway. It may not come down all that well. The
department has co-operated both with the inquiry and with the
commissioner with respect to access to information and in all cases
complied fully.
What the member will also want to appreciate is that the
department had in its possession a preliminary report on December
3, which is incumbent on governments. Members will appreciate
that kind of report has to satisfy the requirements under the Access
to Information Act which says that all investigations must be
conducted in private. Those under investigation have a right to
have a normal lifestyle until there is a final report.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary talks about co-operation with the inquiry.
Listen to the story that comes out of the commissioner's attempt to
get at the facts on the shredding.
The first thing the department did was try to block him in court
with a legal challenge. The second thing the department did was lie
to him to say that the documents did not even exist. Now the
commissioner has to go back. He is inquiring about why it blocked
him.
The victims simply ask one thing: why is this government
continually blocking the truth for them, not for me but for them?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member
opposite would try to draw sympathy for a very tragic situation.
He will recall-and if he does not, other members will-that it
was Liberal Party members on this side of the House who called for
the Krever inquiry in the first place. Second, they insisted it have
access to all the information. Third, the department did comply.
The hon. Minister of Health ensured all information would come
forward.
7836
(1135 )
All the preliminary recommendations from the Krever inquiry
were complied with immediately as they related to the federal
government. The only questions that came out of the Krever
inquiry led to this question. Once the Minister of Health received
the final report he acted on it immediately. That was on January 21
and on January 30 he handed that final report to the solicitor
general.
There is no cover-up. Wake up.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the deputy prime minister.
On the issue of the cancellation of the Pearson airport
privatization deal, the transport minister confirmed that the
government is ready to settle out of court with the Pearson
developers. Also, we have learned that more than four tentative out
of court settlements had been negotiated between the developers
and the federal government but that, each time, the deal was
rejected by the prime minister's office.
Will the government acknowledge that it is secretly negotiating
with the Pearson developers an out of court settlement that could
cost between $85 million and $100 million to Quebec and
Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on a number
premises which in fact are totally speculative and in many cases
wrong.
I can assure him that I have absolutely no knowledge of any
negotiations currently taking place with Pearson airport's T1 and
T2 corporation.
Obviously in any legal dispute there is the possibility of a
settlement. As a general rule it is in the best interest of parties to
arrange for settlement out of court. But I have absolutely no
knowledge of any such discussions taking place at the present time.
The question simply is based on false information and is
inaccurate.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that the government's
current strategy is to play for time before the next elections, even if
that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not understand why the Bloc which up to now has had
a much more precise and specific approach to this question should
now be adopting Reform Party tactics.
The assumption that there are hundreds of millions of dollars out
there which are simply going to be picked up by this consortium is
false. Were it true that the company is losing all this money it
would obviously mean at the same time that the contract that was
originally signed was not one in good faith, not one that should
have been signed. The government in declaring that was against the
public interest is entirely correct.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today's
unemployment figures have exposed the appalling Liberal-Tory
record on job creation. Every time these figures come out we hear
the finance minister proclaim how well they are doing compared
with the G-7. But the facts simply do not bear that out.
In fact, according to G-7 figures Japan, the U.S. and Britain all
have far better records with respect to unemployment than Canada
has. Canada's unemployment rate at 9.7 per cent today is much
higher than the OECD average of 8.5 per cent.
For the 76th month in a row we have had unemployment well
above 9 per cent. The Liberals have had three and a half years to fix
this problem. How in the world can the finance minister explain the
government's disastrous performance in keeping its promise of
jobs, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question the hon.
member raises is one of extreme importance. Jobs are the priority
for our government. The labour force survey that just came out
which showed only an increase of 5,000 jobs in the last month was
disappointing.
But let me add that there are some very positive items in that
report. There were 32,000 full time jobs created last month. There
have been 91,000 jobs created since last September, just in the last
few months. Almost all the forecasters indicate that this year will
be a strong job growth year, a strong economic growth year.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
fine rhetoric, but frankly it does not pay the rent. I would suggest
that the only jobs the minister is concerned about are Liberal jobs,
which is why there is such a theme of cover-up in this place.
In three and a half years the government has raised taxes 35
times. It sucked up another $24 billion from taxpayers. That is the
reality.
7837
(1140 )
When is the finance minister going to get it through his head that
the high tax policies in this country are killing Canadian jobs?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when are members of
the Reform Party going to get it through through their heads that
lowering taxes for the wealthy and increasing taxes for the poor is
not going to create jobs. It is going to destroy jobs. That is the basis
for the tax policy of the Reform Party.
The policies of the government have created almost 800,000 jobs
in the past three years and that is a good record.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
One of the recommendations of the recent task force on
disability issues calls on the Department of Human Resources
Development to recommit itself to delivering mainstream
programs in a way that includes Canadians with disabilities.
What actions have been or will be taken by the department to
assure Canadians with disabilities that commitment will hold true
throughout the department, throughout the regions and throughout
local HRD offices across Canada.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has
always taken a leadership role in addressing the interests of persons
with disabilities. We had a very impressive task force on which the
member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury has actually helped us. I
thank him very much for his creativity and for his advice on this
issue.
That is the reason why the vocational rehabilitation of disabled
persons program received an extension until March 1998. We have
made assisting persons with disabilities one of the key priorities of
the work of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and
Renewal in tasks that we are doing with the provinces as well.
In addition, I have tasked my senior officials to develop action
plans for HRDC to ensure that we move forward and integrate the
disability issues across all of our programs and all of businesses
across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The present Prime Minister, in referring to the privatization of
Pearson airport during the last election campaign, said that the
promoters would, and I quote, ``initiate projects that would be
worth up to $200 million annually''. However, lawyers for the
federal government are now in court to try and prove that the
profits of private promoters at Pearson were in no way excessive,
but their experts claim that the promoters could have lost as much
as $180 million.
Are we to conclude from the government's defence in the
Pearson saga that Ottawa cancelled an agreement that would have
been profitable for Canadian taxpayers and for travellers, and all
this simply to support the partisan commitments of the Prime
Minister?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this question and others from the Bloc Quebecois indicate
that Bloc members fail to understand what the Pearson case is all
about.
The previous government negotiated a less than perfect
agreement on Pearson with a private company. As soon as it came
to power, our government tried to repair the damage that was done
by cancelling the agreement. We have just ceded Pearson to a
non-profit airport authority, like the ones in Montreal, Vancouver,
Calgary, Edmonton and other locations.
We have never stopped saying we will accept only a fair
agreement between the complainants and the taxpayers.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we realize that all this may cost taxpayers tens of
millions of dollars, without ever getting at the truth of the matter,
as in other cases now being pursued.
Why will the minister not admit that his government preferred to
make some political hay out of attacking the Conservatives in this
petty way instead of getting down to the bottom of all this and
ordering a public inquiry, something the Bloc Quebecois has been
demanding for more than three years? Is the present government
afraid that a public inquiry would reveal cases of patronage among
Liberals as well as Conservatives?
(1145)
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member and his party still fail to understand the
present situation. The complainants are more interested in
obtaining compensation for what they see as foregone profits.
Their demands are unreasonable.
7838
The government twice introduced legislation to provide for an
acceptable settlement, legislation that was defeated in the Senate
with its Conservative majority.
I repeat that we do not intend to pay compensation for so-called
profits that did not materialize and which are totally hypothetical.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture.
Grain movement on the prairies is at a standstill, causing farmers
real hardship. The government removed the Crow subsidy on grain
freight, more than doubling farmers' freight costs with a promise
that things would work better. Does the agriculture minister believe
that things are working better, as he promised?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the linkage the hon.
gentleman draws between the former Crow subsidy and the
situation with grain movement currently on the prairies is not a
valid or appropriate linkage at all.
As I indicated yesterday in the House in response to a question
from the NDP, the facts are that we have had a very difficult winter
season, with heavy snowfalls and particularly cold temperatures. I
went on to observe that that in itself cannot be regarded as a valid
excuse.
The railways have an obligation to provide sufficient locomotive
power to pull the grain from the prairies through the Rockies to the
port positions and also eastward to Thunder Bay. Obviously the
level of performance in the last number of weeks has not been
satisfactory and the railways are obliged to do a better job.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, farmers
and Reform MPs stressed the importance of dealing with the rail
car allocation problem, removing fixed freight rates and making
other changes to introduce competition into the system before
removing the Crow benefit and before the new transportation act
was signed.
The minister refused to do this and must be held accountable.
Every day grain does not move farmers pay dearly. What will the
minister do to fix this mess that his government has imposed on
farmers? What is he going to do to get grain moving again?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the railways have indicated they
are taking steps to add to the locomotive power available in
western Canada for grain movement. That is a welcome
development. It may not in itself be enough.
I will be consulting with them in the days immediately ahead as
well as with other players in the grains industry, including the
Canadian Wheat Board, to determine what additional steps can and
should be taken to catch up on the backlog and make sure that by
the end of this shipping season the backlog has been overcome.
Beyond that, all of the players in the grains industry have to
work harder to make sure this does not become a recurring pattern
in our grain transportation system. The railways should be aware
that it is cold every January, it snows every January and they have
to have the machinery in place to cope with it.
* * *
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
This weekend the minister will be meeting with the leaders of
Canada's cultural sector. Could she tell us what she intends to
achieve from this meeting?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for the question. I know in his capacity as the chair of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage he will be working very
hard toward an overarching cultural policy.
Among the things we want to achieve this weekend are to listen
to the leaders of the Canadian cultural community, to be open to
change and at the same time to reinforce the fact that for the last 25
years we have built a strong critical mass of Canadian artists and
Canadian success stories because of the policies we have
introduced as a government.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I toured Millhaven penitentiary. To put it lightly, the
place is a bloody mess. Prisoners have smashed water lines. They
have strewn debris from range to range. They have demolished
concrete walls. They have assaulted guards and prison staff by
projecting feces and urine at them. This situation is now into its
17th day with total lock-down, riot squad on full stand-by; all the
while these violent thugs are demanding better food and more
recreation. They even get to watch cable TV in their lock-up.
(1150)
When is the Solicitor General of Canada going to restore order
and discipline by stripping the cells bare, providing only the basics
and auctioning off the prisoners' TV and entertainment units to pay
for the damage?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that earlier this week
7839
my hon. colleague, the solicitor general, met with the acting
commissioner of corrections to ensure that the matter was fully
reported to the solicitor general.
She informed my colleague that she and the director general of
security would be at the institution this week to ensure that order is
being maintained and that Correctional Service Canada has and is
putting in place a plan to ensure the security of the staff as well as
the inmates.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
people in this country are fed up with government inaction and
government sponsored prisoners' rights. Now prison officials are
talking about negotiating a settlement, if you will, with the
prisoners at Millhaven.
The word of the day is compromise, not responsibility.
Negotiations with inmates are absolutely foolhardy.
Why does the solicitor general support criminals and their
demands for more rights and not victims' rights? Where is the
responsibility?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House,
everything is being done to restore order to the prison and to assure
the safety and security of staff and inmates.
As the authorities look at solutions to these difficulties, I doubt
very much that they will be attracted by the simple minded,
medieval and repressive approaches advocated by the hon.
member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The unemployment rate among young people has been a disaster
throughout 1996 and appears to be heading for a worse showing
this year.
Last march in the budget speech the government announced
$315 million over three years for youth programs. A year later,
nothing has happened, even though the Minister of Human
Resources Development said on October 11, and I quote: ``This fall
we intend to announce a youth initiative''. I have the feeling the
government is waiting for young people to grow old because one
year after it promised new initiatives, we are still waiting.
My question is the same one as six months ago: What is the
minister waiting for to release the funds sitting unused in the
government's coffers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean for his extremely timely question.
Youth unemployment is a great concern for the government. This
is the reason why the finance minister allocated an additional $315
million to all other programs we have to help young people enter
the job market in a more appealing manner.
I must say that the situation of young people looking for work is
something we are extremely concerned with. There are are several
in my own riding and I know how important it is for young people
not to lose hope.
This coming week, we are planning-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would be pleased to tell
the member for Lac-Saint-Jean that the impatience he has been
showing will soon be addressed as I made sure that the programs
we are going to make public within the next few days will be
extremely well designed in partnership with the private sector.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
often say that young people are not only our future, they are our
present. For once, the minister seems to be telling us that, six
months late, he is finally going to announce programs for young
people. I am starting to believe that it takes an election for this
government to spring into action.
(1155)
Does the minister not think that he should include all the youth
programs, especially their funding, in the ongoing
federal-provincial negotiations on active employment measures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the
opportunity by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean to stress again our
government's commitment to disentangle all the issues relating to
training and active employment measures aimed at making it easier
to enter the job market.
As for the employment programs we are hoping to announce
within the next few days, you will see that they are in partnership
with the private sector. These programs come very clearly under
the federal government's responsibilities, under our constitutional
jurisdiction. They will bring hope and help to young Canadians.
What we need in our society is to give young people the
opportunity to get experience. As a society we need their
exuberance.
7840
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been very interesting to watch the front bench of the Liberals as
they have brought their cultural policy closer and closer to the
position of the Reform Party. For example, I thank the defence
minister for taking the position that the Reform Party has with
respect to the CBC. Thank you. That is good common sense.
With respect to the international trade minister, he certainly
brings some common sense to this.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. At this
meeting she is convening of the cultural elite in Canada, is she
going to bring some forward thinking via the trade minister? As a
matter of fact, has she issued an invitation to the trade minister to
attend this meeting so that we can get some common sense for a
change?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Abbott: Now we are getting some place.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the labour
force statistics that have been recently issued show that the
employment participation rate for all Canadians hovers between 63
per cent and 64 per cent, and yet we have watched as the
participation rate for young Canadians has dropped from 62.7 per
cent in 1989 to 48.8 per cent in 1996.
Why has the government chosen over the past three and a half
years to ignore the needs of young Canadians for work?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. The
problems of young Canadians who are looking for work are
something about which we are extremely concerned and want to do
our very best.
The government allocated in the 1996 budget $315 million in
supplements to all programs that we have to address their particular
needs. I hope to be in a position to shortly announce programs that
have been designed, in partnership with the private sector, that
address the needs of young Canadians who are looking for work. If
they need experience, we as a society can give it to them. We need
their exuberance and their education.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As more than 400,000 refugees remain caught in the middle in
eastern Zaire, the crisis between government forces and rebels
keeps intensifying every day. Humanitarian agencies are
evacuating high risk areas, while refugees flee their camps without
any assistance or food. The situation is catastrophic, as we could
see on television yesterday.
Since the government wanted to take a leadership role when the
crisis first started in November, could the Deputy Prime Minister
tell us today if her government will be as diligent now that the
crisis in Zaire is threatening the safety, and even the lives, of the
hundreds of thousands of refugees who are still in Zaire?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has a continuing
and deep concern about the crisis in Rwanda. It was our hope that
with the new government and the return of the refugees. the
situation would improve. However, in the last few days we have
been alarmed at the massacre of relief workers. It is of great
concern to Canada.
We had been prepared to send a further 10 Canadian human
rights' monitors to the situation. We have had to suspend sending
these very capable Canadians to the situation given the crisis.
(1200 )
I have just come to the House this morning from a consultation
with about 200 non-government organizations, academics and
government officials to discuss peace building in situations such as
that found in Rwanda and the Great Lakes area.
The week after next there will be a debate in the United Nations,
in which Canada will participate fully, to discuss the ongoing crisis
in Rwanda. We are very concerned. We called in the Rwandan
ambassador yesterday. We are doing so again today to discuss this
ongoing issue. We will be happy to keep the House abreast of what
we are doing.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to acknowledge the presence in the
gallery of the hon. Speaker of the legislature of the province of
Ontario, the hon. Chris Stockwell.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
7841
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as you
know, the Reform Party is holding a youth conference this
weekend. We would like to recognize many of the youth who are
here today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7841
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, further to a request
made in an exchange between the Minister of Finance and his
colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot on
Wednesday, February 5, I am pleased to table a list of tax fairness
measures introduced by this government over the last three years.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-368, an act to amend the Export Development Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill flows directly from a chapter in
the red book which is dedicated to sustainable development. It is
intended to encourage the Export Development Corporation,
ministers of the crown, and the governor in council to exercise
powers under the Export Development Act and when they do so to
promote sustainable development in the exercise of their respective
powers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition on behalf
of residents of my riding of Richmond-Wolfe, Sherbrooke and
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead asking for a better highway
system.
The petitioners call the House's attention to the fact that the
national highway policy study identified job creation, economic
development and, more importantly, saving lives, preventing injury
and much lower congestion as benefits of the proposed national
highway program.
I wish to table this petition on behalf of all petitioners.
(1205)
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions.
The first one is signed by 75 constituents of my riding. They are
asking Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be
held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not
they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on
demand.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 25 people from my riding. The
petitioners are requesting Parliament to not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is signed by approximately 60 people from my riding.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour of
presenting a petition that Parliament ensure that visitors who abuse
the privilege of a member of Parliament by filing a refugee claim
be deported and that their accomplices face legal proceedings.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a second petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36, that Parliament encourage the
establishment of an energy pricing review commission to keep the
pricing of gasoline and other energy products in check.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition concerns the national infrastructure program and is
supported by the Canadian Automobile Association. The
petitioners are calling on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial government to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions asking that the national highway system upgrading be
made possible through government measures.
7842
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition asks the federal government to not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next budget.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my third petition
opposes the addition of the term sexual orientation to the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two more
petitions. One is that the federal government take back its power to
create money without interest or debt.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my final batch of
petitions requests that Parliament nullify article 21 of the
Canada-U.S. tax treaty as it pertains to the taxing at source to pay
credit to non-residents.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under Standing Orders
78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading
stage of Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act,
the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related Acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to
allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest was completing his question.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to refresh the memories of hon. members, this debate has
to do with the events which took place in Somalia.
Specifically, I was asking the minister in response to his speech
in this debate questions pertaining to ministerial responsibility, the
relationship between defence command headquarters, the deputy
minister, the chief of defence staff and the then minister of defence,
Kim Campbell.
The terrible events of March 16 were reported to the minister by
the chief of defence staff, John Anderson, and the deputy minister,
Mr. Fowler, on March 18, two days later. At that time the minister
of defence was not informed that there was a potential problem
with criminality.
(1210 )
The minister of defence subsequently read that at that very time,
on March 18, John Anderson had been reported in Maclean's
magazine as saying that there was a suspicion of criminal intent
from the beginning. That means either the chief of defence staff or
the deputy minister misled or were totally incompetent in advising
the minister, the civilian authority to whom they were responsible.
It was not until March 31, almost two weeks later, that the minister
of defence was informed of the events that took place.
That may be incompetence on the minister's part. It may be
incompetence on the deputy minister's part. But there was
incompetence. It was either gross incompetence or a cover-up to
protect the minister.
The deputy minister, Mr. Fowler, retained the confidence of the
government and was appointed to a high ranking position at the
United Nations. Now either Mr. Fowler was lying or covering up,
or he misled, but why would this cover-up have started in the first
place and be allowed to continue? And why would a person who
was involved in it enjoy the continued confidence of the
government?
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman who has put
the question is a very, very serious member of Parliament and
understands the implications of my trying to comment on the
events he has explained. Please let me try to respond. I do not want
to be evasive in any way but there are implications to the
7843
statements made by the hon. member that obviously are troubling
to the member and to others.
I want to reiterate to the hon. member that there is absolutely
nothing which precludes the commissioners of the inquiry calling
the current ambassador for Canada to the United Nations, or the
former Prime Minister of Canada who is now consul general in Los
Angeles, or anyone else. I know it has been suggested that there is
not sufficient time. However, even as we speak today there is still a
lot of time between now and the end of March with the commission
of inquiry to report by the end of June.
Although I have been extremely meticulous in not getting
involved in trying to set the agenda in the sense of recommending
that witnesses be heard, or commenting on testimony that may be
heard or allegations that may have been made, I understand the
hon. member's concerns. I think that the appropriate approach to
this is for him and members of his party to make clear who they
think should be heard from because of the importance of the
testimony that might be forthcoming.
I would simply conclude my response to the hon. member by
saying that the Minister of National Defence at the time this
incident is alleged to have occurred subsequently became the Prime
Minister of Canada. Let us be clear that the Prime Minister of
Canada at that time, prior to the election of our government in late
October of 1993, continued to provide support to that same deputy
minister who remained in the position where he was when she was
Minister of National Defence. I really do not think I can comment
on why that occurred or whether or not there was any fault in the
way the deputy minister communicated with the then Minister of
National Defence who subsequently became the boss of everyone
as the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to the minister, I would like to quote Justice Létourneau yesterday
with regard to their ability to hear any witness they want to hear. He
said: ``It is not true in this respect that we have plenty of time to
call witnesses such as Mr. Fowler and Mr. Anderson. Evidence on
such important matters presented without the possibility of real or
substantial testing risks producing a whitewash of the alleged
cover-up rather than an investigation of it''.
I equate the inquiry somewhat to a jigsaw puzzle. In a jigsaw
puzzle there is a key piece and once that key piece is in place, the
thing makes sense and comes together.
I suggest to the minister that it is not reasonable for the inquiry
to go to the witnesses at the end of the chain before they have
established the rest of the pattern, so that when they ask their
questions they are based on evidence that is directly related to the
individual they are questioning.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I understand this hon. member as well
and his deep interest in this matter.
I am very concerned that perhaps there is an implication, and if it
is not correct I am sure the hon. member will have ample
opportunity to clarify it, that somehow at this stage in February
1997, a long time after the incidents occurred in Somalia, we
should still be proceeding on the basis that every witness, every
document, every incident should be pursued until all of the parties
involved have been included by the commissioners. As the hon.
member knows, there are a huge number of witnesses who have
been heard, in excess of 100. There are over 50 or 60 lawyers
involved on a continuous basis.
(1215)
I do not believe I can comment on the justices' remarks with
respect to how much time they have to call witnesses. There have
been witnesses who have been heard for very lengthy periods of
time. There have been efforts made to pursue certain avenues that I
have never commented on. Surely Canadians understand one thing,
that between now and the end of March nothing precludes the
commissioners' hearing those people they feel are appropriate in
that timeframe based on their own agenda.
If they feel that somehow that would distort or convolute the
process that is entirely their prerogative. It is not the view that I
hold, nor does the government hold that view. Seriously, if anyone
is suggesting that this commission of inquiry should continue until
everybody is totally satisfied that every question has been
answered to their satisfaction, I do not think anyone believes it
would end before the end of this century.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to carry on from the minister's comments. I, as much as
anyone, wish this inquiry had been concluded a year ago. I
certainly do not want to see it extended forever but I do want to see
the answers come out. I think it is vital that the inquiry be allowed
to complete its business.
I want to go on record and recognize the excellent work our
armed forces do. They have been committed in any number of
places, uncomfortable, dangerous and far flung. They have
committed themselves time and time again to the duty to which
they have been assigned. When they commit themselves, they
commit themselves very well. It works.
Therefore I think it is a shame that unhappily the Somali debacle
has cast a cloud over the whole military force, even for me. After
36 years of service in the air force I left very proud of my service
there. I was a senior officer when I left and now I find that people
who know this almost ask the question ``were you one of those who
covers up and does not accept responsibility and does this?'' Most
7844
senior officers do accept their responsibilities. They are good
leaders.
The people who have unhappily been accused in this instance are
left sort of hanging out to dry unless their case can be heard in
completeness and therefore they can be found either absolutely
innocent of any wrongdoing or be found to have been inadequate in
some way.
The Liberal government initially resisted the inquiry being
compiled at all. It said no, the situation is being investigated by the
defence department. It was only when Major Armstrong came forth
in November 1994 that the Minister of National Defence at that
time was forced to order an inquiry. Even then with the interlude of
the Christmas break it was sometime in the following year before
he did it and he announced it as an inquiry under the National
Defence Act. This means that once again the inquiry would be
conducted behind closed doors. It would not be open to the public.
On March 20 I demanded in this House that the investigation be
held under the Inquiries Act rather than the National Defence Act.
The next day the minister, and I congratulate him for doing so, saw
the wisdom of this and changed the inquiry to come under the
Inquiries Act, which made it open to the public.
Now we are having the inquiry curtailed when it gets into the
final stages of its job. First of all, it was supposed to investigate the
deployment to Somali before the predeployment phase, the during
phase and the post phase, the after phase. It has completed the
predeployment phase. It is nearing the end of its investigation into
the deployment phase. But it will not be able to investigate the
post-deployment phase because of the arbitrary curtailment of the
inquiry put in by the Minister of National Defence.
(1220)
I see this as blatant political interference in a judicial inquiry.
The minister by his action is denying people who have had
accusations flung against them to be heard in full, to have justice
done them. That seems unfair. Justice Latourneau has said that if he
cannot hear people, he will make no judgment. I think that is
absolutely right. If we have not given people a chance to testify to
be heard, to be examined, then it is not fair to find them.
What this means is that there may be people who are responsible
and were responsible who will not be held accountable for their
actions. I think that is not fair.
Also, look at what this decision is going to mean to future
inquiries. What will people say when they are asked to participate
on an inquiry? They will say ``Am I going to get two-thirds of the
inquiry? Will I involve myself in this thing which might turn out to
be a fiasco that is cut short because of the arbitrary whim of some
political minister?'' If that does happen, we are going to lose in
Canada a tremendous capability to examine and assure that justice
is being done in all aspects of government. It goes to the integrity,
the impartiality and the independence of the commission.
The minister mentioned in his comments if the Reform Party
wanted to suggest to the commissioners some witnesses we think
they should hear. To me that is me interfering with the inquiry. The
commissioners have established a standing for various people. I
assume they have done that in recognition of the information and
the facts this individual has to present to the commission and others
have been denied. It is not for me to tell the commissioners how to
do their job.
Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention that I will be splitting my
time with the member for Edmonton Southwest.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member then will have about
four minutes left.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you. Also, I would like to point out that this
inquiry has been hamstrung by the very people it is investigating to
a large extent. Documents were withheld, information was slow to
come forward. Then we had that magic Easter egg hunt where
people were shut down for a day and they went through all their
files and they amassed a whole gigantic bunch of information that
was then presented to the commission. I understand there were
absolutely thousands of pages of testimony that the commission
then had to do through, page by page, because it cannot overlook
anything. It might omit something important. This was a deliberate
withholding of evidence for the commission and it caused a delay.
No one doubts that the problem in Somalia was one of command
and control. That command and control stretched from the theatre
right the way back to national defence headquarters in Ottawa. It
also had to do with leadership and discipline. The people on the
ground obviously were not properly led nor were they properly
disciplined. We are hearing stories of things that went on that are
just unacceptable, whether it be in an operational situation or
anywhere.
When the murder of Shidane Arone took place, it was in a
relatively small compound with at least 80 people in the vicinity
who could not have helped but heard what was going on. Yet none
of them intervened, and I do not understand why.
Where was the platoon commander, where was the regimental
sergeant-major, where was the company sergeant-major, where was
the company commander? How could they let this go on and not
interfere or intervene? I know there were a number of people who
actually went into the bunker and saw this going on and they chose
not to take action. This is totally unacceptable and should not have
been allowed.
The problem I think is that we cannot fix something we do not
know is broken. We have to find out what has gone wrong before
we can say ``this is the problem, now we can fix it''. I do not know
just how that can be accomplished unless we go right to the end of
the chain and say ``This is what happened. This was the input. This
7845
was how it was dealt with''. If the dealing with it was inadequate,
then it is only appropriate that we finish it.
(1225 )
I want to go to the minister's comments with regard to my
leader's submission. He has mentioned a number of times. I quote
the leader of the Reform Party from Hansard on September 17,
1996, page 4308: ``Mr. Speaker, to ensure there is no ultimate
cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister guarantee
to this House that the results of the inquiry will be made fully
public before the next federal election?'' In no way does this
suggest that the inquiry should be shut down. It merely says
completed.
The Prime Minister and his government were elected in October
1993 for five years, which gives them until October 1998. My
leader does not call the election; the Prime Minister calls the
election, and he can call it whenever he wants to. If he is not afraid
of the inquiry coming out, why does he not wait until the inquiry
reports and then call the election?
I will now propose an amendment to the motion.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word ``inquiry''
and adding the following:
``and directing the commission to make its final report as soon as possible but not
later than December 31, 1997''.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is in order.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Saanich-Gulf
Islands, who has over 36 years of military experience, to explore
further the notion of the culture that allowed the horrific events of
March 16 to happen and the horrific events that took place before
March 16.
In the member's military experience is it possible in a closed
environment of a military base for a corporal to find himself in a
situation in a bunker with nobody else knowing about it, with
nobody else accepting responsibility other than one sergeant?
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I have said this before and I believe it
in my heart. If I had been the commander on scene this would not
have happened. It would not have happened because my personnel
would have known that I would not allow it to happen. It would not
be acceptable to me.
The member for Edmonton Southwest has put his finger on a lot
of the problem. Problems were evident in the airborne regiment
before it was deployed. These problems were made known to
higher headquarters, yet the people who were recommended to be
left at home were still taken there. It was one of those people who
was recommended to be left at home who was found to have
committed the crime.
Obviously there is a problem somewhere along the line.
(1230 )
Was it in Petawawa? Was it at land force headquarters in
Ontario? Was it at national defence headquarters? Where was it? I
am not sure. I guess the commission has that information.
Obviously the military culture does not accept this sort of
behaviour as being normal.
What is required is to establish how this aberration happened,
how it was allowed to happen and who was responsible for having
not taken action to rectify it.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I want to take
it in a slightly different direction and try to put a somewhat more
human face on the actual tragedy that befell one particular
individual, Kyle Brown.
I would also like to show how the terrible circumstances of
March 16, 1993 in Somalia inextricably linked three lives and how
these lives were affected so differently as a result of it. There was
the Somalia teenager, Shidane Arone, who was tortured and killed,
for which there is no excuse; Robert Fowler, who was at that time
the deputy minister of defence; and Kyle Brown, who at that time
was a corporal in the Canadian Armed Forces serving in Somalia.
I joined the navy when I was 17. When I joined the navy it was
really the first time in my life that I learned a sense of brotherhood.
It was the first time in my life that I ever felt I was just the same as
everyone else because I grew up on the other side of the tracks. As
with many people who are in the military for the first time, it is the
first time that they really get a foundation. One of the tragedies is
the fact that we do not have a military any longer that allows for
this kind of involvement, citizenship, renewal and growth.
I want to get back to the specific situation of trooper Kyle
Brown. He was born and raised in Alberta. When he was 14 years
of age, Kyle's mother died of a drug overdose. A year later his
father committed suicide. Kyle Brown and an elder sister raised
and helped look after a younger sibling. Kyle Brown was a
struggler and a fighter all his life. Kyle Brown did not come from a
privileged background. He came from a background that many
Canadians come from, of struggle, and joining the Canadian
Armed Forces was the pinnacle of his life. He was so proud of this
and worked so hard to get in. He did not get in right away. He had to
work to get into the armed forces.
I know something of the way the military works, having joined
the navy when I was 17. When I saw the results of what had
happened in Somalia I thought it was passing strange. It was
wrong. There was something inherently not correct in the fact that
the lowest ranking member found himself with five years in jail,
7846
yet the very people who allowed the culture to develop got
nothing. It just did not seem right.
When I was in the service, if the ship hit an iceberg the captain
was at fault. It did not matter who was on the bridge. It had to do
with responsibility. It goes all the way up the line to ministerial
responsibility. In our culture, in a greater sense, the fact is that we
as legislators or leaders accept the mantle of responsibility that
comes with leadership we must also accept responsibility.
I initiated a meeting with Kyle Brown because I wanted to speak
with him to find out what was going on but, more importantly, I
wanted to say to Kyle Brown: ``Look, Kyle, what went on is
inexcusable but you are not alone. Some of us know that we all bear
some responsibility for what has happened to you''.
I first met Kyle Brown when he was in the Edmonton maximum
security penal institution. It was the first time I had ever been in
such an institution. I went through all the checks and the clanging
doors to get in to see this man. At our very first meeting he was gun
shy because everybody he had encountered in a position of
authority had screwed him and had worked him over some way:
journalists who had used him for a story and had dropped him; the
military justice system that screwed him right from the beginning.
Kyle Brown, by turning over the film, incriminated himself and
prevented a cover-up from happening. This is the individual who
by knowingly incriminating himself prevented a cover-up from
happening, knowing full well that he would end up carrying the can
for it. Nobody else would. He ended up in jail.
(1235)
I believe that denotes character of the highest order. It is
character from a person who did not come from a privileged
background. Contrast that to the character of another person
involved in this, Robert Fowler. He came from a privileged
background. He had a position of high moral authority in our
nation. What did he do? He misled the Minister of National
Defence, to whom he was responsible, for one reason or another
and as a consequence he was left in his position, either because the
Prime Minister of the day was incompetent and did not remove him
or for another reason. That person is still enjoying the confidence
of the government.
I visited the person at the other end of this, the one that showed
character by incriminating himself to ensure that a cover-up did not
happen. He knew right from the beginning that what was going on
was wrong. He knew his participation in it was wrong. He
participated in it because of the culture of the regiment of which he
was a part. He was a minor serving person.
I saw him in jail. He had tears in his eyes. He said: ``I bear the
responsibility for this in the eyes of every single citizen of this
country. I am the lowest form of life. I joined the army and when I
went to Somalia I wanted to bring honour to our country. I wanted
to come back to Canada having brought glory to my country and to
my regiment. Instead I am in jail. Other people that were involved
in this are scurrying for cover. No one has accepted responsibility''.
The statement which I am about to quote is in response to
questions posed at a parole board hearing when Kyle Brown was at
Bowden waiting to get out. I would point out as well that Kyle
Brown had to pay for his defence himself. His sister went into debt
to pay for his defence because he had no confidence in the military
justice system. The first two counsel who went to Somalia took the
first two people in the line of the people who had been charged. The
other four people in line had no defence whatsoever. The first two
people got off. The other four got charged. After that, because they
are not stupid over there, they realized that anybody who came
forward with any information was charged, so no one else came
forward with information.
Kyle Brown said at his parole hearing: ``A soldier is taught to
obey orders without question. He is also taught that he has the
moral obligation not to execute an illegal command''. Kyle Brown
has said to me and to others: ``I got what I deserved. I knew better
and I should not have done it. I did it. I should have fought to
protect him. I was wrong. I accept the punishment I got''. But why
the hell did anybody else not end up in jail? Why did the person
who allowed the culture to develop not end up in jail? Why is Bob
Fowler, who was the deputy minister of defence who misled the
defence minister, at the United Nations representing our country?
Kyle Brown said further at his hearing: ``The thing that we are
not told is what to do in a situation where superiors not only give
illegal commands but execute them''. What do you do in a situation
in Somalia where the senior non-commissioned officers are going
around drunk? There is no leadership. There is no accountability.
Then the lowest ranking member of the armed forces ends up in
jail. What kind of a signal does that send to everybody else in the
armed forces? That is what we are talking about here.
(1240 )
We are talking about people in positions of authority accepting
the responsibility for their positions and not sloughing it off to
somebody else like the corporal who showed character while the
deputy minister showed none. That is what this is all about.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to congratulate the two Reform members who spoke on behalf of
their party.
I have had the pleasure of working with the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands whom, I think, is a true gentleman. The hon.
member was in the military for a number of years. He knows the
problems that plague the Canadian forces. We sat together on the
joint committee. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
7847
knows what he is talking about when he discusses the morale of our
troops.
I also want to congratulate the other member who spoke. I
believe these people, like us, want to get at the truth.
At this point in time, it is estimated that the inquiry will have
cost $25 million. However, the really sad thing is that we will still
not know exactly what happened after, Canadians will not know
how some tried to hide the facts, and this is an aberration.
Canadians can accept the spending of money, provided it is done
properly.
There is a problem in the Canadian forces. There are, and my
party certainly agrees, extraordinary people in the military. There
are people who work hard, but the morale of our troops is currently
being undermined, and we think it is coming from the top. This is
why we must do whatever is necessary.
What we are asking, and I see that the Reform Party agrees with
us, is for an extension of a few months, not 10 years, just a few
months.
I want to ask the hon. member if, based on his experience, he
believes the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are asking for a
reasonable extension. Does he think this would allow us to get at
the truth and then take the necessary steps to correct the situation?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, in my view the only way that we
will ever retain any confidence-not just us but the Canadian
people and the military-in it is to exorcise all the ghosts and
demons. No matter how long it takes and no matter how much it
costs, it will be worth it.
Let me bring one more instance into this. Sergeant Mark Boland
was asleep at the time that this took place. He was a section
commander. He accepted responsibility for what happened because
it happened on his watch. Even though he was not on site, these
people were under his direct command and he accepted
responsibility. He pleaded guilty to dereliction of responsibility
because it happened. He did a plea bargain and got nine months.
He is a career military person. He recognized it was wrong. The
military said: ``Okay, plead guilty. We will give you nine months
and you can get on with your life''. He got his nine months and then
the military appealed. Then he got over a year and they could then
kick him out.
Mark Boland was an exemplary career soldier. If the
commission wants to hear horror stories about what really went on
in Somalia it should interview him. Mark Boland was given a direct
order by a superior commissioned officer who was pissed out of his
mind to shoot a Somali in cold blood. He would not do it. All the
commission had to do is ask him.
Mark Boland does not have standing before the commission.
How can this possibly be? When the military police came to Mark
Boland's home in Petawawa to arrest him the second time, they did
so in front of his wife and children. He hauled him out of his home
with his children screaming: ``Daddy, what is happening? What is
going on?''
This was the kind of treatment afforded the lower deck as
differentiated from the treatment afforded the upper deck. That is
why there is a morale problem in the Canadian Armed Forces today
and people do not have to be rocket scientists to figure it out.
(1245)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, right
off the bat, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
``The most important asset of government is the confidence it
enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. This erosion of
confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the
behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant
style of political leadership. The people are irritated with
governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views,
or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed
doors.'' These wise words are not from me, but from the red book
of the Liberal Party of Canada. It goes on to say: ``A Liberal
government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in
the institutions of government.''
During the election campaign, the Liberal Party came out as a
model of integrity, advocating integrity and transparency, wanting
to restore the public confidence in politicians and their institutions.
Instead, Liberals have become masters of cover-ups, shady deals,
obfuscation, hidden and hypocritical actions.
It is with great pleasure that I support the motion put forward by
my hon. colleague from Shefford, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having
full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of
Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry
until December 31, 1997.
Just as the commission itself asked for.
As we all know, this inquiry was abruptly and prematurely
terminated by the defence minister and the federal government. We
have the right to ask why this commission of inquiry is not being
treated with the same tolerance usually shown other royal
commissions.
This decision is unprecedented. This is the first time a
government refuses to extend the mandate of a royal commission
or any
7848
other judicial inquiry. So it is quite normal that we should question
the motives behind this precedent, which will unfortunately go
down in history.
However, we are all the more puzzled when the commission
chief, Mr. Justice Létourneau, says that this deadline means that he
and the commission will be unable to get to the bottom of this
affair.
Thanks to our Liberal colleagues, Quebecers and Canadians will
not be able to get the full story on the role of the top army and
government brass in this affair. Once again, therefore, it is the little
guys who will pay, in this case, the lower ranks.
Just when the Somalia inquiry was getting to the meat of its
mandate, it is suddenly reined in. Why? ``Because it has already
cost the taxpayer too much'', is the defence minister's reply. And a
wonderfully deceptive reply it is, coming from a Liberal minister
whose government will soon call an election.
Of course, they trot out figures of $25 million, which may seem
huge to the ordinary person, but they neglect to say what they
include. The amount is actually more like $14 million, when you
deduct the cost of legal representation for certain witnesses, and the
$10 million spent by the Department of National Defence getting
ready for the inquiry.
In addition, if the costs of this commission are compared with
those of commissions held over the last 15 years, it can be seen that
this latest one is not out of line, far from it. As an example, the
1994 commission on new reproductive technologies cost the
taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada exactly $29,726,730, while the
commission on aboriginal peoples, which ran from 1991 to 1996,
apparently cost the astronomical sum of $51,220,732.
(1250)
As you can see, the first point raised by the minister regarding
the fact that the Somalia inquiry was costing too much simply has
no basis in fact.
They also referred to the time involved. As I said earlier, the
commission on aboriginal peoples went on for five years; the
commission on new reproductive technologies took four years; the
commission on the future of the Toronto harbour area-imagine,
the future of the Toronto harbour area-nearly four years; and this
one, which goes to the very heart of organization and discipline
within the Canadian armed forces is taking too long? This
argument does not hold water.
This is like hiring a detective to investigate a somewhat
unsavoury situation, and after a while, when the detective has
almost found what he was looking for, I tell him ``Listen, you
already cost me $10,000. This is getting too expensive. We are
going to stop there'', although I know perfectly well the detective is
about to find out the truth. ``Besides, it is taking too long. I can
wait no longer. I must find a way to deal with the problem''.
If I want the detective to stop his investigation at this point, it
may be because I realize he is about to discover that I am involved.
That is what we are talking about here.
It is important for the commission to use the available tools
carefully and with restraint, so as to shed every possible light on
the events, and to do so as efficiently as possible. We should not be
surprised that all this takes time.
And when a commission ends up looking for months on end at
documents that have been tampered with and when it is inundated
with thousands of documents that suddenly came to light, as
happened in this case, obviously this slows down the commission's
work. The government also tells us the procedure is too
time-consuming and that we have to get on with the solutions
instead of dwelling on the problems. But how can we find a
solution to a problem that must be further defined and clarified?
Unless of course we want to avoid shedding any light on the
problem we want to solve.
Did not the former Minister of National Defence promise that
the commission would have all the time and all the resources it
needed to get to the bottom of this issue? Since this involves
getting to the heart of the problem, and the heart of the problem is
the senior political and military authorities in this country, the
government prefers to skim the surface.
It would have been embarrassing for the Liberal government to
admit that Mr. Anderson, appointed by this government as
Canada's ambassador to NATO, Mr. Fowler, appointed by this
government as Canada's ambassador to the UN, and Ms. Campbell,
appointed by this government as consul general in Los Angeles,
had been involved in something illegal. Rather than asking these
VIPs, these honourable folks, to appear before the Somalia inquiry,
they terminated the commission so as to get off the hook.
I believe that the government's decision is motivated purely by a
desire to gain votes. The government has asked the commission to
wrap up its public hearings on March 31, and to table its final
report by June 30. There are rumours of a general election in early
June, with the 9th being mentioned. The Prime Minister has not
consulted me, of course, but there is talk of June 9. The public
hearings would, therefore, be over by the time the election is
called, and the government would not be embarrassed by the report
either, as it would be published after the election.
(1255)
If this is the case, if the government makes this kind of decision
purely for electoral reasons, and thinks that the voters will not
7849
remember the turpitude of the government when they mark their
ballots, well the Bloc Quebecois will be there to remind them.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the situation that we have before us we have seen
Canadians participate in Somalia. They were part of a team that
went in to take over a state that had failed. All the infrastructures,
political and otherwise, had gone and it was led by gangs.
Canadians followed the call of the United Nations and the United
States. The airborne battle group was sent to participate. It was
stationed at Belet Huen and the situation there was out of order. It
was under fire on many occasions. This was unlike any other
peacekeeping group, one where live bullets were being fired on a
regular basis. Thievery, looting and raiding of the group's lines
were a daily action. The group was under the kinds of stresses that
no other peacekeeping operation was under.
As a consequence, our Canadian soldiers undertook operation
deliverance as a humanitarian mission of unprecedented
complexity and difficulty. The environmental conditions were the
worst faced by Canadian personnel in war. There was 35 degree to
40 degree weather throughout the period and our troops contended
with sandstorms, venomous snakes, insects and the ever present
threat of malaria and dysentery.
Nature represented one threat. Our personnel were susceptible to
mortar and artillery fire, small arms fire as well as stonings and
swarmings. It was a dangerous duty.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the point of my
colleague's remarks. Is he speaking as part of questions and
comments or is he beginning his speech?
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There is only five minutes. I would ask
the hon. parliamentary secretary to make his comment or question
and wrap it up fairly quickly please.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been only three
minutes.
As part of the specific mission they secured an area of about
30,000 kilometres, escorted humanitarian convoys, carried out
extensive demining operations, destroyed or put under guard vast
quantities of weapons. But their condition did not end there.
They also did their best to improve the lives of the local
population. Let me give a few examples. At the Medina hospital at
Mogadishu the airborne did much the same in Belet Huen. Field
engineers fixed machinery, soldiers helped repair the local jail,
doctors and nurses from the battle group surgical team assisted the
staff at the international medical corps hospital. This is the side of
the story that does not get told.
They were awarded commendations by the Americans for
executing their job in a very professional manner as the best
operators in the field at that time.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence wanted to use this
period to begin his speech ahead of time. I do not hold it against
him.
The arguments he raised are totally irrelevant to the speech I just
made. He intimates that we do not in our speeches recognize the
worth of the job done by the military on bases and in missions
around the world and, particularly, in the case of the mission to
Somalia.
That is not the issue. This week, I heard the Minister of National
Defence giving a member of the Reform Party a dressing down,
saying that she lacked respect for the military because she raised
the question.
We are not questioning the quality of the work the military does
here and throughout the world, but rather the quality of the work of
this government, which is taking away the credibility of the
Canadian military.
(1300)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Shefford, who
is renowned for his integrity and perspicacity. If only these
qualities were contagious, because, as you know, in light of a
number of recent decisions, we have every right to criticize, be
concerned and demand an explanation. That is what opposition
days are for.
To those joining us, I would like to point out that we, as the
official opposition, an informed and responsible opposition, have
decided to ask this government to explain its actions in what has
now become the unfortunate Somalia scandal.
Let me remind everyone of what our motion states, so as to make
the terms of this debate perfectly clear. It reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having
full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of
Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry
until December 31, 1997.
I hope government members will rise and give us an explanation
on this. You know full well that Privy Council legislation provides
for the establishment of commissions of inquiry. Inherent to the
democratic process is this mechanism whereby outsiders, often
experts, are asked to look into a particular matter or contentious
issues.
7850
Is this something anyone from British Columbia to Quebec to
Newfoundland can be proud of? Can this government show
support for the unfortunate incidents that have taken place in
Somalia?
What is it all about? First of all, it involves people who have
died, were killed, murdered under mysterious circumstances. As
parliamentarians, we deal with foreign policy matters. The
members of this House, and government members in particular,
although there is a consensus around this, all of us, regardless of
our affiliation, have been recognized as believing in the
international community. Not only do we believe in the
international community, but we believe in sending people over,
who, through their action, presence, conviction or expertise, will be
able to help settle conflicts quickly or before they even start.
Will someone from the government tell us why, after it was
decided to deploy our forces in Somalia-where, I admit, the
situation was unclear-Canadian soldiers became involved in
murder and people were killed in their own country? This is what
we are talking about.
Of course, when we raise this issue, the minister adopts a
holier-than-thou attitude. He tries using his well known eloquence,
but it will sound hollow in the ballot box when Canadians render
their verdict on the attempted coverup by this government.
What we are asking for is simple. We are not trying to discredit
the military. We all know there are people who decided to join the
Canadian Armed Forces because it gave a meaning to their life.
These are honest, brilliant and studious people who made a career
choice. We do not question that. What we question is the way
decisions are made, the way the chain of command works. Why are
we faced with situations such as the one we are discussing today?
Our hope was that the government would get to the bottom of
this issue, and we will continue to urge it to do so. It is not true that
the inquiry was given every possible opportunity. We all know that
the inquiry went through all kinds of tribulations, that it had trouble
obtaining some documents.
(1305)
We all know the defence department did not offer the
co-operation it should have provided early on to help
commissioners get all the documents that would have allowed them
to do their work properly.
What is the government trying to hide? There is a long tradition
of commissions being set up and, generally speaking, the results
have been positive. One can think of the Laurendeau-Dunton
commission, which helped define Quebec's needs. As a rule,
commissions of inquiry are tools to first gain expertise and
knowledge, and then, ideally, to lead to very specific measures. We
could, with the material from this inquiry, if it is able to get to the
bottom of things, restructure, review the chain of command,
restructure the decision making process within the Canadian
Armed Forces.
It is sad. It is not a memorable day in a democracy when the
authorities, when one is an authoritarian minister as the defence
minister is, when one chooses to use one's power to intimidate.
When all is said and done, what has the minister decided? He has
decided to intimidate. The inquiry and its commissioners are told:
``You will not get to the bottom of things; you will not be given free
rein''.
It is true that it may call witnesses up until the month of March;
it is true that it may table a report in the month of June, but the
workload, all the documents that must be dealt with, the
complexity of the subject are such that time becomes a determining
factor in the commissioners' ability to tackle the full scope of the
matter.
There is nothing to be proud of in the lengths to which the
minister is going in his refusal to be transparent, because that is
what it boils down to. But you should have heard the Liberals on
the campaign trail talking about transparency, ethics and integrity.
It was one superlative after another when this government was
telling us how determined it was to govern differently. But each
time anything slightly controversial comes up, each time an
explanation is called for, we find ourselves up against an aging
government, worn down by time, whose instinct is to cover up and,
let it be said, not just to cover up but to forget about integrity.
There is still time because, thanks to the vigilance of the member
for Shefford and his colleagues, we are giving an opportunity to
this government, a government that will have to face the people in a
while, and you know how ready we are on this side of the House.
I see that the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle is once
again nodding his head. I hope he will vote in favour of the motion.
We are giving the government and all members an opportunity to
rise one after the other and put an end to this coverup operation, to
vote for integrity, for honesty, for transparency. And if these words
still mean something to the people on the government side, they
will vote in favour of our motion, allowing the commissioners to
get to the bottom of things, and they will grant the extension the
commissioners are requesting, because that is the right thing to do,
in light of what went on in Somalia.
I hope that the government members will take advantage of this
opportunity.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague, the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, with great interest.
Mr. Bergeron: Listening is not enough, understanding is needed
too.
7851
Mr. Bertrand: Exactly, I listened, and I understood.
If I may, I would like to make a few comments. It is true that the
Somalia inquiry is looking into a very complex matter, the events
that occurred in Somalia, what happened before the troops were
sent over, and what happened afterward, of course.
(1310)
We have always respected the inquiry's independence, and the
government has never commented on what ought to be looked into
by the Somalia inquiry, nor on the testimony given to it. Its
mandate was extended until the end of June 1997, which means that
it will have sat more than two years.
If, for internal reasons, the commission wants to hear testimony
which reflects the opposition's concerns, it is free to do so. We are
anxiously awaiting the final report in order to-
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the
member reading his speech, asking a question or making a
comment?
Mr. Bertrand: It is a comment, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: It is a very important point for the House,
but in our parliamentary system we do indeed have the right to read
notes. I regret this, personally, but it is up to the hon. members to
deal with the issue.
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, on this side of the
House, we are anxiously awaiting the final report of the inquiry in
order to implement its conclusions.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a model of
ingenious spontaneity. I have every respect for the hon. member,
and I am sure that if he looks at the Privy Council documents,
which I would urge him to read, that he will agree the Privy
Council admitted when the previous extensions were granted that
the estimates of the time it would take the commission to finish its
work had not been accurate.
What the hon. member should consider is this. At this stage, and
considering the importance of the subject-the hon. member must
never forget that human lives were involved-would he not prefer
to avoid any recurrence of this kind of situation in the future? And
if we are to avoid a recurrence, would the hon. member agree that it
is preferable to get to the bottom of all this and let the
commissioners do their job?
No one in this House has any reason to doubt the dedication of
the commissioners, so if they need more time to do their job, I
think the hon. member should be mindful of the point I just made,
show some maturity and keep an open mind, emphasizing the need
for transparency and integrity.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands has about a minute and his colleague has about a minute to
reply.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government was very keen to pursue the inquiry while it was
examining things that happened under the Tory mandate, but now
we are getting toward the post-deployment phase. Although the
events happened in March 1993, events followed and after the
October 1993 election when the Liberals were in power a
substantial amount happened since then.
Does the member see any connection between the fact that the
inquiry was fine when it was at arm's length but now that it is
getting closer it may be not so appropriate?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a quick mind,
as we all know, and of course we were making those connections.
We see a government that will be hard pressed to defend the
choices that were made. This takes us back to the chain of
command. The hon. member for Verchères pointed this out in his
comments on recent appointments and the politicians involved in
the way in the government managed this crisis after the deployment
in Somalia. We are very much aware of those connections.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it being 1.15 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions
necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 10, at the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to call it 1.30 p.m?
7852
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, before you call it 1.30 p.m., I think
you will find that there is unanimous consent for the hon. member
for Calgary Southwest to sponsor Bill C-341 instead of Motion No.
259 on the order of precedence.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposition of
the hon. member for St. Albert. Is there unanimous consent to
allow him to move the motion he has just made?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, could someone explain to me the
consequences of changing the order of priority?
The Deputy Speaker: It is up to the member for St. Albert to do
so.
[English]
Does the hon. member for St. Albert wish to clarify the matter
for his colleague?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the clarification is that there have
been some resignations in the House and in order to maintain the
order of precedence I have brought forward the request for
unanimous consent to make the changes on the order of
precedence.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we do not have unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Clearly, we do not have unanimous
consent in the House.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, before we declare it 1.30 p.m.-
An hon. member: No, no. Consent has not been given.
Mr. Bergeron: Shall we continue with the opposition day
debate, Mr. Speaker? That is the subject of my speech.
Before we call it 1.30 p.m., perhaps we could see whether there
are other speakers on this question among our colleagues, before
we go on to other things.
The Deputy Speaker: I fully understand what the member is
trying to say, but, unfortunately, or fortunately, the Standing Orders
provide that the vote must be taken at 1.15 p.m., and that is why we
had to have it then.
We seem to be in the doldrums. If we can declare it 1.30 p.m.
now, we can proceed with private members' business. Otherwise,
we are obliged to find something else to deal with for ten minutes.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have to admit I was
not paying too much attention, but our speaker is not here and I was
wondering if you could suspend the House for a few minutes until
we are ready to bring our speaker forward.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, we have a member from the great
province of British Columbia who is prepared to speak on the
motion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It seems we can now call it 1.30 p.m. Is it
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7852
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 2, 1966 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to address this issue today. The hon. member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley has moved a motion asking the
government to strengthen penalties for impaired driving offences
in order to enhance deterrence and bring the penalties into line with
the seriousness of the offence.
Let me say for the record that I support the motion of the hon.
member and I am happy to do so. I do, however, want to in my
speech today broaden the debate around this whole issue and say as
a starting point generally I support what works. I think the whole
issue of drunken driving and how to solve the issue of excessive
drinking and the problems that arise from it is a complicated one
and there are no simple solutions.
I support the member's concern for ensuring that penalties for
drunken driving are proportional to the crime. I believe that
whether penalties currently provided for in the Criminal Code are
proportional to the offence of drunken driving is a debatable point
and I look forward to this bill's being approved and passed on to
committee where it can be debated more fully.
In considering the deterrent effect of criminal laws and criminal
penalties we have to take into account the different types of people
who commit drinking and driving offences and how they might be
best influenced. Not everyone has the same motivation depending
on their age, their background and not everyone will be affected the
same way by a change in the law.
7853
I believe that people are deterred from drinking and driving by
a host of factors. Criminal law penalties for drinking and driving
are undoubtedly an important factor but, as I have said, not the
only factor.
The challenge is to find the point at which criminal penalties do
represent a strong deterrent and the point at which they do not. If
we stray beyond that point we risk a situation where we have little
return in terms of increased deterrence for the effort placed into
increasing the penalties. Such a situation would tell us that our
efforts to decrease drinking and driving could be better located in
other areas that would bring significantly greater deterrence.
There seems to be at least four different kinds of people who
commit drinking and driving crimes. I am not sure that all four
types would response positively simply because the criminal
penalties for drinking and driving crimes were increased from what
they are.
First, there are the young people who commit drinking and
driving crimes. Some of them are not even of legal drinking age.
For many of these, illicit drinking is a form of rebellion or an
expression of their growing desire to be an adult or a response to
peer pressure, or a combination of these factors and others. A
concurrent drinking and driving crime might simply by a response
to the same factors that precipitated the illicit drinking. With young
people who drink and drive there may be little or no thought about
any of the potential consequences of drinking and driving, whether
it be death, injury, criminal consequences or licence and insurance
consequences, even if there is the sensation that ``it won't happen
to me''; that well known teenage sense that they are invulnerable
may overcome good sense as it often does in other circumstances.
Perhaps increased deterrence might be best accomplished for
young persons through the use of peer counselling or public
education. I think it entirely possible that increased penalties under
the Criminal Code would be somewhat in the bottom half of the list
of measures that would actually deter these young people who
commit drinking and driving crimes.
It is doubtful to me that increased criminal penalties would have
any greater effect on the young person's decision about drinking
and driving than the current criminal penalties have.
A second type of person who commits drinking and driving
crime is the otherwise responsible adult drinker who in a moment
of bad judgment drinks too much and then makes the alcohol
impaired decision to drive or who drinks and then takes an
irresponsible but calculated risk to drive. I imagine that such
calculated risks typically focuses on the likelihood of detection by
the police, that any thought about personal safety or the safety of
others is put out of mind and does not enter the equation.
It seems to me that increasing the penalties for drinking and
driving crimes would not do much to deter such persons. They are
weighing out whether they will get caught. They are not concerned
that the minimum penalty is at present $300 or $1,000 or that they
might have to spend 30 days in jail as a minimum for a second
offence rather than the present 14 days for a second offence.
This group might be better deterred by focusing on certainty of
detection or alternatives to driving or on messages that will help
the individuals to think about small but unacceptable risk of death
or injury to self or others. In other words, we might be better off
instead of spending money on putting more people in jail, to spend
more money on police as a deterrence to drinking and driving.
Next, there would appear to be a group of people with unique
problems who choose to drink and drive. These are the alcoholics
who compound a drinking problem with driving after they drink.
I am careful to note that there are, on the other side of the matter,
some persons who are alcoholics who very responsibly choose not
to drive after they drink. They find other solutions to any
transportation needs they have after they have been drinking.
Perhaps conquering the underlying alcoholism provides the best
hope for alcoholics who drive after drinking. However, not all
alcoholics are prepared to admit that they have a problem that
requires treatment.
Certainly it seems important to encourage alternatives to driving
after drinking, given that many alcoholics are not prepared to admit
to a problem or to submit to treatment.
It should disturb all of us that if we are going to be sending more
people to jail we need also to put in more resources within the jails
so that they can bring in alcohol problems or drug abuse problems
so that at the end of the day we find something that actually does
work and helps solve the problem.
There is a fourth group of persons who commit drinking and
driving crimes. These are the people who simply do not care what
happens to themselves or to others as a result of their behaviour. If
they want to drink, they do and if they want to drive, they will. If
somebody gets killed or injured along the way, that is just the way
it goes.
Increasing the penalties for Criminal Code drinking and driving
offences would have no impact on this small but very frightening
group. Ultimately the decision about drinking and driving rests
with individuals of all types and minds.
7854
For those of us who do not drink and drive, the solution seems
simple. If you drink, do not drive. If you cannot stay where you
are, have someone drive you. If you cannot walk or take a taxi,
then do not drink.
While to you and me the risk, however remote, of having a tragic
accident and killing someone if we were to drink and drive is likely
to be a great deterrent, there are those who are simply not deterred
by this thought, nor are they deterred by the criminal law
consequences, whether they be present penalties or increased
penalties.
For these reasons, rather than boosting criminal penalties, I
would prefer to see further development of drinking and driving
counter measures that aim to change attitudes to the point where
driving and drinking become completely unacceptable in all
circumstances, not only in those circumstances where death or
injury occurs.
This would necessarily involve finding ways to help people keep
their drinking separate from any driving. Efforts would have to be
specific to the characteristics of the different groups that I have
broadly set out so that there would be the greatest effect for the
work that is done.
More important, individuals would have to begin taking
responsibilities for what they do and say in their homes and
schools, offices and communities to prevent drinking and driving.
I am not suggesting that criminal law penalties have no deterrent
value; quite the contrary. We all know that they are. They are and
our present penalties already hold significant deterrent value.
However, it is far more effective to combine criminal penalties
with a range of other attempts to combat drinking and driving.
Training for service personnel in bars and the use of designated
non-drinking drivers are examples of efforts that help prevent
drinking and driving.
Public education that raises the issue and helps young people to
think of the consequences and to make the decision not to drive
after drinking before they find themselves at a party is another
example.
Families can encourage all family members to call for a ride
with no questions asked should they ever drink and not have a
method of transportation available. Similarly, families can
encourage their members to call for help rather than accept a ride
from a drinking driver.
In short, we have to make it socially unacceptable to drink and
drive. We are now getting there. No doubt there are people who
obey the law if only because it is the law. For others, the risk of
death or of killing someone else is a far greater deterrent than the
increased penalty that might be imposed under the criminal law in
the event that they were detected and convicted.
It is clear that the largest percentage of victims among persons
killed by drinking drivers are the drinking drivers themselves and
their passengers, rather than the other people in vehicles or on foot.
Rather than looking at someone who tries to keep someone else
from driving after drinking as a killjoy or a busybody, we need to
reach the point where intervening is the socially responsible thing
to do.
Criminal law can be asked to do its part to reduce drinking and
driving. In my view it already does. Whether it could do more is a
debatable point but we should not rely solely on the criminal law
and we should allow other systems and other players to play a role
in order to end the tragic waste brought about through drinking and
driving.
It is a trap to think that only increased penalties under the
criminal law can make a difference.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening
penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving
offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with
the seriousness of the offence.
At first glance we think that it is unacceptable for people to drive
while drunk, and they should be very severely penalized. This is the
kind of motion which demands that we look at the current situation
and ponder whether the proposed solution is adequate.
After having consulted with the member for
Berthier-Montcalm, our justice critic, and a number of experts on
the subject, we have come to realize that the current penalties are
quite significant and that the solution to this problem lies in more
education.
What we need is more adds, more visits to schools and social
clubs, we need to enlist the help of police officers who go into the
schools and people who have speaking engagements with social
clubs. This is the way to change behaviour, not by sentencing
people to a couple more years under the Criminal code. The
Criminal Code has already been strengthened and to further do it
will not necessarily solve the problem.
I would like to tell you about Operation Nez rouge, an initiative
which has been more productive than the punitive approach. It
originated in Quebec and is now in operation across Canada. It
came into being at Laval University, in Quebec City, as a fund
raiser for the swim team. It has been growing since and has been
extended to several provinces.
During the holidays, people tend to celebrate a lot and drink too
much; they can call ``Nez rouge'' to have somebody drive them
home. As a result the number of accidents has fallen sharply. This
is the kind of behaviour we want to promote. While providing
7855
transportation, we educate people. Over the years, they are getting
the message. Solutions for the future lie in this kind of initiatives.
I will make another point, which might have some relevance for
Reform members: in some provinces, deterrents are combined with
provisions under the Criminal Code. In Quebec, each time a person
is sentenced to a six month suspension of their driver's licence, the
agency responsible for the driver's licence system automatically
doubles the suspension, which goes up to a year. There already is a
deterrent. We have taken measures in this regard. Drivers are aware
of these regulations. The deterrent effect of losing one's licence is
doubled.
For repeat offenders, the penalty is stiffer. When someone is
caught a second time, the penalty is much stiffer. Instead of, say, a
six month suspension, the licence is suspended for a year or two; so
there is definitely an additional penalty. A second suspension
almost automatically means that the person will not be allowed to
drive for a very long time.
These are measures that already exist. They are in place and they
are effective. Adding to or strengthening the penalties set out in the
Criminal Code as proposed in the motion will not give better
results. The law already acts as a deterrent.
The kind of behaviour that leads a person to drive while he or she
is impaired and should not be driving requires preventive action.
People have to make it a habit not to let a relative or a friend leave
with the car when he or she is not fit to drive. Strengthening
penalties in the Criminal Code by two or three years will not keep
someone who has had one drink too many from driving. It is a habit
that has to be acquired.
I would like to draw your attention to the second part of the
motion, which says that penalties should be brought into line with
the seriousness of the offence. We think that penalties already are
in line with the seriousness of the offence. The impaired driver who
has not caused any damage will not receive the same sentence as
the one who has caused physical injury or any other kind of
damage.
(1335)
This judicial discretion granted to the judges is, in fact, being
used adequately and it does send a message to the accused. Judges
can take it into consideration. I think judges should be able to
continue to pass sentences according to the directions they are
given, and to use their discretion to determine how serious the
offence and the impacts are and to bring the penalties in line.
We are also against this motion, because it implies that there are
currently no deterrent provisions in the Criminal Code, as if there is
a free for all, as if drunken drivers face no or minimal penalties,
which is not true, because we do have deterrent provisions.
The motion implies that there is an inequity in the sentences
handed out, but when we look at those sentences, we find no
evidence of such a thing in the court decisions. Of course, if we go
for sensationalism, if we read reports in the Saturday or Sunday
newspapers about terrible accidents and horrible situations, it may
make us lean toward the motion before us. However, we have to
look more closely at these kinds of situations. We have to get a true
picture of what is going on. We also have to determine who is
responsible in that area of jurisdiction. For instance, are the
provinces taking their responsibilities? Are the measures suggested
here not similar to what Quebec is already doing, which is doubling
the penalties for anyone who loses his or her driving licence
following a Criminal Code offence?
For all these reasons, we think that the authorities are already
taking their responsibilities properly. We think that the measure
suggested in this motion would not help to sufficiently change
drivers' attitudes within two, three, four, five or even ten years. The
number of people who drink and drive will not decrease because
the penalties are be more severe. We already have very severe
penalties.
In conclusion, we think more ought to be done in terms of
education and the provinces, the not for profit organizations
dealing with such issues, and the people fighting alcoholism ought
to be given the means to do their jobs. Let us give them funds to
enable them to intervene in their sector of activity. Then we will
really be serving society.
The punishment underlying the motion before us will not resolve
anything, except to send the message, in an approach I would call
superficial and election oriented, that we can resolve the sort of
problem we run into with this sort of solution. It seems to me to be
a bit like the case of the adolescent who gets his knuckles rapped
instead of an explanation of why his behaviour is unacceptable.
The second or third time his knuckles are rapped, he does not even
remember any more whether it hurts. However, if time were spent
educating him so he understood what was going on, most times his
behaviour could be changed to something more socially
acceptable. I think this is more the way of the future.
I hope the House rejects this motion and that, if the situation is
ever debated again, it is with a view to understanding how the
problem can really be solved, because we see here an attitude
similar to the attitude of the Reform Party in many other instances.
The way to resolve things is to come down hard on people's
knuckles, and yet the problems require a much more subtle
approach.
7856
I think the members tabling such motions should go into each
community and see how things work. Let them look at the results.
Let them ask what the numbers are so that, based on the
consequences that are known, we can take appropriate measures
and not simply go for sensationalism.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the
motion of my hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
The motion to get it clear is not overreacting; it is simply a motion
which states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening
penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving
offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with
the seriousness of the offence.
(1340 )
I have four adult boys. They are normal young men who are
enjoying life to its fullest. Every night when they leave the house I
worry that they will become a statistic because somebody else is
out there drinking and driving. I share that worry with most parents
across this country.
I have had the unfortunate circumstance of talking to parents
who have been in the position of having lost children to an
impaired driver. One of my board members is a father whose son
and grandchildren were quickly killed by an impaired driver in
Prince George, B.C.
A father encouraged me to get involved in a campaign he is
starting up to go across Canada with the message that drinking and
driving kills. He lost his young 23-year old son who was just
beginning life, full of opportunities. Early one evening an impaired
driver went through a stop sign, ran into his vehicle and killed him
instantly.
That driver had had numerous impaired driving charges, had had
his licence suspended and had been brought to the attention of the
police twice that very same day, once for sideswiping parked cars
while impaired and once for running red lights in the community
while impaired. Was he taken off the streets, put away for the day,
incarcerated or whatever because he had had impaired driving
charges months before that? No, he was left on the street to
continue to drive while impaired and in the evening he killed a
young man who had had his whole life ahead of him.
People who drink and drive lack responsibility. They have
choices. They can make a decision. They know there are penalties
out there. They know their licences can be suspended but that does
not seem to send a very strong message to them. They do not seem
to consider the seriousness of what it is they are doing. I share the
concerns of my hon. colleagues.
I will admit I had some problems with the private member's bill
which said that if impaired driving caused death it should
automatically be a seven year minimum sentence. If it was a first
time occurrence, I thought that seemed a little bit harsh.
Since being elected to this place and in the true fashion of
Reform, I put the issues to my constituents. Therefore I shared with
them my concern that it might be a little harsh for a first time
offender and asked what they thought about it. There were 3,685
constituents who responded to my questionnaire. The question was:
Should anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death be
sentenced to a minimum of seven years incarceration?
They answered the question knowing I was a little
uncomfortable with it if it was a first offence. In response, 2,463 or
66.84 per cent said yes, they felt that there should be a seven year
minimum charge. There were 1,082 or 29.36 per cent who said no.
They shared my concern that in some circumstances it might be
overreacting to it.
I have to believe that those people out there who dealt with the
issue looked at it from their own circumstances and recognized that
suspended sentences are not reducing people's use of alcohol and
driving. A few months of incarceration is not stopping people from
drinking and driving.
I will not argue with the Bloc and the Liberal members who say
education is important. One thing that impresses me more than
anything else is that because of the education on impaired driving
and that driving and drinking can kill, young people today are far
more responsible than people our age.
Young people today when planning an evening out in most cases
will have a designated driver along with them. Young people today
are more willing and more likely to leave their cars at home and
take cabs or public transit. They are far more aware that drinking
and driving might kill. However, that does not protect those young
people from those among us in society who drink to extreme and
then get behind the wheel, thus turning their vehicles into
dangerous weapons.
(1345)
Today of all days, when an individual tried to drive a vehicle into
the House of Commons shows us that vehicles can be and are a
dangerous implement. When that vehicle is put into the hands of
somebody who has had too much to drink or is impaired because of
other substance abuse, it is an extremely dangerous weapon on our
streets.
Some of the crime statistics are quite frightening. People know
there is a law against drinking and driving. We all know that those
convicted of crimes while under the influence of alcohol are given
7857
lenient sentences. Most of the support material in the Criminal
Code are cases of impaired driving. Most of the Criminal Code
book is a history of cases of impaired driving which have gone
through the courts.
The Mothers against Drunk Driving have an ongoing campaign
to bring forward things at which we should be looking, and the
changes that should be made to legislation but they have not been
very successful in convincing the government.
Some of the stats, as I mentioned, are quite frightening. I am
going to use the stats from 1994 because those are the ones that I
have at my disposal. There were 1,414 people killed in Canada as a
result of impaired driving. When that figures is broken down it
shows that 3.8 people each and every day are killed as a result of
impaired driving. In Canada 311 people are injured each day by
impaired drivers. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that it
costs Ontario $100 million per year to treat impaired driving
injuries. Another frightening statistic is that one out of five drivers
every night are impaired.
Education is fine but people do ignore the message that is being
put out loud and clear through MADD, the Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers program, court programs for anyone who has had
successive impaired driving charges; Alcoholics Anonymous
programs and throughout out the schools systems. Do they help? I
would suggest that from the statistics before us that people are
ignoring the information. To consider it a social disease which is
not recognized as being a criminal is naive. It is not only naive but
it is a refusal to look at what is happening and to try and do
something about it. It is naive to think that education is going to
stop that kind of behaviour.
I come from a family which unfortunately has been touched by
alcoholism. My father spent many years bringing treatment
programs into the province of Alberta and is recognized for having
done so. I believe that we have to consider alcoholism as a disease
and treat it as such. But that does not stop us from saying that it is a
criminal activity to drink and drive. We must do all that is in our
power to see that is stopped.
I do not want to join the ranks of other parents who lose a child
because of someone who drank too much, got behind the wheel of a
vehicle, a very dangerous weapon under those circumstances and I
would be left to mourn for the rest of my life.
I am in a position where I can try and do something about it. I do
not think it is too much to ask this government to look at the
Criminal Code and at changes that can be made to that federal
legislation to send a strong message to people who will make the
decision to drink and get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive. It
is not too strong a message to tighten up the Criminal Code and
make the offences a whole lot stronger to get the killers off the
streets.
(1350)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to commend my colleague from Prince
George-Bulkley Valley for demonstrating his leadership on this
very serious issue.
As my colleagues who have spoken before me have mentioned,
there is an epidemic taking place today, despite all the programs the
police have established to catch drunk drivers.
The problems are many and it is worthwhile to establish what the
problems are and the impact which these problems have within
Canada today.
The cost to Canadian society of drunk driving is enormous. In
1994, 87,838 people were charged with impaired driving and l,414
people were killed. That is three times higher than the murder rate.
The government has made an enormous effort to implement laws
and regulations to deal with gun registration. Those initiatives will
have no effect whatsoever on decreasing the murder rate in Canada.
There is an epidemic within our midst that is causing three times
as many deaths as homicides and the government has done nothing
to address it. However, the government has an excellent
opportunity. It could employ some of the ideas which are contained
in Motion No. 78 to address the epidemic.
The cost is massive: almost $400,000 per fatal accident;
$310,000 per fatality; $12,000 per injury. That is only the tip of the
iceberg.
In my dealings with drunk drivers, both in the emergency
departments of hospitals and in jails, I have noticed a couple of
things. First, in a jail I was dealing with an individual who had been
charged and convicted over 22 times with drunk driving offences.
The individual laughed when talking about it and felt that it was a
joke. The penalty is not a deterrent in its current form.
The second problem that exists is that it is extraordinarily
difficult for the police to actually convict someone who has been
drinking and driving. Currently it takes a police officer about six
hours to do all the paperwork required to prosecute an individual
for drunk driving. That is why when an individual is pulled over
who is over the limit, a police officer would rather suspend the
person's licence for 24 hours and send him or her home than
actually go through the process of prosecuting. People who
habitually abuse the system, who drink and drive, know that. They
know that if they drink and drive, although the penalties are
supposedly quite high, the actual penalties are quite low.
We must do a number of things. We must enable police officers
to prosecute individuals who drink and drive in an expeditious
manner.
An intelligent trial lawyer can get most people who are charged
with drinking and driving off very easily through a number of
7858
loopholes in the system. It extends right from the moment that the
blood test is taken to the trial.
I cannot emphasize how important it is for the government to
take initiatives to streamline the process and give our police
officers a hand in deterring this epidemic. They must be able to
send a clear message to people who are considering getting behind
the wheel when drunk that it is not acceptable and if they are caught
they will be prosecuted and levelled with a penalty which will be
more than a slap on the wrist.
My colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley has put
forward this motion to enable the House to put forward some very
stringent penalties to deal with this epidemic. This is not something
that is benign. The statistics prove the rate is very high. It is very
costly to society.
(1355)
It is incumbent upon us in this House to take the leadership role
once again and demonstrate to the Canadian public that we are
interested in their safety and we are going to put forward some
intelligent ideas to address this problem. It also involves intelligent
ways of dealing with the issue.
As my colleague before me just mentioned, alcoholism is a
disease and it must be treated as such. That is why as part and
parcel of the conviction for drunk driving, individuals who have
committed this offence must have drug and alcohol abuse treatment
as an obligatory part of their sentences. Merely sentencing them
and sending them back on the street will do absolutely nothing to
prevent this situation from occurring again. Drug and alcohol abuse
is a complex situation and it must be addressed through
counselling. Although counselling and treatment are not absolute
solutions, we desperately need them.
One of the big problems in our penal institutions is that not
enough emphasis is placed on the drug and alcohol abuse of those
who are incarcerated in our penal institutions. A greater emphasis
must be put on dealing with the drug and alcohol problems of these
individuals instead of merely incarcerating them. Regardless of the
reasons they were originally charged and convicted, it is important
to make sure we break the cycle of crime, punishment and
recidivism which tends to occur not infrequently in people who
commit a wide range of criminal offences, be it drunk driving,
murder, robbery, assault causing bodily harm and so on.
I once again commend my colleagues, especially my colleague
from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for putting forward this
motion which tries to address the epidemic of drunk drivers. I
implore the government to take heed of his initiatives and to
employ them.
I hope the government takes a leadership role with its provincial
counterparts, the attorneys general from across the provinces. It
could work with them to establish an effective way of preventing
this problem through obligatory treatment for alcohol and drug
abuse. It could impose significant penalties for those who choose to
drink and drive and who get caught, also for those who drink and
drive and commit offences in terms of the injuries that occur to
defenceless and innocent civilians.
Getting behind the wheel of a car when you are drunk is akin to
picking up a gun and shooting somebody. That car is a potential
weapon. It is a lethal weapon that has been used with undue and
tragic frequency within this country.
People often do not realize that there is sometimes a great deal of
callousness and utter disregard for the pain and suffering of victims
by some drivers when they get behind the wheel drunk and injure or
kill somebody. I remember a tragic case in which a drunk
individual killed a young man who was driving another car. Both
the drunk fellow and his buddy were injured. He was conscious but
his buddy was not. He grabbed his buddy, dragged him into the
driver's seat and put himself in the passenger's seat. He was totally
uncooperative with the police and he lied repeatedly throughout the
process. He did everything he could to get off. There was no regard
whatsoever for the young man I had to treat three bays down who
had a massive head injury and was dying.
I implore the government to take heed of my colleague's
initiatives which are constructive, worthwhile, productive and for
the betterment and the health of all Canadians.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Motion No. M-78 introduced by my colleague
from Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Motion No. M-78 asks that the government consider
strengthening penalties in those sections in the Criminal Code
which deal with impaired driving offences in order to enhance
deterrence and bring the penalties into line with the seriousness of
the offence.
(1400 )
When we look at the facts they simply tell us that the problem is
not being addressed or resolved. Drinking and driving is the largest
single criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. I am going to
repeat that because of the seriousness. Drinking and driving is the
largest single criminal cause of death and injury in Canada.
The death rate from impaired driving is three to four times the
national murder rate. To put this into perspective, in 1992 there
were 732 homicides in Canada. During that same time there were
2,500 deaths resulting from impaired driving.
Clearly we have a problem and clearly we are not addressing that
problem. It is in perceptions, I would suggest, that people seem to
think that if they cause death or injury using a tonne of metal and
plastic they are not capable of driving, that somehow it is okay, it is
7859
not really their fault. I would suggest that it is their fault and that
our law enforcement system and our court system in many ways are
set up to shield these people. Again, it is goes back to what about
the victim in these cases.
I would like to go through a number of facts to bring things into
perspective. In 1994 alcohol was involved in 47 per cent of motor
vehicle fatalities in Ontario and almost half of the traffic fatalities
in British Columbia. In Ontario of the 176 pedestrians killed in
1994, 57 per cent involved the use of alcohol by either the victim or
the driver of the vehicle.
We often forget to think about the passengers. We think about
someone else being in another vehicle, but in the case of passengers
in the vehicle with the impaired driver 25 per cent of fatalities are
passengers.
Another terrible figure is 88 per cent of all persons killed in
marine vehicle accidents involved alcohol. We tend to think of
driving simply motor vehicles on the road. What about boats? In
my province of British Columbia the police have cracked down,
and rightfully so, on drinking while operating a boat because it has
been terrible. People tend to say they do not want to drink and drive
on the road but as soon as they get into their boat on the lake they
think having a beer or many beers is okay. It is not okay because
they are still driving a vehicle, and 88 per cent of all persons killed
in marine accidents involved alcohol. That is a terrible statistic.
How many more people have to die before something is done?
Clearly my colleague has addressed the situation. He said that
we have a problem. All Canadians, every member of this House
and all parties should say yes to this motion.
In 1995 Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada
remarked: ``Every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of
death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. In terms of deaths and
serious injury resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly
the crime which causes the most significant social loss in this
country''.
Sixty-five per cent of all suspensions issued for impaired driving
were issued for a second offence. What does this second offence
tell us? Why in the world should we have to speak to the second
offence or subsequent offences in drunk driving? There should not
be a second offence.
The reason I say that is I was in Sweden a number of years ago.
The Swedes enjoy having a drink and going out to have a good
time. However, they would not dream of drinking and driving.
Why? The penalties are there. I believe it was five years automatic
at that time. The second time they are gone, no licence.
This is the type of penalty that we require. We have to get the
attention of the drinking driver. That clearly has not happened.
(1405 )
An analogy was photo radar where part of the problem was
political will. Let us remember the last election in Ontario and the
antics the electorate went through about photo radar. I would
suggest that the attitude on drinking and driving is similar. The
public said it did not want photo radar. Speeding cars were killing
people but the political pressure was enough for the Ontario
government to pull out its photo radar. In fact, Ontario sold it to my
province of British Columbia where it is being used and speeding
has decreased.
I use that analogy because I believe it is the same mindset we are
seeing with drunk driving: ``While it is a problem, politically we do
not think we should address it. Perhaps the next administration or
the provincial government or someone else will deal with it''. That
simply is not happening.
What have we set up? We have set up a system where a good
lawyer, as my colleague says, can get most people off. The court
system is clogged. Most of the cases in court now deal with
impaired driving and the penalties are simply not there. It is a
mindset and an attitude that goes through our whole system.
Clearly a wake-up call is required.
I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House will clearly
consider this motion and pass it when it is voted on. Although it is a
motion and not a bill, it will send a clear message to all
governments to deal with this problem in a significant way and put
deterrents and educational programs in place so that the deaths on
our highways are put to an end.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this private member's motion my colleague
from Prince George has put in. I applaud him for having done so in
order to address this very serious problem of driving while
intoxicated and drinking while driving.
I appreciate the support that has come from the other side of the
House, the Liberal speaker, who addressed this. It is good to see
that most people are behind this type of action being taken against
individuals who choose to get behind this killing machine after
they have been drinking.
The one thing I would like to point out in this moment that I have
is the deterrent factor. A lot of times when we talk about bringing in
harsh or stronger punishment for various offences that have been
committed, people believe it is not the thing to do because it will
not deter. I know that argument is holding true on capital
punishment, for example. The argument against capital
punishment, most of the time, is simply that it does not deter crime.
7860
However, regardless of whether it does or does not deter crime,
when the kind of punishment that this particular motion is calling
for with regard to drinking and driving is put in, maybe a deterrent
is not exactly the real message. Maybe the message should be that
our system is failing in a great way in getting the punishment to
fit the crime.
Let me give a couple of examples. We have individuals who are
on trial or have been on trial and have been convicted of a certain
type of crime, such as second degree murder in the case of Mr.
Latimer out of Saskatchewan, and we have another individual who
goes to trial who has originally been charged with first degree
murder for viciously strangling his wife. I guess they proved that
there was not any intent. They lowered the crime to manslaughter,
which is a lesser crime than second degree murder. One must
wonder about these two kinds of cases.
It is not that they are trying to deter an individual regardless of
what they do. Does the punishment meet the crime? That is very
important throughout our judicial system.
Probably the most obvious action taking place recently
indicating that our justice system is designed to do other things is
individuals such as Andy McMechan, who sold his own property
across the border illegally, without a wheat board permit and was
thrown into jail in handcuffs, taken to court in leg irons where he
remained in jail for a fairly lengthy time.
The man did not steal anything. He did not assault anybody. He
broke the law. No one is denying that. He simply did not get a
wheat board permit to do what he did. Yet he is treated in this harsh
manner, in this hard way while at the same time individuals who go
into other people's homes on invasions and destroy the property,
who steal or who assault, even sexually assault or rape someone,
are loose and walking the streets.
What in the world is going on? When does the punishment fit the
crime? This bill is designed to do just that.
I appreciate what the Liberal member said. It is not a matter of
why teenagers drink, why alcoholics end up behind the wheel when
they are drinking. None of that is really important. The important
part of this whole thing is that a message has to be sent to any
individual, regardless of the circumstances, that if they drink and
get behind the wheel, the penalty will be severe. Not that it deters
anyone. I will not argue that. However, the penalty will be severe.
It is not an acceptable thing to do in Canada. We are going to
develop a lower tolerance level for this dangerous activity.
That is the message that needs to be sent. I hope all members
would wisely support this unanimously and get it under way.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed to on division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to call it 2.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)