37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 081
CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 19, 2001
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Mr. Dressup |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orléans,
Lib.) |
|
|
NATO |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dressup |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment
|
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
United States of
America |
|
|
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dressup |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth,
NDP) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier,
Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Customs |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Discrimination |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Airlines Industry |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
China |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific), Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Aid |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
PC/DR
Coalition |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Citizenship Act |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Adoption des motions; première lecture et impression du projet de loi
|
|
|
Broadcasting Act |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St.
James--Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion deemed adopted and
bill read the first time)
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
National Defence and Veterans
Affairs |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Gopher Control |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz
(Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Lumber
Industry |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, September 19, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The Speaker:
As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley
Valley.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national
anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Mr. Dressup
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, residents of Pickering and all Canadians
mourn the passing of a truly exceptional children's entertainer with the death
yesterday of Mr. Ernie Coombs.
Known by generations of Canadians as Mr. Dressup, Ernie
thrilled countless children with his beloved television program from 1967 until
1996, a program still seen in reruns today.
Ernie was a gifted entertainer who encouraged his
audiences to use their imaginations. In 1994 he was awarded a Gemini for
lifetime work and an ACTRA Earle Grey Award for excellence in Canadian
television.
Ernie was made a member of the Order of Canada in 1996
for his lifelong achievement in providing quality children's programming. In
1997 he was awarded a Special Save the Children Canada Award for his work on
behalf of that organization.
Especially during these difficult days, Canadians are
blessed to have had a person like Ernie Coombs provide them with a better view
of our society. While Ernie's warm personality and love for children will be
missed, Canadians will fondly remember the time they spent growing up with Mr.
Dressup.
I know all members of the House will join me in
extending sincere condolences to Ernie's family and friends throughout this
great nation. God bless Ernie.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago President Roosevelt called
Canada the aerodrome of democracy for its efforts in wartime air training. On
September 11 Canada was destined to receive many hundreds of airliners within
mere hours as American airports were closed by terrorism.
Thirty-five thousand America-bound air travellers
landed safely on Canadian airfields. Over six thousand went to Newfoundland's
Gander alone, doubling the community's population. It was “like two large
conventions arriving with only two hours' notice”, were the words of the mayor
of St. John's.
Once more in a time of great need, Canadian workers,
volunteers, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross all met the challenge and
renewed Canada's status as the aerodrome of democracy.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians I have American
relatives, some living in New York City. The vicious terrorist attack on the
United States is being felt personally and deeply in Canada. Canada will
support the U.S.A. and our NATO allies in the important campaign to bring these
criminals to justice.
In my city of London, Ontario, the leaders of our
Muslim community have repeatedly and forcefully condemned the attack on the
United States. I join them in that condemnation. I also stand with them in
denouncing the misguided actions of a few of our citizens who wrongly accuse,
threaten or attack our Muslim friends and neighbours in London or anywhere
else.
This is exactly the kind of hatred and twisted logic
which, taken to the extreme, produces the insane violence that victimized so
many innocent Americans last week.
May those who were killed rest in peace. May those who
mourn their loved ones be assured of the prayers and support of peace loving
people everywhere.
* * *
[Translation]
Terrorism
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orléans,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the acts of terrorism that took place in
the United States on September 11 have shaken the entire world.
We have a duty to support our neighbours and to react
in a decisive and reasoned way, in conjunction with the rest of the world
community.
[English]
However we must not tolerate reactions of bigotry by
anyone in our midst. I for one find it appalling that a group of teenagers in
Orleans decided last Saturday to beat a Muslim teenager unconscious because of
his race. Such acts of violence have no place in our country.
Multiculturalism is a source of pride for all
Canadians. It should remain that way.
* * *
NATO
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago this week the Right Hon.
Lester B. Pearson represented Canada at the first NATO meeting in Washington.
This is the same man who was honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize for his
unwaivering commitment to global peace.
I submit that former Prime Minister Pearson would not
have endorsed a body such as NATO unless he believed it could be an instrument
of peace. With this in mind, and in light of the horrific events that took
place in New York and Washington last Tuesday, I applaud the government for its
support of article 5 of the NATO charter.
Deliberate acts of terror directed against innocent
civilians cannot be permitted to go unchallenged. That being said, let us heed
the intentions of our former prime minister and use global organizations such
as NATO to support peace and not to wage war.
In the coming weeks we will begin to see the changes
that the western world faces, the stark realities brought about by the actions
of madmen. I pray that we will keep our focus on the re-establishment of
confidence and not on sponsoring vengeance. We must remember that our actions
today will set the foundation for the world we will pass to our
children.
* * *
(1405)
Mr. Dressup
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ernie Coombs, a much loved
Canadian entertainer, passed away. Today I express my sympathies to his family
on behalf of all Canadian families.
We look back fondly on mornings spent around the
television waiting to see what new and exciting adventures would be in store
for Mr. Dressup, Casey and Finnegan. There was anticipation as we wondered
which characters would spring from his tickle trunk. There were fun and
positive stories, great sketches, drawings and much, much laughter.
Mr. Dressup was often visited by friends. Those friends
represented many different cultures, races and religions. In a world of
intolerance Ernie Coombs and Mr. Dressup sought to teach us
tolerance.
Young and old alike were delighted by his antics. The
positive influence of the show on the lives of those who watched will be
remembered for all time. Mr. Dressup's fun and educational program was a relief
to parents and a delight to children. We will remember him fondly. He will be
greatly missed.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I express my most sincere condolences to
the families and friends of those killed as a result of the unspeakable tragedy
on September 11, 2001. I also thank the people from every community across
Canada, and specifically my constituency of London North Centre, who have taken
the time to support our American friends by giving blood and helping in the
rescue efforts.
In the coming weeks and months, and indeed years, we
will be called upon in this place to make many difficult decisions. Perhaps the
most difficult task facing us will be that of balancing the new concern for our
collective safety with the longstanding Canadian values of acceptance and
compassion.
We cannot allow ourselves to dictate something as
fundamental as our immigration policies based on the terrible acts of a
cowardly few. We cannot let fear change our way of life and the way we treat
others. To do so would send a message to those who advance their own agendas
with the murder of innocent civilians that they could win this new
war.
It would also diminish Canada as a nation. We are a
country built on the backs of immigrants. The diverse cultures represented here
have made us aware of what we are.
* * *
[Translation]
3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday today and for the next few days,
the battle group of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment will be
setting off for Bosnia, as part of rotation 9 of Operation
Palladium.
The mission of this group consists in continuing to
maintain the present safe and secure environment of the zone to which the
battle group is assigned, in order to continue the operation of consolidating
the peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I had the honour and privilege to train with them at
Valcartier this past summer. I must admit it is very tough training and
provides the troops with an excellent preparation for dealing with any and all
situations.
This coming November, I will be spending a week with
them in Bosnia, along with other colleagues from the House of Commons.
To the men and women of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal
22nd Regiment, I say “Good luck, take care, see you soon”.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week's events in the United States
elicited much compassion, solidarity and sympathy in Canada for the families of
the victims of this inhumane tragedy.
The voice of our Prime Minister was heard clearly, not
only by Canadians, but by Americans and also around the world: a voice tempered
by moderation and caution, but also a voice resolute with conviction to fight
terrorism throughout the world.
Last week, Canadians demonstrated great wisdom about
the reality of the world, as well as a profound understanding of the injustices
and social inequalities caused by fanaticism and violence.
Canada's Islamic community is thankful to the Prime
Minister and all of the members of the House for their reassuring words. I am
certain that Radio Canada International will once again be able to share
Canada's message of hope with people around the world.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni we have
been dealing with a crisis caused by the lapsed softwood lumber agreement.
Hundreds of idle mill workers are looking for a speedy resolution.
However the events of the past week have caused all
Canadians to take a sober look at the realities of national security in the
face of international terrorism.
Canadians want assurance that known terrorist
organizations will not ride into Canada on a red carpet. They want a complete
ban on terrorist fundraising activities within our borders. They want to know
that persons with known terrorist links will be prosecuted or extradited. They
want to know that our national security services, the RCMP, CSIS and the armed
forces, have sufficient funding to provide the protection Canadians require to
live in peace.
We call on the government to commit immediately to
comprehensive anti-terrorist legislation for the protection and security of
Canadians and our neighbours.
* * *
[Translation]
United States of
America
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States are coping
with a tragedy. Following the terrorist attacks against the United States, more
than 5,000 people have disappeared. These people, people like us, were going
about their daily business when the unexpected occurred.
My thoughts are with these people, those who will be
found and those who will remain in our memories. My thoughts are with the
families and friends of these victims. I bid them the strength required to get
through this tragedy. It has changed our lives forever.
[English]
Last Friday's national day of mourning allowed all
Canadians to express their most profound sympathies for the victims' families.
I was deeply moved by the compassion and solidarity that Canadians showed
toward our American friends. I am convinced that our prayers will be heard and
that we will be able to bring some comfort to all those affected by this great
tragedy.
On behalf of myself, my family and my constituents, I
extend our greatest sympathies to the American people. May God be their
guidance in this very difficult period. Our hearts are with them.
* * *
Mr. Dressup
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in the last eight days we have seen the
chilling impact and grief that TV images can have on our children. Today I
would like to express a gentler sadness and remember kinder images.
I am referring to the passing of Ernie Coombs, better
known to generations of Canadians as Mr. Dressup.
Millions of Canadians grew up with the whimsy, charm
and innocent imagination as expressed in the art of Ernie Coombs. His tickle
trunk, his drawings, his whacky constructions, his real and imagined companions
both inspired and comforted his eager audience.
Kids laughed, they learned and they felt safe and
parents knew their children were safe with Ernie on the screen.
The days of Mr. Dressup, Chez Hélène and
the Friendly Giant on CBC were a more innocent time, a time before
gameboys and playstations, before Howard Stern, before we worried about seeing
too much violence on TV, either as entertainment or on the news.
During this terrible time I remember the world of
Mr. Dressup and I can smile again.
I thank Mr. Coombs for bringing such magic to our
lives.
* * *
[Translation]
Terrorism
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the tragic events in the United States on
September 11 are causing all countries of the world to reassess their security
measures and to join the fight against terrorism.
In all of this, democracy and freedom must be preserved
as security measures are beefed up at airports, at the borders and on
airplanes, and certain regulations must be reviewed.
We must certainly support the Americans, but we must
also exercise caution in order to prevent these initiatives from being used to
satisfy a need for vengeance.
In the longer term, governments will have to resolve
situations that generate terrorism, such as war, poverty and
despair.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since this is the first opportunity I have
had to speak since the resumption of the session, I would like to add the
voices of everyone in Ottawa--Vanier, who wish to offer their condolences to
the families of those who perished and who disappeared in last week's terrorist
attacks in the United States.
[English]
Some of us will remember Bush Sr. talking about a
thousand points of light. As darkness threatened last Tuesday, there were some
points of light that emerged and I would like to pay tribute to one of them
today.
I had tried to imagine what went through the minds of
the people who were aboard United Airlines flight 93 when they decided to cause
the plane to crash as it did in Pennsylvania in the fields therefore avoiding
an incredible augmentation of the threats that the terrorist attacks
represented to democracy and freedom in our countries.
I pay tribute to the incredible courage that these
people showed. I think we owe them a great deal of thanks.
* * *
(1415)
Airline Safety
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, in view of last week's tragic events in
New York and Washington, it is incumbent on the Minister of Transport to take
measures to ensure the safety of Canada's airline system.
Canada has pledged to support the U.S. and our NATO
allies in rooting out terrorism. That means we need to be in a state of
heightened awareness with regard to possible terrorist attacks. Security at our
airports needs to be strengthened now and in the foreseeable future. We should
also consider having security personnel on randomly selected
flights.
Terrorism knows no national boundaries. The countries
of the civilized world are all in this crusade together and the Government of
Canada would do well to implement security procedures that allow Canadians to
travel with the same confidence to which we have grown accustomed.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the king of Jordan revealed on
CNN that Jordan had informed European, American and Canadian security agencies
of terrorist threats during the millennium celebrations.
When exactly was the government informed about these
threats and exactly what steps did the government take to protect the security
of Canadians? We would like to hear from the Prime Minister on that.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the statement made by the
king of Jordan yesterday. Of course everyone knows that there were some threats
at that time. Action was taken at that time. That action led to the arrest at
the United States border of someone coming from Canada, which prevented any
kind of activity from occurring.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government action had nothing to do
with why that person was arrested. It has been public knowledge for some time
that bin Laden operative Ahmed Ressam operated freely in Canada for six years,
including activities such as bomb building. He did this despite being under a
deportation order and after having broken Canadian laws.
The Government of Canada had been warned by Jordan of a
bin Laden terror threat. If it had not been for United States customs officers
arresting him, Ressam may have brought death and destruction to our American
friends.
How is it that U.S. officials were able to arrest
Ressam and Canadian officials could not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that these organizations
operate all over the world. It is an example of the collaboration that exists
between the different levels of governments. At that time there were some
threats and we had been warned about them. Everyone worked together and
eventually the individual was arrested. What is the hon. member complaining
about?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there was no working together and that man
was not arrested because of anything that the government did.
[Translation]
Ahmed Ressam, an associate of Osama bin Laden, lived in
Montreal for years, despite the fact that he had been charged with theft and
had received a deportation order. Yet, the king of Jordan had warned the
Canadian government of the risks of bin Laden's terror.
How is it that the government lost track of an
associate of bin Laden just as he tried to cross the American
border?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, our
intelligence organizations work with all intelligence organizations around the
world. This man was arrested at the border. The attorney general of the United
States thanked us for assisting in the prosecution. He was arrested, convicted
and is in prison.
(1420)
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in this case it is thank God for the
Americans because they had nothing to do with this on the Canadian
side.
Yesterday the U.S. ambassador for Canada, Mr. Paul
Cellucci, said that military support will be looked for and discussed when the
Prime Minister visits President Bush next week. He said that Canada has the
military capability that has helped the United States, that has helped the
world and that he hoped it would help them now. It is a cry for
help.
The Prime Minister has spoken only in broad terms about
supporting this effort. He has avoided making a specific commitment.
Will the Prime Minister simply tell Canadians that our
ally and friend, the United States, can count on Canadian military--
The Speaker:
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I heard about the excellent speech of the
ambassador yesterday. He was very keen to praise the Canadian government. He
was very keen to praise the ministers. He told everyone that I was on the
telephone with his office minutes after the tragedy. That is the spirit in
which we are working with the Americans.
There is no action that has been determined at this
moment concerning military activities. When there is, there will be
consultations and we will see what Canada can do. We have had absolutely no
request at this time by the administration of the United States.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Either yes or no, these are two fairly simple words
that Canadians understand, Mr. Speaker.
The ambassador also said that one of the things Canada
must consider to ensure our safety and security is harmonizing our refugee
screening standards. As the Ressam case shows, Canadian refugee standards and
laws have been abused by terrorists here in Canada.
Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians, just a yes or a
no, if the U.S. can count on us by knowing that we will insist on better
standards for screening, detaining and deporting dangerous refugee
claimants?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on these
extremely difficult problems. We are talking and working with the Americans.
I know the hon. member would like us to just make
flamboyant, desperate speeches but we do not do things that way. We look at the
facts. We look at what we can do and we will work with the United
States.
The one thing I do want to say is that the laws of
Canada will be passed by the Parliament of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to
commit to having parliament vote on any major military, diplomatic or financial
decision that will be made in connection with the attacks in the United States.
This is unfortunate, because his refusal could have the effect of weakening
Canada's voice within the international coalition that is being set
up.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, in the
democratic fight against terrorism now taking shape, Canada would have a much
stronger voice internationally if the House of Commons had voted in favour of
such measures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, people observing the situation in Canada
are well aware that there was a debate in the House of Commons Monday, during
which all members had an opportunity to express their point of view, and that
there was a unanimous vote of the entire House of Commons on this
subject.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a commitment, when a
decision of a military, diplomatic or whatever nature is taken.
I have trouble understanding the Prime Minister's
refusal, when I recall that the current Deputy Prime Minister, then leader of
the official opposition, said during the gulf war that, before involving
Canadians in any offensive, the Liberals wanted the matter debated in
parliament and put to a vote.
How is it that when the Liberals were in opposition, a
vote was required on an issue such as military involvement in the gulf war, but
that now all that is required are exploratory debates?
I would like to understand the Prime Minister's
logic.
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the course of the past eight years, we
have sent a number of missions to the former Yugoslavia and each time the House
of Commons was consulted.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the coalition to combat international
terrorism is taking shape.
A number of heads of state have already visited the
president of the United States, and others are preparing to do so. Yesterday,
the Prime Minister announced that he too will be going to
Washington.
During that visit, does the Prime Minister intend to
suggest that the American president involve the UN in his efforts to expand the
very significant coalition against terrorism that is taking shape?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would be very worthwhile to get the UN
involved in this debate, because it does involve more than just NATO. Many
other countries are involved. Moreover, a number of countries are being
consulted.
I personally have spoken with some heads of government
and find there is a feeling of solidarity throughout the world that I have not
seen for a very long time. I hope it will be even more present within the
United Nations.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his reply.
In the same vein, would the Prime Minister not find it
appropriate to also meet United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in order
to discuss with him the role the International Criminal Court could play, and
in particular the inclusion of acts of terrorism in the definition of crimes
against humanity?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as has been said in several oral question
periods now, in our foreign policy we strongly support the International
Criminal Court, but for the moment it does not exist.
This is not a matter that could be directed to the
International Criminal Court. We will certainly continue to support
ratification of the International Criminal Court by countries all around the
world.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister goes to Washington next
week and I know that he will convey the heartfelt condolences of all Canadians.
I want to urge the Prime Minister to also convey Canadians' concern that there
will be no end to the violence if the American president is intent upon
pursuing wanted dead or alive, wild west justice.
Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that he will
call for some sort of international tribunal to swiftly consider all the
evidence so that we can defeat the real enemy which is terrorism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement that we have to
confront terrorism head on. It is what the Americans, the Canadians, the
British, the French and everybody wants to do. It is a problem that affects all
the nations of the world.
For example, this morning I had a discussion about this
with the president of Egypt. On many occasions, he has had to face this
terrible problem of radicals within his country trying to change the
government.
We all want to fight with what is available to stop
terrorism but it will not be an easy task. There are many options that need to
be discussed and that is exactly what I will do on Monday with President
Bush.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are desperate to get the
assurance from the Prime Minister that he is not going to Washington just to
get marching orders. The whole world needs Canada at this time to be a true
friend of the American people.
We need our Prime Minister to use the meeting with
President Bush to propose concrete international measures that can defeat
international terrorism which will bring global justice and security to the
people of the world. Will the Prime Minister pledge to do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a Liberal in the
House today. We have the Leader of the Opposition who wants to send soldiers
when there is no request at this time. We have the leader of the NDP who wants
to do nothing at all to fight terrorism. The Liberal Party is taking a balanced
approach to it. We have to fight terrorism. We have to be responsible all the
time.
(1430)
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadians who are being asked to fight terrorism need to know the
facts.
Was the King of Jordan correct when he told CNN last
night that his authorities had uncovered operations in Canada by Osama bin
Laden and drew that information to Canada's attention? Was the Prime Minister
informed personally about this information before he told the House on Monday
that he was “not aware of a cell operating in Canada with the intention
of--
The Speaker:
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand why the leader of the fifth
party did not stay very long as prime minister of the land because he should
know that no responsible leader of the government would discuss in detail in
the House of Commons a question on this situation in Canadian
society.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the King of Jordan
on television last night uncovered this series of operations. He admitted that
they were taking place in Europe, the U.S. and Canada. He immediately
co-ordinated with those countries' agencies. However, this Prime Minister
continues to claim that he knows nothing about terrorist cells in this
country.
Canadians deserve to know what is going on in
parliament without finding out about things on Larry King
Live.
Will the Prime Minister tell parliament, before he
tells President Bush, what he plans to do?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that our
security intelligence agency in this country works in collaboration with
security intelligence agencies around the world. As the Prime Minister has
indicated, anything that took place at that time would have been investigated,
but there were no planned attacks against Canada.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last night on CNN, as has already been
brought out, the King of Jordan revealed that his country, not our country,
uncovered a series of operations in Europe, in the United States and here in
Canada to be carried out by the Osama bin Laden group during the millennium
celebrations.
According to King Abdullah, efforts to thwart these
attempts were co-ordinated with agencies of this country.
I ask the solicitor general, why was something not done
at that time to apprehend those individuals, not by Jordan but by the agencies
of Canada?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
As I just indicated, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what
the King of Jordan had to say last night. He spoke about incidents leading up
to the millennium.
I can assure that any links that were made to Canada
were investigated. I am advised that there were no planned attacks against
Canada, and that is what he was talking about.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are not just talking about attacks
against Canada. The attacks were to be carried out against the Americans by
Ressam who was coming from Canada.
The question that came from CSIS yesterday was that
personnel has been diminished by 40% over the last seven years. Forty per cent
of our intelligence agency deals with the safety and security of our
nation.
Is our solicitor general confident that, in light of
what happened in the United States, in light of the 40% reduction, we have the
personnel to effectively maintain the safety and security of this country
now?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, simply, the answer is yes, and the
director of CSIS has indicated that quite clearly.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as is the case with organized crime,
terrorists need money to function. Today the British government has called on
the international community to undertake joint action to cut funding to
terrorists.
Does the Government of Canada intend to respond to this
appeal by the British government and cut funds the terrorists could access on
Canadian soil or in Canadian banks or businesses?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that the
government not only will take steps but has taken steps.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions, has already ensured that regulations are in place to
seize and restrain any assets that are directly or indirectly involved with bin
Laden and any of his associates.
We have criminal code provisions expanded by Bill C-24
that deal with seizure and forfeiture of assets in certain circumstances. We
will be working with our allies to ensure that we have all the laws in place
necessary to strip terrorist organizations of their lifeblood, which is their
money.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the number one suspect in the September 11
attack, Osama bin Laden, has a fortune of several hundreds of millions of
dollars spread around in hundreds of businesses.
Could the solicitor general tell us what specific steps
have been taken in Canada to locate, freeze and confiscate any funds bin Laden
might have?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions has acted upon a security
council resolution of December last year.
In February he ensured that regulations were enacted to
permit us to seize and restrain any property owned or controlled by Osama bin
Laden or his associates.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's efforts in
respect of laws, but last February justice department lawyers expressed their
concern to the supreme court that its decisions could create a safe haven for
foreign terrorists in Canada.
In light of recent events, will the minister make the
appropriate application to reopen arguments before the court and close the door
to terrorists?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House before,
the hon. member refers to the case of Burns and Rafay.
The supreme court was clear that, in relation to
matters surrounding extradition, I do not have to seek assurances where the
death penalty may be involved in exceptional circumstances. I will decide on a
case by case basis as to whether there are exceptional circumstances that would
not require me to seek assurances.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister does not even
know what case she is talking about because it is not the Burns case. It is a
subsequent case where her lawyers made that compelling argument.
In light of new compelling evidence, the court may
reopen legal arguments in the case of Suresh. No more compelling evidence could
exist than the events of September 11.
Will the minister make an immediate application to the
court in the case of Suresh to protect Canadians or will she continue to risk
an open door policy for terrorists?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that there
is no open door policy nor is there any safe haven in this country for
terrorists.
Let me reassure the hon. member that if he is in fact
referring to the case of Suresh, this matter is before the court. We are
awaiting judgment in this court. We will consider all our options in terms of
any future arguments regarding the issues involved in Suresh.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Customs
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-23, which aims to facilitate
international trade, will require, among other things, freer circulation of
persons and goods.
Does the Minister of Revenue agree that the bill should
be amended in light of the situation created by the September 11
attack?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are no simple answers to the
question of terrorism. I think a number of organizations and agencies will work
together to fight and beat terrorism.
One thing is sure and that is that customs is one of a
number of important elements. When we analyze them today in our trading
context, with globalization and the trade relations we have with the United
States among others, we realize they must be balanced.
I still think that Bill S-23 represents good modern
reform in the current context, and I invite all MPs to intervene to
give—
(1440)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister describes his bill as a
canvas on which he will outline his plan to modernize customs. This is
worrisome.
Would it not be wise for the minister, before going any
further, to define and make public the safety regulations that he has in mind
for Canada customs, in order to allow parliamentarians the opportunity to
debate them?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-23, now before parliament, which
will receive second reading tomorrow and which will hopefully be referred to
committee as soon as possible, is a good bill that will meet all modern needs
for customs and customs management.
This bill will allow us, as a society, to undertake
improved risk assessment and offer Canadians increased protection, which is
what we want.
Penalties will in fact be established, penalties which
will come into effect gradually, as we assess them and as we implement them
with the business community and Canadian society in general.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that last year the Prime
Minister struck a special committee to deal with national security, chaired by
the Deputy Prime Minister. I found out today that it had not met for more than
a year. This is not dealing with national security. This is just going through
the motions.
How can the Prime Minister seriously say that he is
dealing with national security when his own special committee has not met for
more than a year?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all my ministers are doing their jobs
extremely diligently. I know that the opposition does not believe it, but we
had the testimony yesterday of the ambassador of the United States.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, diligence to the Liberal government is not
meeting for more than a year.
A close adviser to the Prime Minister admitted this
national security committee was merely a tradition. In fact he said “the
committee is not significant”.
Faced with our increasing international security
problems, why has the Prime Minister allowed this committee to do nothing for a
year and why does he think his national security committee is not
significant?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when there is a need for a meeting of
either the main security committee or the subcommittee either myself or the
Deputy Prime Minister will preside over these meetings.
* * *
Energy
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources.
We have an extensive energy infrastructure in Canada,
including oil and gas as well as, in the case of myself and other members,
particularly the member for Huron--Bruce, nuclear power plants. In light of the
recent terrorist attacks on the United States, I would like to ask the minister
what measures the government has taken to ensure the security of these energy
systems.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
We take nothing for granted with respect to Canada's energy systems and
infrastructure. In the tragic circumstances of last week our established
regulatory authorities worked very well to safeguard Canadian interests. I
think here of the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
and the explosives administration within my department.
We have excellent co-operation from the provinces and
the private sector and with the United States. We have applied all of the
valuable expertise that was gained through the Y2K exercise. Enhanced
surveillance and security remain in place, but I will not discuss the
details.
* * *
Airline Industry
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Air Canada is pleading for financial help
in the wake of last week's tragic terrorist attacks. The airline industry will
not be the only industry affected by this tragedy.
There is no question that there is a great risk of job
loss for airline workers. Can the government assure the House that if it
decides to proceed with any financial assistance to airlines it would be tied
to an assurance of maximum job protection for airline workers?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting ahead of
herself a little bit. We are currently assessing the financial situation not
just of Air Canada but of all the companies. I have been in touch with the
chief executive officers of the major Canadian airline companies. We are
concerned about the viability. We are concerned about the integrity. We are
concerned about service to communities and we are concerned about all the
people that work for the airlines.
Once this evaluation is complete then we will be in a
position to decide what, if anything, should be done.
* * *
(1445)
Discrimination
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in Ottawa a young Canadian
Arab was beaten unconscious when biking home. This is only one of a number of
alarming incidents across Canada in the wake of the attack on the
U.S.
The Government of Canada has a clear responsibility
under the criminal code and multiculturalism policies to both prevent and act
on hate crimes. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what action the
government is taking to, first, prevent further incidents, and second, given
the situation we are in now, to protect Canadians from further incidents taking
place.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I could not have been clearer on this
issue than I have been in my speeches on this issue in the last week. It is
completely unacceptable that while we are fighting terrorism we would try to
make somebody responsible because of the religion that person professes. If
somebody is doing these things, as the hon. member reported, the criminal code
is there for that. The authorities should arrest the people who do these
violent acts and make sure they face the penalty they deserve.
* * *
Airline Industry
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, in the wake of last week's terrorist
attacks on the United States, the airline industry around the world has been
devastated. Any new security arrangements are going to carry a cost. Is the
government considering compensating the airline industry for its direct losses
and costs as a result of last Tuesday's events?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do believe I answered this question a
few minutes ago. I would like to say that there has been no decision taken in
the United States, either by the congress or the administration, on specific
measures to help the airline industry. It is under review.
We have to make sure that if any assistance is
forthcoming such assistance is properly identifiable to the needs of the
companies and will deal not only with the problem at hand, but will deal with
fairness not just to the airline industries but to all those other industries
that have been affected.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the government that the
airline industry is not the only sector of the economy that suffered direct
losses as a result of last week's terrorist attacks. Canada's trucking
industry, for one, manufacturers and all of our exporters incurred significant
losses resulting from this crackdown on terrorism.
If the government is prepared to compensate the
airlines, what measures is it taking to deal with real losses in these other
sectors of the economy?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the moment, as I said to the hon.
member for Churchill, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We have to
assess the degree of the dislocation and the damage and there is no doubt that
there has been a lot of it. Once we have that assessment we will deal with the
facts and decide what if anything should be done. That is just one aspect of
the transportation industry.
The member rightly identifies the trucking industry.
There are others. The shipping industry was also affected, plus manufacturers,
as he said. Let us get the facts before we act.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister says we are at war
with terrorists, the foreign affairs minister says we are at war with
terrorists and the Prime Minister says we are at war with terrorists. Very soon
they will have the opportunity to show whether the war is anything more than a
war of rhetoric and words.
The United Nations will vote very soon on whether or
not to make Syria, a state with a long record of sponsoring terrorist groups, a
member of the United Nations security council. Will the government oppose
terrorism by opposing Syria?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member will know
that we do not generally announce who we are voting for or against before
security council elections, but in this case he will also know that to this
point in time the group within which that country belongs has not nominated any
other countries to the security council.
More important, he should bear in mind that the efforts
of the United States to build a broader coalition have resulted in a clear
denunciation by Syria of the acts that occurred last week and I am sure that he
would not want to encourage steps that would make it more difficult to build up
a coalition.
(1450)
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The United
Nations charter states that non-permanent members of the security council are
to be elected with due regard to their contributions to international peace and
security. Syria is known for its contributions to Hamas, to Hezbollah and to
many other terrorist groups.
Why will the government not oppose those who support
terrorism?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Let us make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker. I know
it is enticing to use strong rhetoric because the events of last week were
events that evoke very strong reactions, but it is utter nonsense to suggest
that the government is not going to reject and oppose those who support or
promote terrorism or carry out terrorist acts or give succour or comfort to
terrorists.
That is why we have made it clear from the beginning of
this crisis that we stand with the United States in the war against terrorism
and that we will do what we can in order to ensure that events like those of
last Tuesday do not happen again.
* * *
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is concealing his
budget surplus and his entire financial margin of manoeuvrability is going to
paying down the debt.
For the last budget year, the minister also allocated
$17 billion to pay down the debt, with no debate whatsoever.
Since the events of September 11, the economic
situation has changed radically. Will the Minister of Finance at last announce
some credible budget forecasts with sufficient margin of manoeuvrability to
respond to the present situation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is in fact what I did in the
statements of last October and this May. I made forecasts using the reserves
for contingencies and prudence that have allowed us sufficient leeway in the
past. Is this going to be sufficient? We shall see.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, several billion dollars worth of goods in
transit are blocked at our borders; hundreds of conventions are cancelled, in
Montreal in particular; carriers are in trouble; and there will be an
inevitable increase in the costs of security.
Does the Minister of Finance not admit that the only
way he can provide any serious responses to these very real problems is to
promptly bring down a budget in the House?
Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response to this question is not a
budget, but rather that all countries of the world join together, as they are
now doing, to fight terrorism and that we put in place measures to ensure free
trade across our borders.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. The biggest security hole for the country is her
ministry.
American authorities complain Canadian immigration
documents are easy to forge. People smugglers use these forgeries because they
are so easy to reproduce. When will the minister simply close this
gap?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows the protection of
Canadian documents and security protection for Canadians is a priority for the
government. In Bill C-11 we referred to a new permanent resident card which
will replace the IMM 1000. That has policy approval and we are hoping it will
move forward as quickly as possible. It is under development.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, so we have a commitment that those cards
are coming, but of course the minister always tries to tell us that all is well
with her ministry. She often projects blame at us, claiming everything is okay,
but her own officials tell her quite a different story.
The minister knows full well we desperately need more
trained people on the front lines. It is an intensive people
business.
She has the money and she has the mandate. Will she
take action?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear with the member
opposite. The department received $139 million in additional resources from the
finance department. We have deployed those resources to achieve both mandates
of our department, to enforce our laws and see that people are removed as
quickly as possible. We have a new bill which will streamline those
procedures.
However the country was built by immigrants so we have
also deployed resources to ensure that we are able to bring to Canada those
people who have legitimate businesses and also those we need to help to
continue to build the country so we can continue to grow and
prosper.
* * *
(1455)
Foreign Affairs
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary for the Minister for International Cooperation.
The headline on the front page of the Ottawa
Citizen today claims that “1 million flee Afghanistan” and that
officials are predicting a major disaster. What is Canada doing to avert a
human catastrophe in Pakistan and Iran?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
I am pleased to inform the House that just today the Minister for International
Cooperation announced $1 million in humanitarian assistance to aid the millions
of Afghani refugees who have fled to Pakistan and Iran. Our assistance will
provide basic health care needs, shelter and water to these displaced people in
Pakistan and Iran and it will be done through the UN agencies and their staff
on the ground.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has said that
Canadian troops will be on the frontlines of any NATO attack against
terrorists, but last month he sent 200 troops from one NATO commitment in
Bosnia to another NATO commitment in Macedonia. That is like paying off one
credit card account with another credit card.
Where is the minister going to get the frontline troops
that he is promising?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we took the troops out of Bosnia simply
because they were close to the scene and they were needed there immediately. It
was the handiest thing to do and it was something that the United States and
the other countries that are involved in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia wanted us to do. We have responded.
We responded at the time of the Kosovo air campaign and
we have responded on numerous other occasions, including the present crisis,
and we will continue to respond. We will continue to work with our allies,
including the United States, in this campaign against terrorism.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, one way the minister says we certainly can
respond is with our F-18s. He has pointed out that often as an
example.
We have some of the best people in our forces, but
because of government cuts to our military we no longer have the experienced
pilots, the logistical support people, the smart bombs or the air to air
refuelling that we need. We cannot now meet even the small commitment that we
made in Macedonia if we are asked to do it.
The minister knows full well that we have lost more
than half of our experienced pilots from the Kosovo campaign. What I want to
know is where we are going to get the pilots to fly our F-18s when it comes
time to meet that commitment of our allies.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all countries in the NATO alliance are
experiencing a shortage of pilots. It is not just Canada. I will say that while
we are trying to get more pilots and keep the pilots we have, we were able to
respond to a request from the United States last week that asked us to put more
of our CF-18s into the NORAD system to help in the protection of North America.
We said yes. We did it.
* * *
[Translation]
Airlines Industry
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as the result of the recent terrorist
attacks, airlines have suffered significant losses, and the Bush administration
intends to give them financial support.
Air Canada has also asked the Government of Canada for
compensation to cover the revenues lost as the result of increased security
measures, which the Minister of Transport is preparing to analyze.
Will the minister promise before the House that any
compensation paid to Air Canada will not be used to cover the airline's lack of
administrative ability as may be seen in the poor quality of services offered
in French and its deplorable lack of service to the regions?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained, I discussed the
problem with the heads of all the airlines across the country. We are very
concerned about maintaining the viability of the airlines.
However, we must have all the facts before a decision
is made. Up to now, we have reached no decision on financial assistance, but we
are studying the matter in its entirety.
* * *
[English]
China
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 17 negotiators agreed
to terms allowing the People's Republic of China to join the World Trade
Organization.
I call on the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific to
explain the significance of China's WTO accession.
(1500)
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes this historic event. As
the agreement is fully ratified, China, our fourth largest trading partner,
becomes a member of the rules based international trading system and therefore
is bound by the provisions on transparency and the rule of law.
As the Minister for International Trade earlier
indicated in another avenue, it means more enhanced business between Canada and
China and also more opportunities, and therefore economic and social benefits
for all Canadians.
* * *
Foreign Aid
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the war against terrorism must also be
fought on a non-military front. If we want the developing countries as allies
to join us in this war, we also need non-military assistance. It is amazing
that the government is overlooking this crucial area. What is the government
doing to provide real assistance beyond its usual token
contributions?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member on the other
side was not listening. I announced in the House today that the Minister for
International Cooperation just made an announcement of $1 million in
humanitarian assistance to the millions of Afghani refugees who have fled to
Pakistan and Iran.
We have a tradition in Canada of providing humanitarian
assistance to displaced persons and we will continue to do so.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
I want to ask the minister whether the Prime Minister
in his conversation with President Bush next week will not only reiterate the
profound concern of Canadians that those who are responsible for terrorist acts
will be brought to justice, but also that it be done fully in accordance with
international law. Specifically, will the Prime Minister urge the President
that the evaluation and assessment of the evidence of responsibility for these
appalling acts be made by an international tribunal and not solely by the
United States or NATO?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I want to restate the
fact that support for the creation of the international criminal court is a key
part of Canada's foreign policy.
Unfortunately we do not have the signatures of 60
countries on the treaty of Rome at this point. The court does not exist. It
would not have retroactive authority if it did come into existence. The hon.
member can be assured that we expect that any action taken will be in
conformity with international law, particularly article 51 of the UN
charter.
* * *
Points of Order
PC/DR
Coalition
[Points of Order]
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During the summer adjournment, certain reconfigurations
occurred on this side of the House. On September 12, I wrote you advising that
20 members had united to establish--
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. I know the House has looked forward to
this moment with some anticipation. However, it is very important the Chair be
able to hear all the arguments advanced on every side. The Chair is very keen
to hear the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who has the floor
at the moment.
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, maybe those less interested in
reconfiguration can reconfigure outside.
Mr. Speaker, on September 12, I wrote to you advising
that 20 members had united to establish the PC/DR coalition to function within
the machinery of the House of Commons. I sent a full list of members of the
House who are members of the PC/DR coalition. Earlier today we held our fourth
caucus.
I also advised you in that letter that the officers of
the coalition are the right hon. member for Calgary Centre as leader, the
member for Fraser Valley as deputy leader, the member for Edmonton North as
caucus chair, the member for Prince George--Peace River as whip, and myself as
House leader.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank you for your
assistance in getting us seated in the House for the very important business
that confronted us on Monday. My colleagues have been able to discharge their
essential parliamentary functions thanks to the efforts of the
Chair.
I now need to raise several issues that so far have not
been capable of resolution with the whips of other parties. I do so with
considerable regret because as you recognize Mr. Speaker, it is always better
for the harmonious workings of the House that these matters be settled through
parliamentary machinery.
The first is the matter of the location of our seats in
the House. Second is the allocation and precedence of questions in question
period. Third is the allocation and precedence of speaking times during debate.
Fourth is the allocation of supply days.
Mr. Speaker, the PC/DR coalition asks that you grant
changes. These changes would recognize us as the fourth largest political
entity in the House. The PC/DR coalition is comprised of 20 members of the
House. All 20 members recognize the right hon. member for Calgary Centre as our
leader and we sit in opposition to the government. As such, our leader assigns
critic roles, names House leaders and provides leadership to the caucus as a
whole. My colleague, the whip and member for Prince George--Peace River
similarly acts for the 20 members in facilitating the working of our
caucus.
As House leader, I speak for 20 members of the House.
In my capacity as such I perform many functions on their behalf, including the
presentation of this argument today. We are a single unit of 20 and we have
collectively taken the decision to present ourselves in this fashion, but at
present we are being treated as a group of 12.
In contrast, the Canadian Alliance has parliamentary
resources, speaking time, access to supply days and financial resources based
on a membership of 66. In fact its membership has now been diminished to 58
seats. Nearly a million Canadians represented by members who now sit in the
PC/DR coalition are having their access to parliamentary representation
compromised by the practices that no longer conform to the proportionate
parliamentary realities. Certain decisions taken at the beginning of this
parliament are no longer applicable. We suggest that they should now be
revised.
I would add this imbalance is not fair to all other
parties in the House. The Alliance enjoys a disproportionate allocation in
relationship to all other entities in the House of Commons, not just the
coalition. The changes I am requesting have no serious impact on any other
party in the House. The resources and allocation of the numbers of questions
and opportunities for participation in debate for Liberal members will not
change, nor will they change for the Bloc or the NDP.
The Bloc and the NDP will not have their allotted days,
questions or debate time reduced. Let me say that again for emphasis. The
Liberals, Bloc and NDP will not have their allotted days, questions or debate
time reduced.
We are however now the fourth largest political entity
in the House and claim all of the privileges and rights associated with that
position. The Alliance currently has resources to which they are not entitled
and these resources should therefore be reassigned on a per capita,
proportionate basis.
There will be no additional political entities created
which would require additional negotiations or resources or consultations with
the government. What we are doing is simply working within the system to
facilitate the work of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, while I recognize this is not an issue
before you, I want to point out that we will be asking for fair and equitable
financial treatment through reallocation of existing resources. That, however,
is a matter for the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Speaker, we contend that the guiding principle in
your decision should be equitable treatment for the rights of individual
members to act individually and collectively here in the House of
Commons.
(1505)
As individual members we are free and have a duty to
come to the House to consider the business before the House and vote on
questions put to the House by the Speaker for decision. In so doing we may seek
to participate in the proceedings and debate, and may try to influence
decisions.
All of us act as individuals and indeed all of us act
as part of collective organizations within the House of Commons which exist to
help facilitate the organization of the business before the House. Accordingly,
when individuals choose to act collectively, the threshold for access to
certain parliamentary rights is set out by the Parliament of Canada Act at a
minimum of 12 members. We have met and surpassed that threshold. We are 20
members.
Mr. Speaker, we view ourselves as a whole and simply
request that you do likewise. We have chosen the name PC/DR coalition because
we feel this describes the collective will of the group. It accurately depicts
our origins and defines our common purpose. For the purposes of the House of
Commons, we participate and vote just as do other political entities, such as a
party, an alliance, a bloc, a confederation, or a union. I choose these
descriptive words that other political entities have used in parliaments past
and present to illustrate that parliamentary entities come in many forms and
configurations.
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, there is no precise
definition of a party in the Parliament of Canada Act.
Let us examine for a moment what political parties and
bodies do in the House of Commons. Political bodies are an important part of
the machinery of this House. They are vehicles to communicate the collective
will of the members, but foremost they provide assistance for the Chair and the
House in the organization of the business of the House. Individual members have
delegated certain authority to other members to act on their behalf, which we
have done. The nature of that relationship is defined between those members.
The existence of that relationship is signalled to the Chair by various means,
some implicit and some specific.
I am not aware of any other instance when members who,
having formed a group of 20, have had their collective rights challenged or
denied.
Members who have crossed the floor or changed
allegiances have never been asked to prove their political affiliation, abandon
their past, or produce political membership cards to the Speaker to justify
their existence. What we call ourselves outside the House should be of no
concern to the Speaker. It may be a delicious tidbit for journalists or others,
but within the walls of this Chamber and the precinct of parliament, external
political labels should be left outside. Membership cards that may or may not
be found in my wallet do not fall within the Speaker's jurisdiction.
All of us arrived here as equals in response to a writ
of election. As equals we have rights; as equals we are free to associate as we
individually choose. Indeed the right to associate freely is guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not suggesting that the Speaker
will rule on a constitutional legal question. Rather I want to make the point
that members of the House of Commons, as free Canadians, have the right to
belong to whatever lawful organizations they choose, both inside and outside
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I completely understand you do not rule on
questions of law. However, I do suggest that in considering past practices, the
Speaker is entitled to take notice of the important charter rights that were
given to Canadians in 1981. In fact earlier this week the Prime Minister
referred to the importance of the charter, which protects all Canadians. This
certainly extends to all members of the House of Commons and the Parliament of
Canada.
On June 1, 1994 my friend, the member for
Winnipeg--Transcona, stated in this Chamber, and I quote from
Hansard:
|
Parties present themselves to the House as parties and are not
created or disposed of by the House itself. Our membership in our respective
parties is a matter between ourselves, our fellow caucus colleagues, our
extraparliamentary organizations and ultimately our electors. We can leave our
parties or be asked to leave our parties. We can create new parties, merge two
parties into one, as did the Progressives and the Conservatives, or change the
name of our parties as we in the New Democratic Party did. |
I will not comment on the fact that they are still
calling themselves new after 30 years. My colleague then went on to say:
|
The
tradition of this place has been for the Speaker to accept the party
affiliation that the parties and the members report to him or her. |
(1510)
That is what we have done. I agree with my colleague
and fellow House leader that it is not for anyone other than the participants
to decide how to label the parliamentary group. It has been stated in the past
that it is a privilege to be seated anywhere in the House. It follows that
having been elected to the House members have the privilege to be affiliated
and seated anywhere they choose.
There is no requirement in the Parliament of Canada Act
that any member must belong to any political party, as evidenced by the number
of independent members we have seen in the Chamber in the past. This concept is
also defined on page 186, chapter 4 of the House of Commons Procedure and
Practice, edited by Marleau and Montpetit, which states:
|
Although most Members are elected with a party affiliation (a
very small percentage of Members are elected as independents), Members are not
obliged to retain that party label during the whole of their
mandate. |
What we have decided to do and call ourselves is
strictly a matter of choice so long as we are not seeking to duplicate an
existing name. The various titles that are used in the House, whether a group
styles itself a caucus, an alliance, a bloc, a confederation, a union or
coalition, is a matter of internal decision.
That title is used to convey whatever stylistic
information the members of the group wish to convey. Even the Liberal caucus
has contained members of another party, the Liberal Labour Party. We choose to
call ourselves the PC/DR caucus coalition. We do not define other parties. Nor
should they define us. We have taken the conscious decision to perform and
present in a cohesive manner, and our name reflects that decision.
Some members may argue that this is a matter which
should be referred to a committee, as occurred in 1963 in the case of the
Social Credit-Ralliement créditiste split. I suggest that it would be dangerous
to go down that road. That would mean that government supporters would
determine the fate of an opposition party. Government sanctioned parliamentary
opposition is unworthy of our contemplation.
Given the nature of government domination of
committees, we do not want to enter into a world where government licensing of
the opposition side of the House is the rule of the day. Our actions will
eventually be judged by our party supporters and by the electorate on another
day.
Fortunately precedents since 1963 indicate that no
group of 12 or more members has ever been denied party status. This is the
basis upon which we make our argument today.
Coalitions have been formed in the past under the
parliamentary system. It is understood that this is done for the good of the
country and to further the cause espoused by the members who believe in that
cause. When it has happened in the past it was understood that it was done for
the furtherance of the public good and in the best interest of the Parliament
of Canada.
My colleagues in the coalition are here to do the
important business of the House. I genuinely regret that the Speaker has had to
become involved. The House and the speakership would have been better served if
this question were not placed before you. However the 20 members of the
coalition have been left with no option. We seek equitable treatment for the
members of the coalition, for the good of parliament and Canada.
(1515)
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough said that he talked to other House leaders and
whips. As the House leader of the official opposition I have had no official
meeting with that group about how they should sit in the House.
I had one phone call last Saturday evening from you,
Mr. Speaker, about seating, to which I agreed. I have no disagreement with
where they are sitting right now. I checked with my whip and he has had no
official meeting. If you put the onus on yourself, it is the onus of that group
and not of my party.
If you are at all tempted to grant this status and
arrangement that the members of the DRC are seeking, you will be creating a
parliamentary enigma in deciding a matter that is the proper decision of the
House.
To comply with the member's request for a coalition,
this group must be recognized as a separate entity. For official parliamentary
purposes a separate entity can only be defined as a party. I will address the
party issue first.
The concept of a political party, and particularly the
funding of smaller political parties, is a relatively recent phenomenon. For
example, in 1944 Prime Minister Mackenzie King argued that in consulting the
opposition he was obliged only to deal with the leader of the opposition, not
the leaders of other parties. He said, at page 554 of Hansard from
February 16, 1944, “If the opposition wish to be divided into groups, that of
course is their own affair”.
The granting of money to the leaders of smaller parties
did not begin until 1963. It was also at that time that the so-called 12 member
rule was established. It is here where I will begin examining some of the
history of these types of requests.
In 1963, 13 members of the Social Credit Party split
off and declared themselves a separate party under the name Ralliement
créditiste. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections. In committee the issue was not treated merely as a matter of
applying the 12 member rule but rather as one determining the validity of the
claim by the Ralliement créditiste to be a political party.
The committee looked at the legal and electoral
evidence that would support the Ralliement créditiste claim. The committee
refrained from committing itself to a full definition of the requirement that
would be needed to be met in order for a group to be recognized as a political
party.
In the Canadian Journal of Political Science of
March 1978 in reference to the 1963 case, John Courtney states “A pragmatic
solution was brokered amongst the existing party and groups in the
House”.
On page 33 of Marleau and Montpetit it states “Speakers
have been clear in rulings that it is up to the House itself to decide such
matters”. This references the 1963 case as well as February 18, 1966, October
11, 1979, November 6, 1979 and June 16, 1994.
On September 30, 1963, at pages 3008 and 3009 of
Hansard, the Speaker explained it in this way:
I cannot conclude this statement
without some reference to the significance of these events for the future of
the definition and status of parties in this House. It is not my place to
evaluate the significance of these matters for the future of every changing
structure and character of political parties; yet it is my duty, I believe, to
bring to the attention of the House the novel character of the situation now
before it, and more particularly the payment of allowances and the effect on
the organization of parliament and parties and of the work of this House that
naturally must be reflected by the emergence from time to time of new groups
that invite the House to accord them the status of parties. Profound
constitutional questions arise; for example, can a group of members which did
not exist as a party at the time of the election of a parliament be recognized
as a party before it has submitted itself to the electorate? |
There are few precise rules regarding the recognition
of parties in the House. Much depends on the will of the House.
In 1988, when members of the Conservative and Liberal
caucuses quit their parties to form the Bloc Quebecois, they were not granted
party status even though they went on to register under the elections act and
managed to have a representative elected in the 1990 byelection. They were
denied party status because the House was guided by the 12 member
rule.
On the other hand, in the 1974 general election the
Ralliement créditiste were reduced to 11 members. Even though it did not
qualify for a research budget it continued to receive funds because its members
were elected in a general election and the House made that decision, not the
Speaker.
The first step in becoming a registered party under the
elections act is the application process. There are a number of items to be
included in the application such as the names, addresses and signatures of 100
electors and the names and addresses of party officers and the leader. Once a
party has become eligible it becomes registered after it has obtained
candidates whose nomination has been confirmed in 50 electoral districts. So
far the DRC does not qualify under the elections act as a party.
(1520)
It should also be noted that these requirements under
the act are fairly new. They were made with the passage of Bill C-9, which
received royal assent on June 14, 2001.
If anyone wants to know how the majority of members in
this parliament might feel about the issue of a party status, they need to look
no further than to the recent changes to the elections act. The passage of Bill
C-9 made it more difficult for small fringe parties to emerge and be recognized
under the elections act.
It would be inconsistent for the House to make it more
difficult for small fringe parties to be recognized through the elections act
and easier through the parliamentary procedure.
Another aspect of the law to consider is the bylaws of
the House, specifically bylaw 302. This bylaw defines a recognized party as a
party recognized by the House that has 12 or more persons elected to the House
as members of that party.
The members of the DRC, by their own admission, are not
an official party. According to the elections act they are not a party. The
recent decision by the House with the passage of Bill C-9 would suggest there
is no appetite to make them a party. Pursuant to the bylaws of the House of
Commons they do not qualify as a party.
Without party status, they cannot apply for a coalition
arrangement with a recognized party. The reason is that there is nothing
official to coalesce with. We cannot expect the Speaker to depart from
convention and grant this group special status.
In the September 30, 1963 Hansard, at page 3008,
in reference to the 1963 party status debate, the Speaker stated:
|
It is
not one where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where any group
of members might feel that their interests as a group or a party have been
prejudiced. Nor should the Speaker be put in the position where he must decide,
to the advantage or to the disadvantage of any group or party, matters
affecting the character or existence of a party, for this surely would signify
that the Speaker had taken what was almost a political decision. |
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the members of the DRC
are still card carrying Canadian Alliance members. What political party will
they claim to belong to when asked?
If that question were put to the hon. member for Prince
George--Peace River, for example, his response would be “I am a card carrying
member of the Alliance Party. In parliament I am a member of the democratic
representative caucus, and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has
just appointed me whip”. The hon. member is obviously suffering from some
multiple parliamentary party disorder.
Most political parties would find it unacceptable for
any of its members to be part of another federal party or caucus. It was not
that long ago that former Liberal cabinet minister Doug Young bought a
membership in the Canadian Alliance. The Liberal Party leadership reacted
quickly and revoked Mr. Young's Liberal membership.
If members get ejected from their party, that should be
as a result of the decisions of the political players involved. A Speaker's
decision should not be the cause for a member's ejection from a
party.
It could be argued that either way your decision may
bring about a political action. The possible result of your not granting the
members the status they desire could be that they quit the Canadian Alliance
altogether in order to better qualify for special status. The difference is
this: maintaining the status quo is the traditional position taken by
Speakers.
I will go back to when the Reform Party was tied with
the Bloc Quebecois in the House with 50 members each. The Reform Party asked to
be the official opposition because it represented provinces right across Canada
and the Bloc represented only one province. The Tories of that day, there were
two of them, could have joined and made that a better argument. It was not to
their advantage at the time so they did not try to do that to make sure that
the opposition in Canada was a party that would represent all of
Canada.
The same party, with the House leader for the
Conservative Party who has just made his argument without any precedents, which
I find amazing for a lawyer, lost five Tories in the last parliament. I did not
hear them get up once and offer the Canadian Alliance a few more questions in
question period, or the Liberals who gained four of the five members. They kept
the same number of questions. That was the rule at the start of that parliament
and it was the rule at the finish of that parliament. They cannot have it both
ways.
You should not feel responsible for what may happen,
Mr. Speaker, if you turn down the member's request. If a preacher refused to
marry a couple because one was already married, the preacher could not be
responsible if a divorce resulted in his decision.
(1525)
On the other hand, he would feel very responsible for
the sequence of events that followed a decision to marry the couple. I will put
that aside for now, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to consider another
point.
Assuming that all the conditions were met to entertain
a request for a coalition, it is up to the Speaker to unilaterally allow a
party to form a coalition with another party. I would argue that it would be a
departure from convention for the Speaker to make a decision on behalf of the
House. It would be a giant departure from convention to allow small group
without party status to form a coalition with any party in the
House.
The only coalition at the national level in Canada was
Sir Robert Borden's 1917 union government. Faced with strong opposition to
conscription and with other major difficulties during World War I, Borden
brought several conscriptionist liberals into his government. The political
party system has come a long way since 1917. The groups in 1917 were not vying
for funding and increased resources. It was a matter of a coalition government,
the first world war and the issue of conscription. It was not an issue of
organizing or re-organizing the opposition. A coalition is necessary to govern
but certainly not necessary to oppose.
As I said in my argument regarding the party's status,
the concept of a political party, and particularly the funding of smaller
political parties, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The granting of money to
the leaders of small parties did not begin until 1963. Even if the members of
the DRC had the so-called magic number of 12, they are not registered under the
Canada Elections Act. There must be some cohesion between parliamentary law and
the common law with respect to party recognition.
Before I wrap up I want to discuss briefly the issue of
other jurisdictions because we are members of the Commonwealth and we have
taken our lead all through the centuries from the mothers of all
parliaments.
The funding of opposition parties in the U.K. is based
upon votes received in the last general election. This is known as Short money,
so named after a previous leader of the House. The DRC received zero votes in
the last election. According to the practice of the United Kingdom they should
receive zero money and zero consideration.
In New Zealand the rules regarding party status and
coalitions are spelled out a little clearer in their standing orders. The
relevant standing orders of the New Zealand house of representatives are as
follows. Standing order 34(1) states that every party in whose interest a
member was elected at the preceding general election or at any subsequent
byelection is entitled to be recognized as a party for parliamentary purposes.
Members who cease to be members of the party for which they were originally
elected may be recognized as a party for parliamentary purposes if they apply
to the speaker and their new party is registered as a registered party by the
electoral commission. Once again, even if the DRC had 12 members they would not
qualify.
Standing order 35(2) from New Zealand deals with a
coalition. It says that a coalition between two or more parties must be
notified to the speaker but each party to the coalition remains a separate
party for parliamentary purposes. Again, the DRC does not qualify as a party in
the House.
In Australia, coalitions have been an important part of
Australian political life since the 1920s. In 1923 a nationalist party
coalition government was formed which lasted until 1929. Since that time most
non-labour governments have been coalitions between the major conservative
party and Australia's rural party. As with the New Zealand example, each party
to the coalition remains a separate party for parliamentary purposes. The DRC
would not have a chance in the Australian parliament either. The same concept
holds true for the U.K.
The other consideration is that coalitions are
creatures of governments, not opposition. We can debate these examples from
other jurisdictions all we want. The bottom line is that the Speaker has clear
Canadian precedence and has no choice but to rule that it is the House that
must decide this matter. The House could consider the New Zealand, Australia or
U.K. models if it wanted. It could choose not to decide at all and maintain the
status quo. That is its prerogative.
Maybe the House should seriously consider the private
member's bill sponsored by one of the members from the DRC, the member for
Saskatoon--Humboldt. In his February 21 press release that launched one of his
many initiatives, he said that the bill would end official party status in the
House of Commons for political parties with less than 30 seats or without
representation from at least three provinces or territories.
For several years parliament's time has been wasted on
fringe political parties that are not national in their effectiveness or
appeal. With 4% of seats in parliament, the NDP and Progressive Conservatives
do not deserve the financial resources that go along with official party
status. Maybe the member has changed his mind.
(1530)
In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on the
impact of the minor fluctuations in the size of party issue in the course of a
parliament. Since 1963, when funding for parties began, parliamentary resources
for parties remained stable, regardless of any change in the numbers of each
party. Even when there was significant fluctuation, resources would not be
distributed. I use the example that I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives in
the last parliament lost five members. They did not ask to have their numbers
reduced, their questions reduced.
There were other examples. In 1983 and 1984 the
Liberals went from 147 to 135 elected members. In the 34th parliament the
Conservatives went from 169 down to 151 elected members. Despite these changes,
resources remained stable. In the 35th parliament we had a situation where a
tie occurred between the two largest opposition parties. In that situation the
Reform Party claimed the title of official opposition. The Speaker ruled that
the status quo be maintained, preserving the Bloc Quebecois as the official
opposition.
As Speaker MacNaughton said, the Speaker should not be
put in the position where he must decide to the advantage or disadvantage of
any group or party or that would signify that the Speaker has taken what is
almost a political decision.
In the U.K. during the passage of the European
Community's finance bill, 1994-95, the Conservatives expelled eight MPs, with a
ninth voluntarily resigning. With this change, the government lost its
majority. The House debated the composition of standing committees on January
11, 1995. It concluded that the composition of the committees would not have to
be altered. There were no further repercussions over this situation.
In conclusion, the present distribution of resources
for the opposition parties must be maintained. An official coalition between
the PC Party and the DRC cannot be entertained because the DRC has nothing
official to bring to the table with which to coalesce. The DRC can only be
recognized officially as independent members for parliamentary
purposes.
I am not saying that parties, groups and independents
cannot co-operate with each other in parliament. It is far from that. They are
welcome to co-operate all they wish. In fact, the Alliance co-operated with all
opposition parties in the last parliament. The Reform Party co-operated with
other parties in the parliament before that. It could be said that technically
the opposition is always setting up a coalition of parties for the purposes of
opposing the government with the leader of the opposition taking centre stage.
Our rules would appear to reflect that.
We have two principal leaders in the House: the Prime
Minister, who leads the government, and the Leader of the Opposition, who leads
the opposition. To boldly recognize the arrangement being sought today would be
a departure from our practice. Accordingly, the matter should be left for the
House to decide, not the Speaker.
(1535)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will be much briefer than the member who
spoke before me. I simply wish to remind the House that section 62 of the
Parliament of Canada Act provides that in order to receive financial benefits,
a party must elect at least 12 members in a federal election.
Nowhere else does tradition depart from these
provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act. We have checked and, to date, no
new political party has been registered with the chief electoral officer. No
one in this House may therefore request research funding or operating budgets
when these are traditionally given to parties.
I am very sorry for the members sitting as
independents, but the only way to be able to request resources is to do what
has already been done in the past and to officially become Conservative
members. However, to my knowledge, this has not been done so far
either.
Since there is no new party called the Alliance PC
Coalition, and since no Alliance members have become Conservatives, I therefore
do not see the point of prolonging this debate. The Parliament of Canada Act is
clear.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is a serious one
for the Speaker to consider. What we are talking about today is not whether a
political party has a right to change names. Obviously, the party across did at
some point in the past, but that is not before us today. To claim that PC/DRC
is similar to changing the name of another party, I do not think is factually
accurate. It is not the same and I will get back to that later.
There has been some attempt to make a parallel between
this and the issue of the role of the Speaker regarding the Créditistes in the
1960s. That also is very different. The situation that we had at the time, if
my memory serves me correct, was that there was only enough members to make one
party and a large number of the members of that party had defected to create
the new political party. The issue before the House then was which one of the
two groups was the real party. The Speaker at the time referred it to a
committee where eventually it was decided that the Ralliement des créditiste
would maintain its status because it met the criteria.
That was the issue then. Again, I do not think that is
the same as what we have in front of us today. It is of little consequence to
me, as a partisan, what goes on in this regard because it does not change the
status of the government in any way. However, it goes beyond that.
The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the
House referred to Short money and the role in the British House. The parallel
of my position as leader of the government in the House is referred to in the
British House as leader of the House. In a way, without being presumptuous, I
consider my role to be analogous to that in the sense that if colleagues across
the way ask me why the government or a minister has failed to respond to a
question or anything like that I take it upon myself to ensure that I can do
what I can because I feel that I have that responsibility to members
individually and collectively in the mandate that has been given to me. It is
in that regard that I make the comments that are before us today, not for any
particular advantage because obviously there is not one either way.
The debate before the House today concerns whether a
significant material change in membership affects the benefits that members
would have. In other words, if a political party across lost a grand sum of
members and that sum was added to another political party, there could be a
debate. I do not know what the outcome would be, it is not before us, but there
could be a debate as to whether or not that changes the resources between one
political party and another one. Again, that is not the issue that is before us
at the present time. It goes beyond that. This is also not a case of whether or
not there is or has been a coalition government in this country. There has
been. We know that. It has been referred to in previous contributions.
The issue before us is whether or not a political party
and some independent members can be collectively identified as an opposition
coalition, not an opposition coalition party. If that was the name of their
party--I do not happen to think it would be a particularly attractive name but
that is a personal view--anyone could use whatever name they think is
attractive to the electors to who they are appealing. That is certainly none of
my business but it is something that members might want to consider at another
time.
The issue before us in whether or not independents can
be grouped with a political party in order for the sum of the two to change the
status of other parties in the House, because that is the effect. That is
really the issue before us. This is my interpretation of it and I would ask the
Speaker to consider it.
Mr. Speaker, the standing orders that we have at the
present time, along with the board bylaws, Beauchesne's and Marleau and
Montpetit can perhaps guide us and indicate what structure in the House has
official recognition.
(1540)
Standing Order No. 5 states:
|
No
Minister of the Crown, nor party leader, shall be eligible for the election to
the Office of Speaker. |
The office of Speaker is the highest office in this
room. Does that mean a leader of a coalition could be a candidate for Speaker?
I do not know, but we must realize the implication it would have were we to
make a decision in the House.
Does it mean that an officer of the House who is not a
member of a party could be eligible for some of these offices? Again there are
repercussions to consider.
I will draw Beauchesne's to the attention of the House.
Beauchesne's sixth edition refers to the role of party whips. This is
particularly important today because one of the debates before us is whether
someone who is not a member of a political party can be a whip for an entity,
whether we call that entity a party or something else.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 201(1)
states:
|
Each
party has as one of its supporters a Member known as the Chief
Whip. |
It does not say each coalition or anything else. It
says each party. It makes no reference to anything that is not a
party.
Citation 201(2) states:
|
The
duties of the Whips are to keep their Members supplied with information
concerning the business of the House-- |
The citation describes the role of party whips, not
other individuals.
I will also draw to the attention of the Speaker
references from Marleau and Montpetit which I believe are helpful. Of course I
will recognize and respect how the Speaker adjudicates in the matter. However
the Speaker will know of the reference to the Parliament of Canada Act on page
30 of Marleau and Montpetit. It refers to financial benefits, which is
presumably an issue of interest here today. It states:
|
With
regard to financial benefits, the Parliament of Canada Act provides
additional allowances to the Leader, the Whip and the House Leader of a party
that has a recognized membership-- |
On page 31 it goes on to talk about financial support
to the caucus research units of recognized parties. It further
states:
|
However, in recent practice, a procedural interpretation of the
definition “recognized party” has come to mean any party with 12 or more
Members in the House. |
Once again the reference is to parties.
On the conduct of question period, page 423 of Marleau
and Montpetit refers to:
|
Members of a political party not officially recognized in the
House-- |
It describes what these members would be if they
belonged to something other than an officially recognized political party.
It is my interpretation that if there was a definition
of a group of people who are something other than a political party one would
find it on page 423 of Marleau and Montpetit. It is not there. Page 492 of
Marleau and Montpetit states the following:
|
The
Whips of the other parties and Members without party affiliation usually rise
to indicate their agreement. |
That means of course that the whips of the parties
speak for the group and those who are not members of the party must make their
identification individually because they are not members of the party. It
states on the same page:
|
--Members without party affiliation indicate how they wish to be
recorded. |
This is in the case of recorded divisions. Again there
is no mechanism for someone to speak on behalf of those who are not members of
a recognized political party. That is made quite clear here.
On the pairing of members it is very interesting. There
is a well established procedure of the clerk having on his table a book
describing the duty of the whips of political parties with regard to
pairing.
(1545)
The reference to party whips is at the bottom of page
492. It says whips can pair for their members. However there is no provision
that says a whip can speak in this form for someone who is not a member of
their party, coalition or other group by which they wish to be recognized
collectively. It refers only to parties. Anything else is deemed not to fit the
bill.
I will draw to the attention of the House Bill C-28
which we recently passed in the House of Commons. It is a bill members will
recognize because it had to do with our salaries as MPs and senators. Page 4 of
the bill refers to party leaders with respect to salaries. It refers to the:
|
--leader of a party that has a recognized membership of twelve
or more-- |
Again the reference is uniquely to a political party
and no other structure.
I drew to the House's attention references to Marleau
and Montpetit. The only item that remains, at least in my contribution, is the
issue of the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal
Economy is free to change its bylaws just as the House is free to change its
laws. However until it has done so it is bound to interpret the laws under
which we currently operate and nothing else.
Bylaw 302 defines a party as one which has been
recognized by the House and has a membership of 12 or more persons elected to
the House. Bylaw 302(6) refers to House officers of a recognized party and
describes some of their functions and so on. Again the reference is to a
political party.
In conclusion, it is not for me to say whether
independent members should belong to one political party versus another in the
House. That is none of my business. We all recognize that. It is a decision
which members will make in their consciences and which we will respect.
In a partisan way I could say it would be wrong either
way because I do not agree with it politically. However that is immaterial for
the purpose of what we have here. If members decide to join another party and
indicate they have done so, I for one would accept it, as I am sure would all
my colleagues. What other choice would we have? It would not be our business
beyond that.
However that has not even been advocated or brought to
the attention of the Speaker. No one today so far has suggested or asked that
independent members be recognized as members of their party. Unless that is
sought, asked for or presented, it is difficult for the Speaker and/or the
House to claim the proposition was brought forward because it was
not.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider these arguments
along with several others you have heard. We will fully respect what you have
to say in this regard.
(1550)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a number of analogies and metaphors have
been employed today so I might best begin with a marital analogy as one who has
performed the odd wedding ceremony in my time. There is a question that is
customarily asked, and it is in fact required by law: If either of you know of
any reason why you should not be joined together in holy matrimony, you should
say so now or forever hold your peace. I am paraphrasing.
If that question were asked of the member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and the member whom he still illegitimately
calls his whip, and I will not get into that, I do not think it would be
greeted with the silence with which it is normally greeted in any of the
ceremonies at which I have presided. The fact remains that members of the
so-called DRC already and still have another relationship, with the Alliance
Party.
They may not have a relationship with the Alliance
caucus, and I am sure this is a source of great weeping and gnashing of teeth
among members of the Alliance caucus, but the members of the DRC still have a
relationship with the Alliance Party.
I do not think the House of Commons can be completely
isolated from what takes place outside it and from the status people enjoy
outside the House. The House of Commons is not a motel where we can check in
and pretend to be someone we are not or where we can have a relationship that
does not exist.
Without wanting to put too fine a point on it, Mr.
Speaker, I think it is obligatory on your part to consider not only that
members of the so-called DRC still belong to another party but that this fact
must be taken into account when judging whether or not the DRC, which is
presenting itself as a parliamentary group and demanding the rights and
privileges of a party, should be treated as a party.
We might argue that even if members of the DRC were
fully divorced from their former family the so-called group would still not
qualify as a party unless and until its members made up their minds and joined
the Progressive Conservative Party. In that case we would have an entirely
different set of circumstances on which I am not prepared to comment at the
moment.
However that is not what we have before us. We have
before us the illegitimate proceeds of a rolling political orgy that took place
over the summer in which people made all kinds of relationships with each
other. It does not do parliament any good to have to figure this out on the
floor of the House of Commons.
I am glad the member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough is immune from libel suits in the House of
Commons because he slandered me when he quoted my intervention of 1994 having
to do with the recognition of parties.
(1555)
What I was talking about at that time was parties,
political parties like the New Democratic Party that was elected in the
election of 1993, nine of us, as New Democrats. We sat in the House as New
Democrats. We did not pretend to be someone else. We did not decide to be sort
of half this and half that. All we wanted at the time was procedural
recognition of ourselves as a party in this House, not a group, not a
coalition, not something else, but as the political party that we presented
ourselves as to the Canadian people and we wanted that recognized here. That is
fundamentally different than what is being requested by the member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough this day. It is not fair or accurate to compare
my argument at that time with the argument that is being made today.
Earlier on the member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, like his leader on television last night,
suggested that in some way or another they had already been working as a
coalition and had been recognized to some degree as a coalition in this House;
in question period and in voting. That is not true.
We had a discussion yesterday and you will recall, Mr.
Speaker, that the reason that they are able to pretend they are a group is
because we had a precedent in this House wherein a previous parliament the
Reform Party granted certain of its questions to members of parliament who were
not members of its caucus, particularly the member for York South--Weston, if I
remember correctly.
This is the precedent which has permitted the
impression, but not the reality, of this group to my left, acting as a group
and claiming that some kind of precedent has been set. It is the same thing
with respect to the votes yesterday. If I am not mistaken, they voted
separately, one group after the other; first, the Progressive Conservative
Party and then the independents who call themselves the DRC.
For this claim to be made that somehow what we are
debating today is whether or not to extend some sort of recognition that has
already been extended, is completely false. Even the fact that they are sitting
together is a form of parliamentary geographical coincidence. It is where
independents would sit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly urge upon you
to in no way accept that somehow what we are doing today here is debating
whether or not to expand a recognition that already exists. There is no
recognition that already exists.
What we are debating is whether or not this particular
self-defined group should in fact make history, and make bad history I would
suggest, by being recognized as a coalition that has the rights and privileges
of a party, because it is certainly not a party. Even if they were to claim
successfully the rights and privileges of a party they would still not be a
political party.
We would have done something entirely new which I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, holds a great deal of negative potential for the House of
Commons. I urge you to think about that.
I also urge you, Mr. Speaker, to think about, and this
is something that I know you will be thinking about in any event, whether or
not this is actually in the purview of the Speaker to decide. Having to do with
the question of whether or not they are a party and all the precedents and all
the argumentation cited by the government House leader, I would certainly want
to associate myself with them. The standing orders, Beauchesne's, the Board of
Internal Economy, wherever you want to look, Mr. Speaker, talk about parties,
not coalitions.
The member referred to a variety of names that people
have called themselves over the years, political configurations, a union, a
government, et cetera. They ran on those names. They did not make them up after
they got here. That is different.
Finally, the Bloc members left their respective
political parties. Individual members of the Bloc did not maintain memberships
in the Liberal and Conservative parties.
(1600)
The fact is there is no such thing as a political
entity in any of the documentation or jurisprudence that we have before us
today.
However, back to the point of whether or not this is
within your purview to decide, Mr. Speaker, I want to be consistent here
because I argued in 1994 that it was within the purview of the Speaker to make
certain decisions to protect minority parties from the herd, so to speak.
Having been a victim of that herd mentality, I fully appreciate and reaffirm
the role of the Speaker to protect minority parties from that kind of
situation.
I do not regard this situation as analogous or similar.
We have an entirely different situation here. We do not have a minority party
here. We have a configuration whose legitimacy as a party is in dispute and
which therefore would make it the very political decision that Speaker
MacNaughton warned against in 1963. It would be a political decision or have
the nature of a political decision in a way that had the Chair decided in
favour of my point of order in June 1994, it would not have been, for example,
a political decision in that way.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge caution on your part, as
to whether or not you want to consider that this is a matter for you or a
matter for the House to decide.
The House has not decided this because there has not
been any meetings. Contrary to the impression left that somehow some attempt
was made to resolve this matter among the parties, there was no attempt made.
Of course it is very difficult to make that attempt when the very act of
meeting itself could in fact set precedents. However, we could have had a
discussion in the status quo context about what might be in a new context. That
was not even sought.
Therefore, this new group has thrown themselves upon
the mercy of the Chair. I ask the Chair to consider whether or not in fact it
is the role of the Chair. However, Mr. Speaker, if you consider it to be the
role of the Chair, then I ask you to consider all of the arguments that have
been made here today, including mine, as to the lack of wisdom that would
attend any decision to recognize the so-called PC/DRC in the way that they have
asked.
Mr. Randy White:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be
within the purview of the House to seek consent to extend the hours tonight in
view of this group asking for resources for themselves? We have such immediate
and important national issues to consider in the House, and I would ask that we
at least extend the hours past this sort of thing to cover the issues that are
more important to the nation.
The Speaker:
I think it is an inappropriate question at this
particular moment. I hope that we will wrap this up soon. If, once we get on to
other business, there is an extension of an hour sought, that is fine. However,
given the imprecision of the hon. member's proposition at this point, might I
suggest we try to deal with this.
I think we are close to the end of the argument here. I
do not expect to hear much more. However, I think the hon. member for Fraser
Valley might want to say something in light of the fact that he is part of the
group that may have something to contribute to the discussion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait to get on to the
business of the day, the modernization of parliament, which is of course
gripping the nation.
Some of the arguments I have heard, particularly from
the House leader of the New Democratic Party, seem to be based on when there is
no good argument, resort to humour and ribald humour is even better. Perhaps
someone will notice and maybe the media will put a member's funny clip on the
news, and we will all be better off for it.
The other parties too seem to think this is
light-hearted humour and, again, perhaps some ribald humour is even better.
However, there are big issues here today.
I remind the House that when people quote from Marleau
and Montpetit, Marleau and Montpetit is a collection of the record of
precedents in the House. It is not an instruction book on what will happen,
especially when there is no precedent.
We recognize that today is a precedent setting day and
we are not pretending it is not. To quote Marleau and Montpetit and say they
have not dealt with it in the past, is simply not understanding the purpose of
that book. The book is a collection of precedents. Today will be another one
either way, whatever the ruling is, it will be again another ruling of
precedence.
Those who would argue that the Speaker should not make
decisions on behalf of the House, every day Mr. Speaker, you are called to make
decisions on behalf of the House. It is precisely because the Speaker has a
duty to rise above the interests of political entities in the House and address
these parliamentary activities that we have come to appeal to you
today.
The House leader of the government side said that we
have not even been asked to have been recognized as a group as a coalition. You
know of course that that is not true, Mr. Speaker. You know that there is a
letter in your possession with 20 signatures on it stating precisely that, that
we do wish to be recognized as a coalition, as one entity. We have chosen one
parliamentary leader, one House leader, a whip and so on. The members of the
House should know that this has taken place.
It is interesting too how much time has been spent
today in the presentations trying to mix apples and oranges. There was all
kinds of talk about the Elections Act and a bit of talk about the Parliament of
Canada Act. However, they are mixing the two.
When we talk about resources in the House, we have not
talked today about monetary resources. That will be something that will be
negotiated, if ever, with the Board of Internal Economy. It is not something
that is done here in the House. It is always referred to the House leaders for
negotiations.
To follow the logic of the House leader for the
Canadian Alliance who said that in the British practice if a member was not
elected under a certain standard he or she should not get any resources under a
certain name, then when the Reform Party changed its name to the Alliance, the
members would not have had any resources. Of course that is absurd. It did not
happen that way.
It is also interesting that, whether it is legislation
or standing orders, when we refer to all the quotes today about parties, they
are all in lower case; a party, an entity. We call ourselves a coalition.
Others might call themselves an alliance, which is perfectly fine. I remember
asking for that change. I did not want it to be called a party but rather an
alliance because the first principle of the Canadian Alliance was to form
coalitions. It was in the constitution of the party.
It was also interesting that a recent mail out from the
Canadian Alliance to all its members asked if it should consider a merger with
the Tories or should it consider forming a coalition in the House of Commons.
To argue against it today, when the Canadian Alliance was asking its own
members if they wanted to form a coalition, does not seem consistent.
Someone has tried to point out that a coalition is for
governments and not for opposition parties. Says who, Mr. Speaker? Coalitions
are put together in order to make democracies work better.
(1605)
When coalitions function well, do not take resources
away from others and just allocate the current time in the House, allocate the
number of questions and allocate supply days, nobody loses. It is allocated
based on the number of people.
I am not asking for funds, but it was interesting when
I was negotiating assets such as House of Commons questions, supply days and
monetary issues this spring as House leader. Every single time I insisted it be
done on a per capita basis and other House leaders agreed. That is the proper
way to do it because of course it reflects in the best way the will of the
Canadian people who have sent their representatives to the House of
Commons.
I will also point out that although much fuss has been
made about memberships in political parties, I would like to point out the
example of the member for Portage--Lisgar who holds memberships in both the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance. I assume he
holds two memberships because he says he does. Not only does he hold two
memberships, but on his website and in his public speeches he encourages all of
us to buy memberships in two political parties. He has chosen to sit with the
Canadian Alliance and I accept that. That is his decision. However he has two
memberships in two different political parties and encourages others to do the
same. Again, I have no problem with that. He chooses to sit there and that is
fine. We choose to sit here and put together a coalition to advance common
themes.
We have been expelled from the Canadian Alliance caucus
which is obviously a different status than being suspended. The whip sent a
letter to many of us saying that he no longer represents us. We are gonzo. We
are out of the whole frame of reference there.
There happen to be 8 members involved in this matter,
but what if there were 18 or 28 members? At what stage does it become
significant to the House? We could argue that maybe one person does not make
any difference in the House but once we start getting significant numbers of
people, it starts to affect the status. If we push it to the extreme, the
Leader of the Opposition could expel everybody from his caucus and sit there
with 16 questions a day and hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, saying
“It is all mine”. That is simply untrue.
It is different, and not because it takes away from the
New Democratic Party. No one is suggesting that a single question be taken away
from the New Democratic Party. It does not affect the Bloc Quebecois, not a
single question, not a single supply day, not a single difference in the order
of speaking in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, what you have before you today is a group
of 20 people who say it is only right. We were elected to the House of Commons
to represent our constituents. By the way, I was elected under policies that
put my constituents above even the party. The best way to do that is to form a
coalition with 20 like-minded people who say it is time to get on with the
business of the House and hold the government accountable in the best way
possible, in our opinion. To deny that coalition access, not to money because
nobody is talking about that today—others are but none of us are—but to deny us
access to questions, to membership on committees, to a certain number of
debating spots, is to say to several million people who supported these 20
members of parliament that we just do not rank, that we not get the same
ranking as any other member of parliament. That is unacceptable.
To just finish off with the language issue, the
government House leader said that the standing orders are silent on the word
coalition. When the House is saying party in those standing orders, it is
talking about a political entity in the House.
I was first elected in 1993 and came to the House in
1994. The first thing we said was that we did not want to have a whip. We
wanted to have a caucus co-ordinator. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you will
remember that. This was an attempt to try to describe the role given to that
position, which is to co-ordinate the activities of the group.
(1610)
The standing orders are completely silent on the term
caucus co-ordinator. It does not exist in the Parliament of Canada Act as far
as the extra salary to a caucus co-ordinator. It does not exist that the caucus
co-ordinator meets with other caucus co-ordinators. It talks about whips
because it is the tradition of the House to call them whips.
Mr. Speaker, you can call them whatever you want. In
1994 we called them caucus co-ordinators. We then changed it back after a few
years to whip but no one cared. The whip got the salary. The whip budget was
intact. The whip did the job whether called a caucus co-ordinator or a
whip.
When we call ourselves a coalition it is because we are
like-minded people intent upon advancing like-minded principles in the House of
Commons. We want to do that because we think it is in the best interest of
democracy. Because it makes no difference to the other political parties that
will not get shortchanged, I ask you to consider it favourably and consider
these arguments instead of perhaps some of the humour, which I thought was less
than ideal but passed as argument earlier, and grant us the status as a
coalition of 20 here in the House of Commons.
(1615)
The Speaker:
I want to bring this discussion to an end. Is the hon.
member for Langley--Abbotsford rising on the same point of order?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since 3 p.m.
eight independent members of the House have been occupying the nation's time
for themselves at the cost of the whole House, while at the same time the
nation faces serious issues.
I would ask the Speaker to hasten this debate along, or
I ask now for unanimous consent of the House to extend the House for the same
amount of time as they are spending.
The Speaker:
I certainly intend to move the matter along. Is there
unanimous consent to extend the sitting hour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The Chair has heard information on
this point. I am sure there are other hon. members who feel they can make
helpful contributions to the discussion. I am sure we could go on at some
length, but we have heard from each of the parties and from the group of
independent members who are sitting in the House as to what position the Chair
ought to take in making a ruling on this point.
The Chair has heard sufficient argument from all hon.
members in order to render a decision.
[Translation]
I am very grateful for the contributions of all the
members who took part in the debate this afternoon. I also note that this has
taken quite some time.
[English]
However I also feel that this matter is of some
importance. Obviously it is a matter that has aroused some considerable
interest in the House, and needless to say in the media as well, in the last
few weeks and indeed over the last while.
Given that I intend to take the matter under
advisement, I will come back to the House as quickly as I can with a ruling on
this point.
I also want to say that I appreciate the co-operation
that has been shown in making the necessary arrangements to deal with the issue
without having heard the argument earlier this week. We could not get to it
until today in a reasonable way. I appreciate the fact that it has taken some
forbearance on the part of all members to deal with the situation that the
House was confronted with on Monday morning at 11 o'clock.
I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation in
that regard. I assume that the arrangements currently in place will remain in
place until I am able to come back to the House with a decision, which as I
indicated I hope will happen very quickly. I thank all hon. members for their
interventions.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Citizenship Act
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an
act to amend the Citizenship Act (Oath or Affirmation of
Citizenship).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has as its purpose to
change the current oath of citizenship which simply says that we swear
allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen of Canada, and swear to
faithfully fulfil our duties as Canadian citizens.
I have many times tried to change the oath of
citizenship because I feel very passionately that it should reflect the values
that we hold dear as Canadians. The oath that I am proposing in the bill
reflects the charter of rights and liberties.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just
read the text of the oath that I propose. I will read the affirmation rather
than the oath itself. What I am proposing is an affirmation of citizenship that
says the following:
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I
take my place among Canadians, a people united by their solemn trust to uphold
these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy,
basic human rights and the rule of law. |
(1620)
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very timely
occasion on which to introduce a new oath of citizenship.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Criminal Code
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-392, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (sex offences and violent
offences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my coalition
colleague from Prince George--Peace River for seconding the bill.
This private member's bill would bring about an
amendment to the criminal code that would preclude persons who have committed
and been convicted of committing sexual offences or offences involving violence
from receiving the benefit, I would suggest, of an application of conditional
sentences under the criminal code. This would preclude judges from applying
sentences that they mete out for offences that fall in that
category.
I believe that this would be an important amendment,
more reflective of the deterrence that is required under the criminal code.
Again, I hope all members would support this private member's bill.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[Translation]
Criminal Code
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ)
moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-393, an act to amend the Criminal Code (witness
protection).
She said: Mr. Speaker, with unfailing perseverance, I
am pleased to introduce this bill today for the third time.
When first introduced, during the 35th parliament, this
bill received majority support on second reading. Because the House was
dissolved, however, as a result of the Spring 1997 election call, it died on
the order paper.
Subsequently, during the next parliament, I introduced
it again, this time to have it eclipsed by another bill introduced by the
Minister of Justice.
The purpose of my bill is to amend the Criminal Code in
order to give the same protection to any person testifying in proceedings in
which the accused is charged with a criminal offence of sexual assault or in
which violence against the person is alleged to have been used, threatened or
attempted that is currently available under the criminal code to witnesses
under the age of eighteen.
I hope my bill will receive the same reception from the
members of this House that it did on the occasion of its first
introduction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
Broadcasting Act
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St.
James--Assiniboia, Lib.)
moved that Bill S-7, an act to amend the
Broadcasting Act, be read a first time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you have--
The Speaker:
Order. On a Senate bill the hon. member does not
normally get an opportunity to give a brief explanation of the purpose of the
bill. Does the House give consent to hear one at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no agreement.
(Motion deemed adopted and
bill read the first time)
* * *
(1625)
Committees of the
House
National Defence and Veterans
Affairs
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be concurred in.
I draw attention to a number of issues that relate to
the government's intentions and requirements in the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time in this debate
with my colleague, the member for Saint John.
The report was originally presented to the House on
June 14, 2000, during the second session of the 36th Parliament. The report was
a major study of the procurement by national defence and it outlined many of
the needs of the military.
[Translation]
The level of preparedness of Canada's armed forces has
been deteriorating continually since this government came to office.
The government's only military plan is simply to hope
that no crisis occurs, that there is no need for the Canadian
Forces.
Now we have a crisis before us. The terrorist attacks
on New York City and Washington show that there is no limit to what may be made
a target. The target can even be in North America.
The information we have received from our security
intelligence services establishes clearly that terrorist cells may be found
even here in Canada. This has been confirmed by the leaders of other nations,
as it was yesterday by the king of Jordan. Our own Prime Minister did not want
to tell Canadians all the facts about terrorists. He did not level with
Canadians.
Instead, CNN, the American network, confirms for us
what our agencies and services are saying in this regard.
The government was informed in June that terrorists
would become more dangerous and more determined. There was an indication that
Canada was a target. Canadians want to share in the fight against terrorism. We
want to win this battle and we know very well that among those first called on
to fight the fight will be the men and women of our armed forces.
We ask them to give up their lives in a time of crisis,
but this government starved them when they needed new equipment, better working
conditions and more support.
The Prime Minister has been invited to Washington. He
follows President Chirac, Prime Minister Blair and other heads of state. Our
Prime Minister follows behind the parade, because Canada has failed to maintain
the level of its international commitments, which our allies count
on.
[English]
When the Prime Minister goes to Washington, we know
what he will be asked. He will be asked to stop the movement of terrorists to
and from Canada. He will be asked to extradite or to deport people who are
wanted for crimes related to terrorism. He will be asked to curtail the flow of
money to terrorists or their organizations, and he will be asked to share
intelligence and defence capacities.
Insofar as defence is concerned, the embarrassing
question for Canada is, what resources do we have to share?
Let me quote from an article by Jeffrey Simpson in the
Globe and Mail this morning entitled “Canada's help: Who are we
kidding?”:
The U.S. knows the lamentable state
of our military and has periodically complained about it. Canada had one ship
in the Persian Gulf, but it has returned home. The navy has frigates, but they
remain without helicopters, courtesy of the Chrétien government's cancelling of
a contract agreed to by the Mulroney government nine years ago. Ottawa has yet
to issue detailed requests for proposals for these helicopters. |
The article goes on:
The army has a few special units but
lacks sufficient equipment and men to be effective in any dangerous operation.
The air force has CF-18s but lacks in-air refuelling capabilities and some
necessary technology for serious combat. Canada's military forces are so weak
that the Chrétien government's support for any military fight against terrorism
will necessarily be limited. |
That commentary is by an objective journalist and
commentator.
We have no long range tanker aircraft to get our
fighter aircraft overseas. Our Hercules transport fleet is aging. Without
tankers, it will be difficult for Canadian fighter aircraft to get overseas.
The 1st Battalion Royal 22nd Regiment in Quebec is ready for deployment, but it
is not a special forces unit. It lacks transport for rapid deployment and would
have to go without its heavy weapons. Most of our forces are committed already
in peacekeeping operations around the world. Our armoured corps is outdated and
our tanks do not have the armour or the armament to stand up to handheld
weapons, the sort of weapons terrorists use.
The 1994 white paper on defence called for Canada to
contribute a brigade size force of about 5,000 men for sustained overseas
operations. We are not capable of carrying out that commitment, according to
retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie.
The Canadian navy is the best off of our three services
but it lacks modern, robust maritime helicopters, key to surface actions. It is
understaffed and it lacks financial resources.
We are paying a price today for a lack of preparation
in the last nine years. The matter we are calling upon to debate, the committee
report we are discussing today, itemizes ways in which Canada can move forward
and become a respectable military force in the world again. We cannot simply
sit back and engage commitments unless we are prepared to accept them. We are
facing a commitment now and we are not in a position to do as well as Canada
should be doing.
I am pleased to pass my debate time now to the hon.
member for Saint John.
(1630)
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee
on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I have had the opportunity since 1993
to work on defence and veterans affairs issues and to review in the last couple
of years in great detail the state of readiness of our armed forces.
Retired generals and retired colonels came to our
committee and made presentations. I wish the Minister of National Defence, the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had been there to hear what they had
to say about our armed forces and the needs that are not being addressed by the
government that should be.
I am confident in my belief that our men and women in
uniform are without some of the essential equipment they might well require in
this new war against terrorism.
The House will recall that since my election as an MP
in 1993 I have repeatedly risen on the replacement of the Sea King helicopters.
As everyone in the House knows, there were those who lost their lives because
we did not get the EH-101s to replace those Sea Kings. Members of my family
have said to me, “Please get out and fight for the replacement of those Sea
Kings”.
The House knows that I have remained firm in my belief
that the government has been more concerned with the political consequences
that would follow the replacement of the Sea Kings with the EH-101s and not the
military factors that make their replacement so essential.
Many here in the House and indeed many in the other
place have questioned the government's lack of action in providing our armed
forces personnel with the best equipment possible for the tasks we assign
them.
In 1999 a report by CSIS said that there were 50
terrorist groups in Canada and they had 350 people working with them. Instead
of the government doing something about it, what did it do? It laid off 750
CSIS employees. Instead of increasing the numbers to look after the safety of
Canadians, 750 employees were laid off.
Our concerns are not political in nature. Rather, we
recognize that our men and women in uniform are not in a position to come to
Parliament Hill with placards when their funding is cut. We know that our men
and women in uniform are going to the food banks. We are aware that when they
came back from peacekeeping missions they were told on the airplane to take off
their boots because they had to pass them to the men and women who were going
to replace them. Imagine that here in Canada there is not enough money in the
budget to even give uniforms and boots to our armed forces.
A senator who went over to Kosovo said that when he saw
our peacekeepers he could not believe it when he looked at their uniforms. He
could not believe the lack of resources that they had. Our armed forces have
repeatedly shown their selfless desire to complete their duties without
hesitation. In return we must insist that the government honour its duty to
them by providing the tools they require.
Those of us who have advocated increased spending for
our military have in the past been called alarmists. It has been said in the
House that we live in a post cold war world that does not require us to be as
vigilant as we once had to be. Last week tells us differently now. No one in
Canada could have predicted the events of last week, and no one in the U.S.A.
However those events have served as a vicious reminder that we can never allow
ourselves to lower our guard.
In fiscal year 1993-94 the budget for the Department of
National Defence was $12 billion. That budget was stripped down to a scandalous
$9.4 billion by 1998. We would be wise to bear in mind and consider that it was
during the period of these massive cuts that our armed forces operational
tempo, the ratio of time spent by our Canadian forces personnel in deployed
missions, rose from 6% to 23%.
(1635)
Today, on the eve of the most important conflict since
the second world war, we are witnessing firsthand the price of those deep cuts.
The government has as its policy to maintain a regular force of no fewer than
60,000. Yet, as we stand here today, the actual number has dropped below
55,000. Our forces have been called to duty in almost every corner of the
globe, to the point where we have made unreasonable demands of our most loyal
citizens and their families.
Some of our armed forces equipment has been found to be
either unsafe or in need of significant repair each and every time it is to be
used. As hon. members are aware, we have frigates that were built in Saint
John, New Brunswick. We were supposed to have modified helicopters and that was
not done because of the cuts.
A unanimous report was brought forth by our defence
committee with all party support. It said that we should continue, on an
ongoing rotational basis, the building of navy ships right here in Canada,
whether by MIL Davie Inc. or Saint John Shipbuilding Limited.
When I was down in the United States just a week before
that horrible attack I met with Vice-President Cheney and I raised the Jones
act. I want it on the record that he agreed with me it was time to address the
Jones act whereby we cannot bid when ships are being built in the United States
but they can bid on all our contracts.
We should not be buying used submarines from London,
England, that cannot float. We then pay $800 million to make them float. We
should be putting our own people to work. We should be building our ships and
giving our navy the tools to do the job.
The House will recall the disturbing reports of rusting
and missing parts on helicopters and aircraft like the CF-18. Lives have been
lost. We must make sure that no more lives are lost in Canada because our men
do not have modern tools to do their job.
The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs has repeatedly made all party unanimous recommendations to the
government in support of more funding and better equipment for our military.
Many of us have been encouraged to hear the Minister of Finance indicate that
from this day forward no expense would be spared to ensure the safety and
security of Canada and our people.
One might ask if we should have been more diligent in
the past in maintaining the funding levels at a rate where our operational
readiness was not a point of debate. One might also ask if we should have
encouraged that state of mind when approaching major equipment purchases like
the ongoing process to replace our Sea King helicopters. What the government is
proposing as replacements for those Sea King helicopters are not really
replacements as they cannot do the job that the Sea Kings could do.
The House will know that the government's instructions
are that the procurement process be directed on the basis of the lowest price
compliant bid despite the fact that Treasury Board guidelines require such
programs to operate under the provisions of a best value principle.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for us to predict
what our military needs will be in the coming months. All we know for certain
is that our armed forces and our country as a whole must be prepared for the
worst. It is no longer acceptable for us to assume that the United States will
protect us just as it is no longer possible for us to take comfort in the fact
that the cold war has ended.
The sentiment I rise to express today, one of deep
respect for our Canadian armed forces coupled with distress at our government's
inaction, is one that is shared by a legion of retired military personnel who
have committed their years out of uniform to the protection and promotion of
those who remain in uniform today. Let us learn from those who have firsthand
experience in these matters and let us listen to them. Let us put their wise
counsel into practice and let us prove to the world that our armed forces are
indeed a force to be reckoned with.
(1640)
There are many in the world today who hate Canada
simply because we are a democracy and friends of the U.S. There are groups with
arsenals of weaponry who would do us harm solely because we value freedom,
liberty and human rights above all else.
The only thing that makes their existence more
frightening is that we cannot say for certain where they are. The events of
last week have shown us that despite the best intelligence gathering available
these terrorist threats can strike whenever and wherever they want. Those who
would do our country, our continent and our friends harm should know that the
Canadian armed forces will respond. Those who would seek to end our way of life
should think twice about doing so, fearful of the protection we have afforded
ourselves.
The reality is that the world knows that Canada's
military power is not what it used to be. In the time since the House last sat
the American ambassador himself issued a friendly but stern reminder to us that
we have defence related obligations to our friends and allies that cannot be
forgotten. We cannot take comfort in the security our relationship with the
U.S. provides us and then not rise to the occasion when it asks for our
help.
Last week, in mourning the loss of the 5,000 innocent
victims of this tragedy, our nation showed its infinite capacity for
compassion. As the nations of the world prepare for a battle between the forces
of good and evil let us remind them why we are known for our courage. We will
be there to assist.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I commend my friend from Saint John for
her longstanding and passionate advocacy of the need for our country to place
much greater emphasis on our capacity to defend ourselves and advance our
national sovereignty. She is certainly a very principled advocate of
that.
I agreed with her remarks with the exception of her
comment on procurement programs such as shipbuilding for national defence. I
inferred from her comments that she was suggesting we ought to procure
equipment in Canada as a sort of industrial policy.
This is a concern to me because it seems that the
objective in providing a strong national defence and maximizing our scarce
resources ought to be to seek the best available equipment at the lowest
possible price, even if that means tendering defence procurement contracts
overseas.
Does she think that if it costs us more to tender a
procurement contract for defence equipment to a domestic company that this is
in the best interest of advancing our capacity to defend ourselves and
maximizing those scarce tax dollars?
(1645)
Mrs. Elsie Wayne:
Madam Speaker, I am saying that our navy should
continue to build ships on a rotating basis because when the contract for 10
frigates was received by Saint John, New Brunswick, and MIL Davie Inc., they
started to age after 10 years. We are saying one ship a year, whether it be for
the coast guard, the navy or whatever.
We are also saying that we should be bidding on the
contracts in the United States. The Jones act has blocked us. We were the first
ones to go to the U.S. when Ambassador Chrétien was there. I asked him if he
was dealing with the Jones act and he replied that he had never been asked.
When we went down this time to see the new Canadian ambassador he too said that
he had never been asked.
When we went to see Vice-President Cheney he said he
was glad we had raised it because it was not right. Canada should have the
opportunity to bid down there, build those ships in Canada, and put our people
back to work. We have the most modern shipyard anywhere in the world sitting
idle right now because we do not have a navy shipbuilding policy, and we can
build ships cheaper than anyone else.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I too thank the hon. member for her
remarks. One of the things I would like her to address is a policy that is
followed by other countries. I am thinking specifically right now of Australia.
It does not do what this government does and say “This is the funding for this
year”, and then slash a billion or so out of it the following year and tell us
that we will just have to make do. It provides long range funding. The military
budget is not just a line budget that can be cut up or added to. One cannot
build an armed forces that way.
I used Australia as an example but many countries in
the world provide long term funding because they realize what a military needs.
It needs surety in its planning. It needs reliable funding because it does not
raise its own funds. It relies upon parliament. It does not do what the
government does here, which is to make it a political football where it slashes
even below its own targeted number of troops and equipment revitalization and
renewal.
Some say the military should be taken out of the
political realm and given long range stable funding so it can plan its future.
Then when we ask the men and women of the armed forces to go and do the job
they have the tools because they were given the long term funding to make it
happen.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne:
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. As
was stated earlier by our leader, there is an article in the Globe and
Mail which says what the colonels and the generals have been stating. It
says “The military's limitations were recently displayed when Canada could only
participate in peacekeeping operations in Macedonia by transferring troops from
elsewhere in the Balkans”.
These are married men and women who have children. They
do not even get home to see their families any more. We need long term budgets
and not just on a yearly basis. We need a budget that will be there and
increased for the next 10 years.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform
the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lumber
Industry.
(1650)
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will not take much time to debate this
report. I wish the House had not considered this report today for a number of
reasons. First, the report was tabled on June 12. Anyone who has read the
modernization committee report would know that moving concurrence in a report
where the government has been asked for a response and not had an opportunity
to respond yet is like shovelling air. It does not do anything. I am surprised
the right hon. member would not know this.
The government--
Mr. Howard Hilstrom:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Has the
government House leader gone to government orders?
Hon. Don Boudria:
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is asking if I intend
to move to orders of the day, it would be pointless because by the time the
bells rang there would be no time to do so. If he is asking if I intend to do
that so the Speaker could rule on Standing Order 52, unfortunately it cannot
happen because the time has been used up with things that are certainly not the
ones I would have asked for. I believe that answers the hon. member's
question.
It does not take away from the legitimacy of the issue
I wanted to raise because it is an important one. No doubt the Speaker in time
will respond to it. Meanwhile I only wish to take a moment to indicate my
remarks to the House and to let other members respond if they wish. If not,
hopefully the debate will collapse and we will move to orders of the day as we
should have, in my opinion, half an hour ago.
I just want to indicate that the government's response
should come within 150 days or by November 9. It would be even sooner under the
new rules that we could be concurring in later this day with everyone's
co-operation, given that it was a unanimous report.
The government fully intends to table its response
within the time period. It would be inappropriate to concur in a report before
we have even responded to it. In other words there is nothing to concur in, if
I can put it that way to the House.
Those are all the remarks I wanted to make. Hopefully
the House will agree now to move to orders of the day. We probably will not be
completing the consideration of the modernization report, but at least we could
start it and do the productive work we have been sent here to do by
Canadians.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest, PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government
House leader. I have a document in my hand that tells me that the procurement
of the Sea King helicopters goes back to 1978 when Prime Minister Trudeau was
the Prime Minister of Canada. If we were to have started production today, we
would have waited almost 30 years.
Could the minister provide a legitimate reason that the
replacement of those Sea Kings helicopters has taken so long? Why did the
government spend so much money cancelling the Sea Kings that obviously were
part of the ongoing election campaign in 1993?
One of the points I want to make is the fact that the
government spent $500 million to simply cancel the helicopter contract. In
other words, it was half a billion dollars to simply cancel the contract with
not one helicopter being built. How does the government leader justify that
kind of expense?
(1655)
Hon. Don Boudria:
Madam Speaker, I guess you are ruling that question in
order. The questions normally are on the speeches people have made. I do not
believe I have discussed the procurement for maritime helicopters.
Nevertheless, if it pleases the House to discuss that I am certainly pleased to
answer the hon. member's question.
I believe the hon. member had the unfortunate
experience of being a member of the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.
I really pity him for that. It is a most unfortunate thing. The Conservatives,
I believe, wanted to waste an amount of over $6 billion that we did not even
have at the time to buy helicopters that were way beyond our means. The
government was broke. It had $42 billion of deficit on account of it own
mismanagement.
Yesterday we heard the Minister of Finance inform us of
the historic developments of repaying this year of $17 billion of owed debt
accumulated by the Mulroney government of which the hon. member was a member.
It was a most unfortunate thing and I know the member is trying to forget
that.
Speaking of the helicopter procurement, the House will
know that we have bought a number of search and rescue helicopters. The other
project, the maritime helicopter project, should be completed around 2005, I am
informed. That will be done.
Meanwhile, we are maintaining the helicopters that we
have, the Sea Kings. We know they meet the safety standards that we have. We do
want to replace them with helicopters that will meet our needs but they must be
ones that we can afford because we do not buy things for which we cannot pay
the way the previous government did.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I would like to run through a few
numbers with the government House leader. He said that the Tory-Conservative
program for the EH-101s was $6 billion. He will know that I was not a member of
that minority government and I would like to ask him a couple of questions
about the math on the Liberal side.
The EH-101 cancellation fees were $500 million. The Sea
King maintenance and upgrades to the year 2008 amounts to $600 million.
Canada's search helicopter program consisting of 15 helicopters is $790
million. The CSH long term service support over 25 years is $1.7 billion. These
are Liberal numbers. The maritime helicopter project consisting of 28
helicopters was $2.9 billion.The MHP long term service support over 25 years
was another $1.7 billion. The administrative cost in splitting that procurement
was $400 million. The total cost of Liberal programs with zero inflation was
$8.6 billion.
There are still zero helicopters in that of course and
he is talking about the Conservative program for the 43 EH-101s being $6
billion. That is an extra $2 billion plus. That is an amazing amount of
money.
What about the lives of the pilots? Of course we could
never ever put a dollar figure on that.
Would the government House leader somehow explain and
try to justify that since 1978, under the Liberal government of Trudeau,
cabinet acknowledged the need to replace the Sea King when in fact those
machines had gone into service in 1963. Even after only 15 years of service the
Trudeau government said there was a need to replace the Sea King. The Sea Kings
have outlasted Trudeau.
Could the government House leader explain that for us,
please?
Hon. Don Boudria:
Madam Speaker, I think it is better not to comment on
the part about outlasting the late Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It would
be better for us to pretend we did not hear that, at least it is a little more
respectful.
If I recall, getting back to the substance of what she
asked, after she was elected I remember her questioning this procurement that
she is now defending in the House. I remember that she and her party condemned
the outrageous Conservative expenditures and now she is standing in the House
defending them.
It is a curious thing. An hour ago we were talking
about a coalition. I think things are coalescing at quite a speed in another
direction.
(1700)
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I too would like to ask for a little
more explanation on the total lack of preparedness of the government and our
military with regard to the Sea Kings.
I was a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the
early 1960s, the time in which the Sea Kings were first purchased. The
replacement schedule for the Sea Kings is the year 2010, which means they will
have been in service for 50 years.
In light of recent events and not knowing what our
deployment requirements will be in this tragic event that has been unfolding,
what kind of impact will our Sea King helicopters have on our military? Will
the present Sea King helicopters be considered frontline serviceable? If not,
what does that do to our frigates, which are designed to carry frontline
helicopters?
Will both of those units be relegated to home shore use
because they are not frontline capable? In other words, would we seriously send
into frontline duty 40 year old Sea King helicopters with our frigates? Is that
what we intend to do if called upon?
Hon. Don Boudria:
Madam Speaker, we have had a series of questions here
from the hon. member across the way. The savings for Canadians from the
combined purchase of the maritime and search and rescue helicopters is in the
order of $1.5 billion. That is the savings we will generate by the careful
management of taxpayer dollars.
On the issue of the Sea Kings and the fact that we have
flown those particular aircraft, it is an aircraft that is used right around
the world. The Sea Kings are still a viable aircraft. We are replacing them.
The date of replacement has been scheduled I believe for 2005. I believe that
target date is still expected to be met. That is still the intention of the
government in that regard.
I was not quite sure in the way the hon. member asked
his question about the frigate whether he was suggesting that the ship is not
an ultra modern vehicle. I happen to believe that it is a worldclass ship. I
have been on board. I stayed for days on that ship with members of our armed
forces in Esquimalt and in the training areas around Nanoose. I saw myself how
that particular ship functions.
It was not a long time ago that there were frigates.
The HMCS Ottawa is a very modern ship. I am sure the hon. member across
the way, who knows a lot about things military, will acknowledge that.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
rise in debate in support of this concurrence motion for the report of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs at this
particularly prescient moment.
As I said in my remarks on the motion before the House
regarding the tragedy that struck the United States last week, the whole world
has changed dramatically, particularly the world in terms of strategic
considerations for free countries such as Canada, for NATO countries in
particular. Yet the dramatic new realities we face, particularly on the
strategic front, have not in any way been reflected by the
government.
Let us start from first principles. The first
responsibility of a national and federal government is the maintenance and
protection of national sovereignty. It is not one among competing objectives.
It is not some nice to do thing that finds its way onto the list of government
programs. It is the first principal responsibility of a national
government.
There are dozens, probably hundreds of programs
administered by the federal government at taxpayers' expense where the federal
government has no constitutional responsibility. Yet it has neglected its
principal, its first, its primary responsibility year after year, and not just
this government but its predecessor governments going back nearly four
decades.
When the second world war ended Canada had the third
largest navy in the world. The Royal Canadian Air Force was regarded as perhaps
the most respected military air force in the world. Our ground troops had
punched far beyond their weight in the ground war in Europe and in military
actions in the Pacific theatre in that war. We finished that terrible five year
conflict proud as a nation of the tremendous contribution we had made,
marshalling our national resources, tragically sacrificing so much Canadian
blood but for a noble objective.
For the past 30 years, and particularly under the
Liberal government for the past 8 or 9 years, we have seen that proud military
tradition and our ability to do our moral duty eroded by indifference, eroded
by the wrong priorities, eroded by a federal government that does not recognize
the safety and security of its citizens and the protection of its national
sovereignty as its primary objective.
Between the years 1994 and 1999 the government
exercised a modest expenditure restraint program. Mainly it raised revenues and
raised taxes to address the crushing deficit, but it did restrain program
spending in certain areas. Again, however, the way in which it cut reflected
its complete perversion of priorities because it cut defence spending by over
20% at a time when non-defence department program spending was cut by only
3%.
What this indicates is that the first primary
responsibility of the federal government was cut most deeply and the lower
priority areas which are not even contemplated in the constitution as federal
responsibilities were barely touched at all. This is the world turned upside
down in terms of public responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, I neglected to mention that I will be
splitting my time.
We are left in the regrettable situation whereby Canada
reinvests less than half among the average of NATO countries in defence
expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product. Our 19 NATO allies on
average spend 2.1% of their gross domestic product in defence of national
sovereignty whereas Canada spends only 1.2% of GDP, giving us the second lowest
defence expenditure in NATO, ahead of only the tiny duchy of Luxembourg with a
military force of 800 people.
We have become, notwithstanding the tremendously
hardworking, skilled, dedicated and patriotic people in our military force, a
token player at best in the military alliance in which we, as one of the
world's largest economies, the most prosperous nations, have a moral
responsibility to be a bulwark in.
(1705)
We have the seventh largest gross domestic product in
the world, a great blessing for a small country, and an enormously prosperous
standard of living and national wealth. However, while we have the seventh
largest gross domestic product, we have the twenty-sixth largest defence
investment and we are 18th of out of the 19 NATO countries.
This is a complete betrayal of our national tradition
as a country that is willing to invest resources to at least do our share, if
not more than our share, to defend democracy and peace here and
abroad.
Look at the particulars raised by some of my colleagues
earlier in the debate that have been discussed at the defence committee.
For instance, according to the 1994 defence white
paper, we are supposed to be able to field at least a brigade of 5,500 ground
troops abroad at a high state of readiness in a conventional conflict. It is
absolutely clear that we do not have the capacity to do so right now, according
to every expert in our defence.
Only 83 of our 120-some fighter craft CF-18s are
operational and virtually none of those fighter craft have modern, contemporary
radar and electronics equipment systems which are critical, indispensable, to
engaging in modern air combat.
We have no lift capacity for our ground troops. Even if
we had 5,500 troops that we could put on the ground at a high state of
readiness, in the words of retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie we would have
to hitch a ride and take a taxi from American aircraft in order to transport
our troops to a theatre of conflict.
Our much celebrated frigate fleet cannot even put to
sea simultaneously. Often one sees those frigates tied up in Halifax or
Esquimalt because they do not even have a budget for fuel to operate for the
course of an entire month.
This is an embarrassment and it is a humiliation to the
men and women who risk their lives to defend our national
sovereignty.
Ten years ago, we had a defence force smaller than our
share of 90,000 people in our military, now down to 55,000. We have essentially
halved our commitment. We have done this, I believe, because it reflects a
philosophical attitude of the Liberal government that investments in national
defence and protection of sovereignty are not a priority, that it is a
frivolous occupation of would be warmongers and that the second war was the war
to end all wars. That was folly between 1918 and 1939. Equally it is folly
today, as we have seen from last week's events.
Regrettably, I heard the defence minister virtually
dismiss out of hand in question period the other day the notion that there
would be a conventional war as a result of the attack on America and the free
world last week. When pressed as to why he made this assumption he had no clear
answer.
I would like to close by saying that we may very well,
as a free nation in NATO, find ourselves in the midst of not just one
conventional conflict but potentially serial conventional conflicts over the
coming years. We do not know, but it is our moral responsibility to be prepared
for that eventuality and to do so means that we must fundamentally reorder the
priorities of the federal government to at least do our share.
To do that, even to have the average military
expenditure amongst NATO countries would mean a $9 billion increase in our
defence budget. That is a huge line item, but we must begin to think about the
magnitude of reordering our priorities, to do our share and to do our military
men and women proud as well as preserving our rich tradition as a defender of
democracy and freedom.
(1710)
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this
opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I want him to lend us his knowledge
of this issue along with his knowledge of the finances of this
country.
This summer I had the opportunity to go on a resupply
mission with CANFORCE 85 and 86 air commander Rick Harper on a C-135 Hercules.
That airplane was 35 years old, with 40,000 hours on it. It was twice past its
life expectancy. That mission on a weekly basis is vital to keeping the people
at Alert Bay and our troops in Thule supplied.
To me it seems bizarre that we would do something like
that. I could not get over how tremendously skilled the people were and how
faithful they were to their purpose.
I would just like to ask my colleague a question. When
he talks about priorities, where in this budget of Canada's would he find the
money to replace this C-135 Hercules with a C-17 that would take care of that
job and give these people equipment they can work with and feel proud to
operate?
(1715)
Mr. Jason Kenney:
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the government
could find the resources necessary to provide that equipment and so much more
equipment that is necessary by reallocating resources as I suggested to reflect
what our national priorities ought to be, particularly at this time of
crisis.
In the past our party has recommended at least an
immediate additional funding commitment of $1 billion to the Department of
National Defence in order to procure the sort of equipment to which my hon.
friend refers. We would find those resources for national defence and
additional resources on top of that by taking those dollars away from
frivolous, low priority programs.
We are unable to provide the kind of equipment my
friend is talking about, yet the Minister of Industry is speculating on
creating a $3 billion program to subsidize access to high speed broadband
Internet in Canada. That is not a federal responsibility. It is a
responsibility of the marketplace.
Or there is the Minister of Multiculturalism, who just
spent $4 million in tax dollars sending professional members of lobby groups
and friends of hers to the outrageous Durban conference in South Africa to stay
in four star and five star hotels at taxpayers' expense and involve themselves
in a disgraceful gabfest surrounded by anti-Semitism in various forms.
Those are the kinds of spending priorities reflected by
the government. Those are dollars spent on corporate welfare: economic
development programs that do not work and do not create jobs, and handouts to
Liberal lobby groups. These are dollars that could be going to our highest
national priority, defence.
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am entering rather quickly into the
debate on military procurement. There is one question that arises due to the
circumstances of September 11, and that is with regard to the Shearwater air
base in my riding.
Very soon a decision will be made by DND to divest
itself of the 1,100 acres of land on which Shearwater is located. The problem
is not that it is virgin land or land that cannot be used. There is an
extremely long runway on that air base. For years I have been trying to protect
that base from any kind of downloading or off-loading, because it not only
represents 1,200 direct jobs in my riding, it also represents a jewel in the
crown of the military infrastructure. It has been there for 83
years.
We never know what may happen down the road and heaven
forbid that there may be serious long term consequences as a result of the
tragedy on September 11. My question for the hon. member is, due to the
circumstances surrounding September 11, would it not be prudent for the
Minister of National Defence to hold off on any divestiture of land similar to
Shearwater until further decisions can be made? Would he not agree that would
be a wise move at this time?
Mr. Jason Kenney:
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question.
I do not know the particulars surrounding the Shearwater base, but he makes a
reasonable point. As we are now clearly having to reassess our military
priorities and expenditures, I think it would be reasonable to suggest at least
a moratorium on further base closings.
I do think, however, that where we have bases our
procurement policies in principle should be based on the operational needs of
our forces, to create maximum operational efficiency for the forces. Shearwater
may very well meet that criterion. I would support the hon. member in delaying
any closures until we can see in this new environment the need for bases of
that nature.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the concurrence
motion on the government's response to the defence committee's report. I have
seen a lot of government responses to committee reports and have seen several
reports put out by the defence committee.
I have felt in the past that some of the responses were
weak, but frankly I have never seen a weaker response by a government to a
report of a committee made up of all parties in the House. I have never seen a
weaker response than the one we had to the procurement report. It is completely
unacceptable.
It is clear that the government does not hold national
defence as a top priority. The Canadian forces are the largest security force
we have in the country. Yet we see the kind of weak response we got to the
committee's report on procurement. It is completely unacceptable.
When we see this kind of response we know the
government does not believe we need a strong national defence. If it did it
would give a serious response to a report like this one. It can be well
demonstrated that the government does not place national security and defence
as a high priority.
We can start with the commitment to the number of
personnel in the forces. Since the Liberal government took office the number of
personnel in the Canadian armed forces has dropped from 90,000 to 55,000 and is
still dropping. According to a report put out a few months ago by the Canadian
Institute of Strategic Studies the number will reach 42,000 before the
government can stop it. It will have gone from 90,000 down to 42,000. The
government is more than halving armed forces personnel. That is completely
unacceptable.
I hope and pray the government finds a way to stop this
rapid slide. We are losing some of our best people. This kind of drop in
personnel shows a lack of commitment to national defence.
The second point is funding. Money is not everything
but it could certainly be spent much better. There is a great need for better
management and in some cases better leadership in our defence department. We
need these things. The money we have could be quite a bit better spent
.
Some of the contracting is suspect. Some of it, such as
single source contracting and that kind of thing, is completely unacceptable.
We are paying more than we should for equipment in some cases. We know what
happened with the Sea King replacements. The Liberal government cost the
taxpayer money by backing out of the deal put in place by the former
government. We cannot afford to lose that kind of money. In spite of all that,
the government has cut spending to national defence by 30% in real terms since
it took office. That is the kind of commitment the Liberals have to our
national security.
What is the top priority of the federal government?
What should it be? It should be the security of our nation. It should be the
protection of the citizens of Canada. Yet the government has cut military
personnel from 90,000 to 55,000 and it is still sliding. The government cut the
budget by 30% in real terms.
In his last report the auditor general said the
government was $30 billion short of meeting its procurement commitments. In
terms of procurement it will be $30 billion short by 2012.
Because the government is not planning and does not put
a high priority on defence, it will be $30 billion short by 2012. Does that
sound like a government that puts a high priority on the security of the nation
and on national defence, the largest security force the country has? It does
not. That is a sad commentary.
I do not say this with any glee because the issue
should be non-partisan. It is too important to be a partisan issue. I am
looking to all members of the defence committee from all parties. I think
members will see the importance of this now that we have had this terrible act
of terrorism.
(1720)
I think members will agree to debate the issue in depth
and have a good discussion. Hopefully we will get a meaningful response from
the government on national defence. We cannot wait any more. It is too late to
deal with the situation in terms of immediate reaction.
I asked the minister today what Canada would be able to
contribute to a NATO force striking back against terrorism. That was my first
question and he gave no answer.
I asked the minister a second question. The minister
always refers to the F-18s and what we did in Kosovo. He points to this as our
great strength. I asked him how he would find pilots to fly the F-18s when we
have lost more than half our experienced pilots who flew in Kosovo.
Our government has allowed it to happen. It has allowed
the airlines to steal our best pilots. They did not leave because of money.
I did a survey in Esprit de Corps magazine which
I have not yet talked about in public. It asked why people have left the forces
over the last several years. They said they did not leave because of money or
low pay. They left because they felt the government did not believe their role
was an important one. They felt the government did not believe national defence
to be a high priority when it comes to the security of our nation.
We have wonderful men and women serving in our forces.
They want to be recognized as playing an extremely important role. We have
among the best in the world. We truly do. All they want is to be recognized as
carrying out an important function. If the government recognized that it would
give them proper equipment so that when we sent them to the font lines they
would have the best. Right now they do not.
If the government respected the work these people do it
would treat them well when they came back injured whether their injuries were
physical or psychological. Post-traumatic stress disorder has become a terrific
problem. We are losing a lot of our good men and women because of
it.
A common complaint is that the government does not do
enough to help soldiers who come back injured. Whether it is a mental or a
physical injury makes no difference. It sends a message to the men and women
who serve that we do not care, so of course they leave.
The air force probably has the highest morale of any of
our three forces. Yet in spite of that they are leaving. Most of our
experienced pilots who could take part in an operation like Kosovo are gone.
The men and women who are left are extremely good but do not have the
experience to step in and play a meaningful role.
What do members of the government think the answer will
be from our NATO allies and friends like the United States? What will the
reaction be when they ask for a serious commitment and we say we cannot give
them one? What do government members think the reaction will be?
An extremely important conference of NATO
parliamentarians will be held in Ottawa in early October. While attending these
conferences during the past four years I have consistently heard that Canada is
losing respect among our NATO allies because we can no longer meet our
commitments. That is a sad commentary.
It is time the government took national security and
national defence seriously. It can start by giving a serious response to the
procurement report. Everyone from all parties recognizes that the response the
government has given is unacceptable.
I call on the government to give a serious response to
the procurement report as soon as possible. I believe that is what all members
of the House want.
(1725)
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Madam Speaker, my question is for my colleague on the
defence committee. As he well knows, the supply chain will now be under review
under what is called alternate service deliveries. The Government of Canada
will lose control of supplies going into our military bases throughout the
country and overseas in times of crisis.
Does the member not agree that it would be prudent for
the government to delay any alternate service deliveries until situations cool
off in the near future?
Mr. Leon Benoit:
Madam Speaker, I almost hate to agree with a member of
the New Democratic Party when it comes to defence issues but truly this is too
serious an issue to make it a partisan issue. I do agree with the member that
it is time to take a really good look at our defence issues from one end to the
other and really determine what this country needs in terms of national
defence.
I think it is time for a new white paper but not one
that gives the government an excuse to reduce spending or to lower its
commitment. I am talking about a white paper that will redefine what we really
need to meet our commitments both at home and abroad to make Canada a more
secure country.
Until we do that I think we should hold off on
continuing to put certain things into the hands of the private sector. Certain
things really are better left in the hands of the military. Let us have a good
look at that before we continue with it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order
paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1730)
[English]
Gopher Control
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance)
moved:
|
That,
in the opinion of this House, the government should compensate farmers for
damage done to livestock and crops by gophers resulting from the banning of
effective concentration of strychnine thereby removing the ability of farmers
to control gophers on their lands. |
He said: Madam Speaker, at a time like this with the
tragedies in New York, Washington and near Philadelphia, I hesitate to even
bring forth this motion dealing with control of gophers. It seems in some ways
so trivial compared to the extremely serious issue of this terrorist threat. If
this had not been scheduled ahead of time, I would be calling on the government
to focus strictly on national security over these next weeks and months because
we do have a serious problem in that area. We have to focus the efforts of the
House of parliament on national security.
However, private member's motions and bills are
scheduled well ahead of time, and this motion is important. We will see how
important it is when some of my colleagues speak on it. We saw this by the size
of some of the public meetings which were held in the provinces of Saskatchewan
and Alberta.
Back in 1994 the government removed the effective
concentration of strychnine which was used in controlling gophers, or
Richardson's ground squirrels, from the hands of farmers and others who really
needed it to control this pest.
To get an idea of what this problem really entails,
gophers cost farmers losses of tens of millions of dollars every year at a time
when farmers cannot afford the losses.
A terrible drought has hit farmers from one end of the
country to another. Because of unfair trade practices, prices have been driven
down, in grains in particular. Farmers in many of the grain sectors are hanging
on by their fingernails. Quite frankly, the government has not taken the
removal of these unfair trade practices seriously. As a result, Canadian
farmers have been producing at a disadvantage. However, this has also caused
many farmers to lose their land in spite of being very good managers and good
farmers. We have also lost some of our best farmers, in the grain sector in
particular.
Gophers do not only affect farmers in the area of
crops, they also affect farmers with livestock. Acres of pastures have been
destroyed. Farmers have told me that they have had large pasture areas
completely destroyed by gophers to a point where the cows cannot even graze.
Furthermore, there has been damage to livestock through broken legs. People
riding horses through pastures with gopher holes and the badgers that follow
have sustained terrible injuries.
This is an important issue from a dollars and cents
point of view. It is an important issue in terms of animal and human
safety.
I was first elected in 1993. Since 1994 I have been
working on trying to get the government to restore the proper concentration of
strychnine and to allow farmers to mix it with their grain so that they can
control gophers. I have had bills and motions on this issue before the House on
two or three occasions. I have focused and concentrated on this. I believe that
was partly the reason we had a temporary registration on strychnine in a
controlled way in the province of Alberta this past summer. It was that
important that an emergency registration was put in place last summer. However,
farmers say that is not good enough. They need it indefinitely into the
future.
Unfortunately the province of Saskatchewan did not
manage to get this until later and only in a very restricted way. Farmers from
Saskatchewan were looking enviously across the border into Alberta, wondering
why they could not have an emergency registration like the farmers in Alberta.
None of this is the solution to the problem. The
solution is for the government to restore into the hands of farmers and others
who have to control pests, like gophers, an acceptable concentration of
strychnine which will save farmers tens of millions of dollars.
(1735)
Through an order paper question back in 1995, I asked
for all documentation from government and to government dealing with this
issue. I wanted to know what led to the outlawing of this high concentration of
strychnine. It was shocking. I was given a one inch thick pile of
paper.
One would expect to have found a study which would have
led to the conclusion that it is dangerous for farmers to be using strychnine.
There was no such study. Then I thought that I would at least find that the
government had seen a lot of cases where pests not targeted had been affected.
That was not the case.
This important tool that farmer's desperately needed,
the absence of which cost tens of millions of dollars a year, was taken from
the market based on complaints from one environmental group. It was a
completely unreasonable lobby on the part of a small environmental group, which
was not even one of our major environmental groups. I was really shocked to see
that. I was also shocked to see that this had gone through the process of the
federal government even with some involvement from the provinces.
Farmers are in such need of having this product
restored that they are willing to go to the extent of taking a special half day
safety course on the use of the product. They are willing to have experts come
in and show them how to handle the product to ensure that only the target
species would be affected because this is important to them. However, the
government has allowed this to fall on deaf ears.
What is shocking to me as well is I have asked to make
bills and motions votable on many occasions and not once has that been allowed.
It goes beyond any reason why a motion or a bill brought forth by a private
member for debate would not to be votable. It is long past the time in a modern
British style democracy when any private member motion would not be votable.
This has to happen.
I know the government will not act on this. What does
it mean to the government to have a few more farmers going broke? A few tens of
millions of dollars a year in extra costs to farmers due to crop losses does
not seem to mean a lot. We have seen the government's response to the
agriculture crisis in the past. It does not seem to be that important, so I do
not expect that it will be acted on this time, although I am somewhat hopeful
because the province of Alberta and other provinces are now stepping in and
telling the federal government that we need this back on a permanent
basis.
While I have not seen any reaction from the federal
government in the past, maybe the pressure from the provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan in particular will force the government to reconsider this foolish
move it made seven years ago and restore to farmers a concentration of
strychnine of 2% or higher so they can effectively control Richardson's ground
squirrels and gophers. I believe this is important.
Again, I would like to express that I have some concern
talking about this issue when the House should be focusing strictly and in a
serious way on our national security. With what happened in New York and
Washington and finding out that the targets were much broader than publicly
known, we have to focus on that.
However, this issue is important to people in my
constituency and it is important to the farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
parts of Manitoba.
(1740)
This is important. It is important to the farmers in
Alberta, Saskatchewan and in parts of Manitoba. I hope for once the government
will respond to what is really important to farmers. It has taken too many
tools away, including the tools for farmers to market freely into other
countries, which has cost farmers dearly. Let the government at least restore
this one small tool which will save farmers tens of millions of
dollars.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make this
motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member
for Lakeland that if he is so intent on what the House should be debating he
certainly had the option to withdraw this motion but he has obviously chosen
not to do so. However, having said that, I am very happy to respond on behalf
of the Government of Canada.
In addressing the motion before the House regarding
gopher control measures, I would first point out, not only for the information
of the member for Lakeland but all other hon. members in the House, that the
government has not banned the effective concentration of strychnine. The
concentration of strychnine found in today's ready to use products has been
analyzed and found to be the same or actually greater than that found
previously in baits prepared by mixing the liquid strychnine concentrate with
farm available grain.
What has changed is that since 1992 only the much safer
ready to use strychnine product is available. The liquid strychnine concentrate
for use in the formulation of strychnine baits on farms has been withdrawn from
the market. The use of liquid strychnine concentrate was withdrawn because the
number of strychnine poisonings of non-target pets and wildlife associated with
its use constituted a very significant risk.
I would also like to explain that the action to limit
the availability of liquid strychnine concentrate products undertaken by the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the then pesticide regulatory body,
was taken under the Pest Control Products Act or the PCPA as it is known. A
pre-market assessment of a pesticide carried out by the PCPA establishes that
the product has safety, merit and value, which includes determining that it is
effective.
Registration under the PCPA does not however guarantee
100% effectiveness under all conditions. For example, some organisms develop
resistance to certain pesticides over time where products could cease to be
effective if climate conditions change. Because the action limiting liquid
strychnine concentrate availability was authorized under the PCPA and the issue
of compensation is not addressed in that act, there is no existing mechanism to
compensate farmers for damage done to their livestock and crops as a result of
gophers.
However the government does recognize that gopher
control has been a very difficult problem for western farmers in recent years
and is working actively with the provinces and with producers to find a
solution.
When it was suggested that the level of strychnine in
ready to use baits did not meet the guarantee of 0.4% concentration, an
investigation was launched by Health Canada's pest management regulatory
agency. The investigation involved visits to formulating plants and sampling
and analyses of the product. The results showed that ready to use baits did
meet the registered guarantee.
From 1998-99 strychnine registrants were required to
submit quality control results on several batches of their product to the PMRA
for review prior to its product being distributed into the marketplace for the
upcoming new season.
Since the strychnine present in the ready to use bait
has been clearly shown to be of a concentration adequate for the control of
gophers, it has been suggested that other factors, such as baiting procedures,
environmental conditions affecting the bait itself and lack of palatability,
might be responsible for poor performance of the ready to use strychnine
bait.
To help address these possibilities the PMRA has taken
a number of steps. It upgraded the labels of all registered strychnine products
to provide clearer instruction on the need to carefully locate and time bait
placements to ensure optimum performance. These use instructions were developed
in consultation with the provinces.
The PMRA also provided research permits to Alberta
agriculture and the Alberta Cattlemen's Association to research the
palatability of bait, the timing for bait placement and the question of whether
mixing bait fresh using a liquid concentrate would in fact be more effective.
The results of the trials done in 2000 have just been
received by the PMRA as of June 1 and they are now under review. There is not
yet significant evidence to suggest or require that registrants change the bait
of their ready to use products.
(1745)
The seriousness of some of the gopher problems in some
parts of Alberta this year has reached such proportions that the provincial
government has declared an emergency situation. To meet this emergency, the
Alberta provincial government has requested an emergency registration to allow
it to use the liquid strychnine concentrate for on farm formulation of bait in
those areas that have been identified as having a severe infestation of
gophers.
The PMRA has granted this registration for this season
only. This liquid concentrate will be used under a highly restricted access
program with the following conditions.
First, the sale and distribution of the 2% strychnine
concentrate by the registrant is restricted to agricultural field men who are
authorized by Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development for that
purpose.
Second, agricultural field men can sell this product
only to persons who are commercial agriculturalists.
Third, each agricultural field man who sells the
product must maintain a record of the transaction, including the name, address,
and signature of the purchaser, along with the quantity of product
purchased.
Finally, any product sold must be mixed by or mixed
under the direct supervision of an agricultural field man authorized by Alberta
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
On behalf of Canadians the government has taken a
justifiably cautious approach to bringing back the liquid concentrate of
strychnine, given its very hazardous nature. Strychnine has a very high and
acute toxicity. It acts quickly on the central nervous system, causing frequent
violent convulsions which eventually lead to death through respiratory
failures. There is no effective antidote for this poison.
I emphasize that the original decision on strychnine
registration and restriction was not taken lightly. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada recognized that these changes would involve some increased cost to users
who previously had used their own grain for bait.
Prior to that withdrawal an extensive two year
negotiation was carried out with those provinces where strychnine products are
largely used. Those provinces are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. This consultation involved the western forum and the then
Canadian Association of Pest Control Officials.
At this time I would like to clarify my use of the word
gopher. Although it is not scientifically correct I am primarily using this
term to describe the Richardson's ground squirrel.
Many farmers consider a gopher by any name to be a
pest. A gopher may eat a wide variety of grasses and broad leafed plants and
compete with livestock for forage. The mounds of soil they excavate from their
burrows can further damage crops, as well as livestock and
machinery.
Due to an increase in the gopher population over the
last number of years as a result of warm, dry conditions and a mild, dry
spring, this year the number of gophers in Alberta and Saskatchewan is very
high indeed. In Alberta there are 10 to 15 cases of strychnine poisonings per
year, according to the provincial Agri-Food Surveillance Systems Laboratory in
Edmonton. This number has been steadily declining over the past seven
years.
In Saskatchewan 20 to 25 strychnine dog poisonings and
occasional strychnine wildlife poisonings are confirmed each year according to
the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. I
emphasize that poisoning wildlife and domestic animals using bait laced with
strychnine is illegal not only under the Pest Control Products Act but also
under the cruelty to animals section of the criminal code.
Canada is not alone in having taken action on
strychnine. All above ground uses of strychnine have been prohibited in the
United States since 1988. It is illegal to use strychnine for pest control in
most European countries and its use is prohibited by the Bern convention on the
conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats.
The Canadian government has acted prudently in the
matter of restricting the availability of liquid strychnine concentrate for use
in the formulation of strychnine baits on farms. With the co-operation of
provinces it has moved to protect the health and safety of Canadians along with
their environment.
When the effectiveness of the ready to use strychnine
bait came into question, the government acted quickly and responsibly and took
the actions I have indicated to address the concerns of farmers.
(1750)
If the field trials now under way demonstrate a clear
need in the future for the use of a liquid concentrate strychnine, the PMRA
will work with its provincial partners to determine how to make fresh bait
products available. That is the position of the Government of
Canada.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate
on this motion which, as the previous speaker pointed out, is talking about the
need for higher levels of strychnine to control the gopher
population.
When I first realized I would be speaking about this
matter my heart immediately went out to the most well known gopher in Canada,
Gainer the Gopher from Parkbeg, Saskatchewan, and his cousin, Leonard. For
those who are not fans of the Canadian Football League, he is probably the most
famous mascot in the CFL. I wondered what would happen to poor Gainer under
these circumstances but then the way that the Roughriders have been playing for
the last month he is probably thinking of taking it directly
himself.
The debate is about the level of strychnine and the
concern, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, is about a reduction in
the potency or percentage of strychnine in the pre-mix, whether or not the 5%
has gone to 2% or to 0.4% as is alleged by the member who moved the
motion.
We too have some environmental concerns that were
indicated by the government spokesperson. We are concerned about what has
happened to the population of swift foxes and bald eagles over the last decade
as well as burrowing owls which are very important in the Moose Jaw area. There
was a story in the local newspaper within the last month about how the number
of pairs of burrowing owls had declined rapidly in recent years. Dog poisonings
have also been mentioned. In the volume of work in this area a couple of
suicides were reported. All of these seem to be impacted by the use of
strychnine.
The government has been prudent in reducing the way in
which the bait has been used with no above ground bait stations in recent
years. Farmers have to put the bait in the ground at least 18 inches. They have
to bury the carcasses so that eagles, dogs and other animals will not be
contaminated and spread the problem.
I have no intention of minimizing the issue. I note
that the member from the North Battleford area is in the House. I know it is a
much bigger issue in that area of the province than it is in the Moose Jaw and
Regina area that I happen to represent. I know from reading that 100 gophers
will eat as much pasture in a day as sheep, and that 370 of them will eat as
much as a cow. I also know that predators such as badgers that go after the
gophers can cause severe damage to livestock.
There have been injuries, as the member for Lakeland
indicated, because of the lack of controls, but as I have tried to indicate
there have been some injuries as a result of overuse of strychnine in the
recent past.
The government member indicated that the federal
government was working actively with the provinces and farmers to find
solutions. He mentioned federal labelling, research permits and made reference
to bait. I did not hear, however, what the government was doing about
developing less lethal products for the environment at large that would be more
effective for the problem that farmers are having with gophers.
The point I am trying to make is that the
overpopulation of gophers seems to be a cyclical thing as is the case with a
lot of wild animals.
(1755)
A few years ago we had stories in Saskatchewan
newspapers about how gophers had virtually disappeared from our highways and
byways,. People were not seeing very many of them. Obviously now in some
sections of the province and certainly in the province of Alberta they are back
and they are back with a vengeance.
I would have appreciated hearing whether the government
or the Pest Management Regulatory Agency was doing anything about developing
alternatives to strychnine. I note that in Saskatchewan a farmer has developed
an anhydrous ammonia vapour that he believes has been very effective in
eliminating gophers. Although it is not licensed or registered by the PMRA,
farmers know that anhydrous ammonia is a principal ingredient in nitrogen
fertilizer and it is certainly registered for use in that vein.
I would be interested to know what the government is
doing to develop alternatives to a recognized poison such as strychnine.
It is a serious problem. There are rural municipalities
in both Saskatchewan and Alberta that have declared themselves disaster areas
as a result of the overpopulation at the moment.
In the final analysis we have to be very cautious. We
have to take the precautionary principle on this so that we do no harm until we
ensure that we can do no harm. We should be very careful and very leery about
the use of this product.
I remind members, in the words of David Suzuki, that
the human race is the most predatory animal in the history of the world. We
have a phobia about eliminating anything and everything that gets in our way.
Some day that is going to come back and cost us in a very large way.
This is a problem and I do not want to minimize it, but
I think we need to and should look at alternatives. The issue has been around
for 10 years. The government has absolutely failed to develop alternatives that
would work as a replacement for liquid strychnine.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I rise today knowing full well that the
private members' business item was brought forward before the events of last
Tuesday. I echo the comments of the member for Lakeland that this does
unfortunately seem somewhat insignificant in the big picture of things. However
business must go on in the House, it does go on in the world and it goes on in
the fields and the farms of western Canada. Therefore I will not be as
sanctimonious as some members who suggested that it should have been pulled,
because it should not have. It should be brought forward because it was a piece
of business that was meant to come forward at that time and I will speak to the
issue before us today, Motion No. M-13.
I talked to the member for Lakeland because the motion
itself is not specifically to increase the concentration of liquid strychnine
from a .4% concentration to a 2% or a 5% concentration. The motion suggests
that there should be compensation given to producers who have suffered through
a rather large proliferation of the rodent, the Richardson ground squirrel,
particularly over the last year. The motion says that because of damage done to
livestock and crops, farmers should be compensated. That has not been the tenet
of this discussion. It seems that we are going on about the concentration or
the use of concentrated liquid strychnine and I will speak to that.
First, I should suggest that I would not support the
motion based on a compensatory package. I do not think that is where we should
be heading. I do appreciate where the discussion has gone with having other
alternatives and certainly perhaps even the reinstatement of the 2% solution so
to speak.
Canadian producers and Canadian farmers are not
pesticide crazy. They do not simply use pesticides on every animal that is in
their jurisdiction. That is not the case.
As a matter of fact, Canadian producers are very
cautious when it comes to pest control and certainly using pesticides. We are
probably as good as any other jurisdiction in the world. When Canadian
producers come forward and suggest that there have to be other solutions, they
are doing so simply because they have run completely out of solutions and
options and would like to see something put back into place.
It was mentioned earlier that since 1992 the 2%
solution has been reduced to .4%. It has been proven and obviously the proof is
in the pudding. If we went out to western Canadian farm yards, pastures and
fields, we would see that the pest control program is not working. It has been
a very dry year in western Canada and across the country and be assured that
there are more pests right now than there have ever been. That is why we have
to look at some sort of a control.
There are some options, but they are difficult ones. It
is obvious to anyone who has ever trapped a gopher that he or she can get a few
of them but it is very difficult to get a lot. We talked about gopher hunting.
That in itself does not eradicate the problem, so we have to look at other
options.
The best option right now is the suggestion that we go
back to a special regulation for the PMRA. There was a special call for the use
of the 2% solution and it was granted for this year. An extension of that would
be the first step as to where we should be going.
I do not think most urban Canadians fully appreciate
the concerns that producers have. It was mentioned earlier that gophers can
consume quite a substantial amount of product. To a farmer and a producer, that
is their livelihood. They put seeds in the ground and they harvest those seeds
in the fall. The cash they generate out of the sale of that commodity is what
keeps them and their families going. That is an animal that can reduce those
yields.
It has been suggested that up to $1,000 per quarter
section of crop could be consumed. A thousand dollars per quarter section seems
to be the number. It has been suggested to me by the author of the motion that
it is higher. It may well be. Unfortunately, I do not have those numbers. They
have not been forthcoming. It would nice to have the actual numbers.
(1800)
That is why when it was suggested that there be a
compensation package, I would suggest that it is hard to compensate when you do
not have a real handle on what the real number is. It can vary between
jurisdictions.
Let us assume it is $1,000, perhaps higher, per quarter
section. That is only the financial impact. There is a financial impact as well
on cattle producers. I do not know how many people in the House have actually
walked through a pasture before but I can say that when cattle do walk or run
through a pasture there is a terrible opportunity for them to trip, to fall or
to break a leg in a gopher hole. It happens on a regular basis. With the price
of cattle today, that poses a substantial financial impact on the
producer.
This is going to come as a real shock. Even in the
urban sectors there is an impact when there are too many of these rodents in
the schoolyards, the soccer fields, and the baseball diamonds. They have to be
controlled in these environments as well. This affects the urbanites, who,
heaven forbid, seem to be more important at this point in time than a lot of
the agricultural producers.
There are other options. There are some interesting
innovations out there. I am not going to blame the government specifically, but
I do think it is terribly regulatory in its demeanour. The government likes to
regulate. Heaven forbid that someone should have the opportunity to put
something in place themselves without having to be told to by the government.
The government has decided that this should not be done for producers and
unless it can tell the producers what to do, then it is obviously not good for
them. That is a government ideological philosophy which unfortunately I do not
think is going to change. I wish it would in this case, but unfortunately that
is the way the government operates.
Other options are being developed. One which I mention
tongue in cheek is a thing called the gophinator. It puts anhydrous ammonia in
the gopher hole in the ground. It has not been approved yet. I do know whether
some of my producers have used it, but they have some concerns about it as
well. I do not know if the member for Lakeland has heard about it, but it is a
rather interesting innovation. Producers and businesses should be looking at
other ways when trying to control the gopher population.
I wish this were a votable motion and that we could go
back to a simple solution with a 2% concentration. It seems that solution would
suffice for the time being but that is not going to be the case because the
government is not going to allow the motion to be votable.
I hope that we do not get involved in a compensation
package and it seems that we have gone off of that. I believe that the motion
as it reads now will not be supported by my party. Certainly I think we could,
if it were changed to incorporate the concentrated strychnine.
In closing, I would just like to say that it seems to
be an insignificant issue.
As I said in my opening comments, this is the first
time I have had an opportunity to stand in the House since we returned, and
since the events of Tuesday past. On behalf of my constituents in
Brandon--Souris, I would like to pass on our condolences to the victims, the
families, the firefighters, the rescue workers, and all of the people not only
in the United States but in the free world who have been affected so severely
by the events of last Tuesday. Please accept those comments from the
Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition.
(1805)
Mr. Gerry Ritz
(Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss the motion
brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland.
A lot of verbiage has gone on about should we
compensate, should we not compensate, what the levels should be and so on. The
bottom line for producers is that we do not have anything that will do the job
properly. There is culpability with the federal government and provincial
governments as well. Some of their departments recommended doing away with
strychnine in the way it used to be handled and maybe that was not all
wrong.
The end result is that the gopher populations have had
eight or nine years of absolutely free run. There was some discussion as to the
amount of damage that could be caused and a figure of $1,000 for a quarter
section was bandied about. The damage is actually more in the neighbourhood of
$16,000 on a quarter section, or $100 an acre.
When we talk of forage crops and so on, an average
infestation of gophers costs around $120 per acre. Those 120 hungry little guys
can do away with almost a tonne of good forage a year. Right now that forage is
worth $100 a tonne. That puts the damage across that field at $16,000. No
farmer or rancher can afford that type of a hit. No one has that type of
infestation on a long term basis to that degree. There are some isolated
quarters in my riding that are that bad, but they are not in forage; they are
in a pasture type of thing. People are usually able to pasture 50 or 60 cows in
that application. This year they could not put any on it. Because of the
drought and so on and the gopher problem which compounded that, it was useless
ground.The taxes are still due on that.
There is a lot of discussion on the type of bait that
was taken away, the strychnine and so on. There were reasons for doing that.
The non-target species was a big thing. There are some products that have been
mentioned, and I will get into that later, which do not target the non-target
species.
A big problem was found with the old strychnine, or the
new stuff that was brought out--it was called new but it was reintroduced. It
was weaker, but there was a shelf life to it that nobody even considered. A lot
of the baits that had been out there in the last little while were five and six
years old and the grain product that was mixed with it had gone mouldy. These
little guys are persnickety eaters. No animal in the wild that has a choice
between lush forage and mouldy grain is going to eat the mouldy grain. They
bury it in the dirt regardless of how the bait is placed.
Farmers and ranchers in my part of the country and
across Canada are stewards of the land. They were environmentalists long before
the term was even known. They do not hurt their own land. They know they need
that productivity year after year. The very conception that they do not know
how to mix the bait or do not know how to handle it is ridiculous.
My grandmother mixed bait for years. She died at 96
years of age. The strychnine did not get her; it was a lot of other things, but
at 96 I guess she had a pretty full life.
The problem with the baits as we know them is their
availability. There is never enough when we need them. There is a very small
window of opportunity to place those baits. Gophers hibernate again during the
summer. The gophers we see on the surface are the young that come out and roam
around and the odd female, but the males tend to hibernate for the summer.
There is no opportunity to get them at all. An average female will live to be
four years of age and an average male will easily live a year. They are pretty
tough on their males.
On an average piece of ground with average growth
rates, they will have a litter of five or six young in a season. On good forage
with good feed they will double that. There will be twice that many. In a lush
situation there will be nine or ten little guys running around. Again that ups
their amount of consumption.
It has become a huge problem in the eight or nine years
that we have had no proper poisons available to keep the problem down. They
have had free run. That is where the government's culpability comes in and we
are asking for compensation, and I think rightly so. It should be added to the
crop insurance lists that cover wildlife damage, ducks, geese, deer, elk and
other types of wildlife that were covered for a time. Some provinces still have
it, some do not. In Saskatchewan it has been really short and hard to get but
we need this type of coverage added. The crop insurance program is a joint
federal-provincial application. Somebody puts in the money, somebody
administers it and they are always arguing over who does what and the farmers
end up on the short end of the stick.
Some of the counties in Alberta applied for emergency
registration. They knew that the only thing they could do quickly in the short
term was go back to what had worked before and that is strychnine. They were
granted the opportunity to get the 2% strychnine that is fresh, comes in a
little bottle and is worth about $8. When that is mixed up, the amount that
each farmer is allowed to use in my area ends up to be about a 20 litre pail.
(1810)
By the time it is mixed up it has cost the farmer about
$150. If there is a major infestation, the pail of bait that the farmer is
allowed to get will do between five and ten acres, depending on the infestation
of gophers. It ends up costing roughly $15 an acre to do that. If a farmer has
a problem on 1,000 acres, he or she would be looking at a $15,000 investment,
plus the time to do it. In a lot of instances it is just not feasible to do
that along with all the other chores that are required.
It was mentioned earlier that we need to look for other
solutions. One solution that has been developed comes from my riding. Maze
Innovation from Unity, Saskatchewan has invented what is called the gophinator.
It has all the CSA and ULC stamps and all that good stuff to apply an anhydrous
ammonia, which is basically a fertilizer, into the gopher holes and it gases
them. There are a lot of pluses to that application. For starters, it is much
more humane than strychnine, which should speak well to everyone. It does not
target the non-target species. It only goes after the gopher in the hole. There
is nothing left on the surface for the hawks, eagles or coyotes to drag away.
When we talk about other animals, we did a short study
this summer. We had a meeting sponsored by Senator Herb Sparrow, from North
Battleford. Herb is actually a recognized environmental conservationist farmer.
He has actually won an award to that end, and good for Herb. He sponsored a
meeting that over 300 farmers, ranchers, municipal people and others attended
this summer. He had a lot of quick facts that he put together, including the
fact that 123 gophers per acre will eat up a tonne of feed, which equates to
$15,000 to $16,000 a quarter in damage. He talked about the size of the litter,
the lifespan and so on. The body weight of a gopher will double over the summer
as it gets ready for the winter hibernation.They take in a lot of feed because
they are hyper little guys.
When we talk about non-target species, such as foxes,
coyotes, eagles, owls, hawks, and so on, he actually did some research on those
species. A fox or coyote would have to eat 40 to 50 strychnine poisoned gophers
at one sitting in order to have enough poison to do damage to that fox or
coyote. Well they are hungry but they will not eat 40 to 50 gophers at one
sitting. There is not a hope. They could not wash it down for starters.
When we start talking about hawks, eagles, owls or
whatever, depending on the size of the bird, we are talking about five, ten or
even fifteen gophers that these birds would have to eat in order to be damaged.
That puts into question the whole idea of a non-target species, other than
someone deliberately targeting coyotes with a deer carcass or something, which
is a criminal offence.
The problem is we have to come up with a different way
of doing it. I know the Maze boys have developed the gophinator. It works like
a darn. We can target the animal in its lair. It can be done while they are
hibernating. It does not have to be done during these small windows of
opportunity as with the strychnine targets. It can be done at any time, even in
the fall when they are hibernating. We can plug off one end of the hole and put
the hose in at the other end, tapping the dirt in and giving them a shot of
anhydrous and the job is done. There is no need to come back for carcasses. It
is finished and very clean.
The other plus is that this can be used under barns
while there are animals in there; pigs, chickens, turkeys, cattle or whatever.
Dairy barns and so on tend to get rat infested and anyone with those types of
barns will say that it is a problem. They cannot set out bait because the
animals in the barn would be attracted to the bait. So this type of application
works extremely well.
We are always worried about our kids and contamination
from pesticides, insecticides and so on in parks and school yards. Again, it is
the ideal answer.
We have pointed out all these pluses over the years to
Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and so on. In fact, the Maze boys finally got
off their combines on August 19 of this year and came to Ottawa. They arranged
a meeting with Health Canada to find out what the problem was. There were a lot
of hoops and hurdles. The pest management control agency wants the testing done
on anhydrous ammonia to say that it is okay to put it in the ground and then it
will give it a pest control number but the cost of that is $150,000. What an
absolutely ridiculous and horrendous cost for a product that has already been
accepted for use in the ground. If I go out and fertilize my pasture with the
shanks, rip up the ground and put the anhydrous in that kills the gophers, that
is okay, but if I use their machinery, which is CSA, ULC and all that approved,
I cannot do it. Can anyone explain the logic in that to me. It does not make
any sense to any of us out there.
There are applications and alternatives out there, but
it is up to the government to get off its collective duff and make these things
available to people. We are saying that there is culpability and that there
should be compensation worked into the crop insurance program in the short
term, and in the very short term we should look at registering this Maze
Innovation gophinator.
(1815)
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the intervention
of the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster. He brought out a great deal of
good information on this subject.
I do appreciate as well the member from Brandon
pointing out that the motion is about compensating farmers through the crop
insurance program for damage done to crops, including pastures, as a result of
them not having available the tools to control the Richardson's ground
squirrel, or gopher as it is commonly known by farmers.
That is what the motion actually is. The intent of the
motion or obvious solution that I was hoping the government would see is not to
have to compensate but rather to restore an effective control
product.
I can see the headline in tomorrow's paper: government
will discontinue the registration of automobiles. I expect it will be there.
The government will justify that by the same logic that has led it to
discontinue the registration of an effective concentration of strychnine and by
the same logic that led it to forcing people to register their firearms and to
taking away many firearms whether or not people were using them properly and
safely.
In the information I received in regard to my question
on the order paper in about 1995, there was all the correspondence. I asked in
that question specifically for all the correspondence to the government during
the process that led it to make the decision to ban the effective concentration
of strychnine and for the correspondence from government, so it was
correspondence both ways. In that correspondence, as I said, there was precious
little basis for the discontinuance of this registration.
We have a government in which the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health said in his presentation that non-target
species are hit. I think he said there were about 25 dogs in Saskatchewan and
maybe 15 in Alberta that were hit.
In the case of the information I received, first of all
the numbers are even much lower than that, but what it actually said was that
those were intentional poisonings. In the logic of the government, it has
removed the effective strength strychnine, a move that costs farmers tens of
millions of dollars a year, because of the abuse of a few law breakers who
chose to use this strychnine to poison their neighbour's dogs.
That is what the correspondence showed. The
parliamentary secretary referred to that. Why not deal with criminals firmly
for this kind of illegal activity? It is the same kind of logic the government
used in taking firearms away from firearm owners and in registering firearms.
Because a few people used these weapons illegally, they were taken away from
everybody no matter how much they were needed as a tool, and when it comes to
farmers, to control gophers, among other things. The logic was to just take it
away from everybody or to force registration, which is extremely expensive and
does not help solve the problem.
I would suggest that it is that same logic, if the
government wants to extend it, that will lead to that headline tomorrow that
will say the government will discontinue the registration of automobiles
because some people use them in an illegal fashion.
It is the same logic and I believe it is flawed logic
in all cases. I hope it will not get to the extent that we will see that
headline in the paper tomorrow. It is a flawed approach and it is
unacceptable.
The government has taken away this effective
concentration and, on the other hand, has done what the member for
Battlefords--Lloydminster said: it has not allowed farmers to use their own
innovative solutions that do not include the use of strychnine. I am suggesting
that they should have the effective use of strychnine returned and that farmers
should be allowed to use their creative devices.
(1820)
The member of the New Democratic Party suggested that
the government should develop an effective alternate poison. That is nonsense.
Farmers have developed effective alternate ways of controlling
gophers.
Let us have the government quickly deal with the
registration of those products. Let us allow this problem to be dealt with
effectively and have the appropriate strength of strychnine returned. If the
government refuses to do that, by gosh then it should carry through on my
motion and compensate farmers for the tens of millions of dollars in losses
every year.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired.
[English]
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item
the order is dropped from the order paper.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 36
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
[English]
Lumber
Industry
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on a question
I raised on April 25 regarding the issue of softwood lumber in which I asked
the Minister for International Trade if he would immediately arrange a meeting
of all the parties involved in the softwood lumber dispute.
Since that time I am pleased to report that the
minister has had several meetings with members of the industry. He brought them
all together in a very effective way. The right strategy is in place to bring
all parties and all stakeholders together to deal with the American's approach
to the softwood lumber issue.
Right now, as we speak, the department is hosting
meetings among the province, industry representatives and the federal
government with American state and trade officials in Toronto to deal with this
issue.
I want to raise another set of meetings that were held
in Washington about two weeks ago between the right hon. member for Calgary
Centre, some other MPs, several trade officials of the United States and the
vice-president of the United States.
At these meetings all individuals said they were
totally committed to a long term solution. They did not want any more of these
five year deals that were repetitive. Every five years they have to go through
the awful process of the court system and the political system. They want a
solution.
In the earlier meetings in Washington we pointed out
that the new premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, had said in his
election policy that they would move toward a more market driven pricing
strategy. This was the first time they had heard of it and it seemed to raise
their interest. They were attracted to this proposal.
The right hon. member called the premier of British
Columbia and had the information faxed to him in Washington. Then he presented
the actual documents to the vice-president of the United States. These
documents state that British Columbia is proposing to move toward a more market
driven approach to lumber pricing.
The vice-president was very pleased to see that and
felt it was a very positive move toward a long term resolution to the ongoing
softwood lumber problem.
This year alone in British Columbia it is estimated
that it will cost industry over $1 billion. Officials feel that a strategy such
as has been proposed by British Columbia will remove the tools that the U.S.
industry uses to put its politicians in a corner to force trade actions against
the Canadian softwood lumber industry.
We in Canada know that this is a totally U.S. political
football that is kicked around every five years. The industry takes advantage
of any argument it can come up with and gets its politicians to raise this
question. It pushes them to bring in countervail charges and
anti-dumping.
If British Columbia is able to follow through with its
proposed policy of moving toward a more market driven pricing schedule for its
lumber and if Premier Campbell is able to achieve his goal as stated in his
policy papers in the election, would the parliamentary secretary agree with
U.S. officials that this would help resolve this problem once and for
all?
(1825)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's persistence
in calling for wide consultation. He made that point repeatedly in the House
and the minister certainly agreed with him. As he has noted, those
consultations took place from coast to coast to coast with industry and all
provinces.
My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester speaks about a
long term solution that is wanted both in Canada and the United States. That is
certainly the case in the House and in our country, as he well
knows.
The long term solution is free trade on softwood
lumber. That is what both the United States and Canada purport their goals to
be in trade. We are simply calling for the same kind of free trade in softwood
lumber that we have in many other commodities.
My colleague asked a question about certain statements
of the premier of British Columbia. I guess time will tell and we will see what
the premier does, but it is of interest to this government what the practices
are in the various lumber producing provinces, B.C. being one of the most
important of those.
We will have to watch and see what is done, but I want
to emphasize very carefully that we feel that once again Canada's case can be
proven and will be proven at the WTO. We do not subsidize unfairly in softwood
lumber. That case has been tested before several times. We have always won the
case and we will win it again this time. I think my colleague has raised some
important issues that certainly bear scrutiny.
(1830)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)