1999-02-12

Government Orders
War Veterans Allowance ActHon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be here today to speak to the improvements to veterans' legislation which are contained in Bill C-61.
Because we will be debating the specifics in committee in the days to come, today I would like to focus my comments on the general reasoning behind the bill and, in so doing, show that these amendments are in keeping with our longstanding tradition of providing the best service possible to Canada's veterans.
A bit of background is in order. To understand the history of our country we need only to know the sacrifices of those who served in peacetime and in war throughout this country.
From the very early days of our nationhood, Canadians served their country with distinction, often in places far from home, and veterans' benefits were few and far between. The first world war changed all that. We lost 66,000 of our young, which was catastrophic for a nation of just eight million. The utter devastation on the lives of those who survived that terrible carnage demanded action on the home front. Military hospitals, vocational training, re-establishment and job placement were the orders of the day.
Another 45,000 Canadians were lost in the second world war and, with the anticipated return of one million service men and women, the government at the time recognized that a single department devoted exclusively to veterans was needed.
In 1944 the Department of Veterans Affairs was born. In the early years it was the repairing of broken bodies and shattered spirits that took precedence, putting interrupted lives back on track and bringing them back to the country where these heroic men and women longed to be. For all those suffering permanent injury, disability pensions were guaranteed.
Further, for the first time these pensions were given to members of the women's auxiliary forces, the merchant seamen, commercial fishermen, Canadian overseas firefighters and other civilian groups which contributed to winning the war.
When body and soul were patched up as well as possible, it then became a matter of making sure these valued citizens got a chance to live the Canadian dream. For some it was assisting in the buying of a small piece of property and for others it was education and training.
We have come a long way since the veterans' charter that codified these programs for veterans, from rehabilitation to re-establishment, from land settlement to home construction, from pensions to allowances and beyond. Canada provided then and provides now a package of benefits that rivals any in the world.
The Department of Veterans Affairs remains committed to providing the very best care and comfort to veterans whose average age is now moving from the old to the very old. The mandate continues to be quite simple: to take care of those who took care of us; to take care of those who answered this country's call in a time of desperate need. Although our commitment to veterans has never wavered, the ways in which we meet that commitment as we approach the millennium have changed.
In all that we do we try to look at our programs from a veteran's perspective and ask the question: What do they want and need at this stage of their lives? We have talked to veterans and veterans organizations and they have responded.
They want to see a continuation of current programs, those with which they have become familiar and often which they have come to count on. So we continue to provide war service allowances to those whose life circumstances have left them at the lower end of the income scale as they live out their senior years.
We continue to provide an innovative veterans' independence program which allows veterans to remain in their homes as long as possible. VIP provides a cross-section of services to ease some of the heavier burdens associated with living and taking care of a home. With Meals on Wheels, housekeeping, grounds maintenance, transportation and personal care, our at-home vets are able to enjoy the comfort and dignity of independent living.
We continue to provide disability pensions and as a result of new technology and internal improvements, and a lot of hard work by a team of very dedicated staff, we have reduced the processing time for pension applications by more than 50%.
By the way, applications for disability pensions are not limited to wartime veterans. Regular force members are also eligible and their numbers are up, which is not surprising given Canada's significant contribution to keeping peace around the world.
Disability pensions for the forces now make up almost 50% of new applications in some of our district offices. Of course we continue to provide for eligible veterans a broad spectrum of other services, including comprehensive health care, targeting the needs that the frailties of old age bring to us all. These include the provision of prescription drugs, dental care and access to long term care community beds.
Veterans want to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect, as we all do. To this end, we work very hard to be sure that we become their path of least resistance, not only when it comes to getting information about our programs but, if need be, about other government programs as well.
Our front line staff make sure that from the minute veterans walk in the door, whatever the problem or question may be, from veterans' benefits to income tax forms, from CPP to old age security problems, we steer them in the right direction from the start, and that is exactly how it should be.
With the millennium the average age of our remaining war service clients will approach the 80 year mark. Their medical needs are changing. Frankly, this is unchartered territory. We are entering an era of health care never before known to governments, taking on the needs of a substantial and very elderly population. It is in this context of change that we are constantly examining our legislation to make sure it keeps up with the times and continues to be fair, timely and responsive, all of which brings me to the bill before us today.
Its measures are consistent with our past practices and look to the future needs of our treasured veterans and their dependants. This is an omnibus bill, covering a cross-section of current legislation.
Let me turn first to the prisoner of war recommendations. As hon. members know, many of our veterans receive disability pensions arising from an illness or injury they incurred as a result of their service in peacetime or wartime, and if their disability is sufficiently serious or disabling they may be eligible for special benefits such as an attendance allowance that assists those veterans in need of day to day personal care.
Similarly, exceptional incapacity allowances are awarded to pensioners who are extremely incapacitated by their disabilities. The dollar amount is based on the extent of the helplessness, pain and loss of enjoyment of life and the shortened life expectancy.
At the present time veterans who receive prisoner of war compensation are not entitled to receive these special allowances unless they are also in receipt of a disability pension. The amendments to this bill will remove this bar. Former prisoners of war will now be allowed to receive the special allowances if they meet the eligibility criteria. These provisions recognize the very particular needs of POWs, all of whom suffered greatly by their incarceration, some for periods lasting throughout the war years. In passing these changes the House will respond positively to a key priority of the National Council of Veterans Associations.
Another major provision of this legislation will result in more Canadian survivors, more often than not widows of veterans, becoming eligible for increases in their pension payments. This change will potentially affect over 35,000 survivors where the disabilities had been assessed at less than 48%. The Pension Act will be amended to permit an application for increased pensions for these survivors if they believe that their spouse's disability should have been assessed at a higher level at the time of their passing. In passing these changes the House will respond positively to the number one veteran's priority of the Royal Canadian Legion.
Bill C-61 also brings merchant navy veterans under the very same legislation that applies to armed forces veterans, namely the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. This is by its nature largely a symbolic change. I say this because merchant navy veterans have been receiving identical benefits to their armed forces counterparts since 1992. Symbols are important and this change of status is one that this group of veterans has been requesting for quite some time.
By using the same acts to respond to the needs of both merchant navy and armed forces veterans we send a powerful signal that we value the service and sacrifice performed by the merchant navy during the wars. There are other actions which have been taken in recent years to underscore the value placed on the contributions made by merchant navy veterans.
In 1993 merchant navy veterans joined armed forces veterans in a pilgrimage to Liverpool to commemorate the battle of the Atlantic. They also accompanied the delegation that went to the pilgrimage last year to commemorate the battle and have participated in pilgrimages marking the 50th and 55th anniversaries of the second world war.
Merchant mariners are also recognized in other veterans affairs commemorative initiatives, including a teacher's kit, a CD-ROM on the second world war and a recently released publication entitled “Valour at Sea”.
Perhaps among the most significant symbolic gesture was the instalment in 1994 of the merchant navy book of remembrance in the memorial chamber. It lists the names of Canadian merchant mariners who gave their lives during the first and second world wars.
I want to assure members that merchant navy veterans are veterans in every sense of the word and this bill underscores that fact. There are other provisions in Bill C-61 dealing with allied veterans residing outside Canada, changes to the administration of the funeral and burial program, continuing assistance to certain survivors of the Halifax explosion of 1917, and amendments to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act. Although important in the scheme of things, they are perhaps better left to committee debate.
Canadians have always felt that of all our citizens who made sacrifices for their country, it was those who defended our freedom in war we should honour above all others. Of those veterans who returned from the two world wars and Korea, over 400,000 are still with us today. A good number of them receive benefits in one form or another from veterans affairs. Over the years we have been called upon to implement a substantial body of legislation designed to meet their changing needs. One of our strengths has been our ability to anticipate challenges and as a result our programs in Canada have been ahead of the times.
So today we are called on once again to make changes to meet these challenges. It is to the credit of successive governments and parliaments that whatever their political make-up they have continued in the tradition of providing Canadian veterans with benefits that remain second to none. Let us continue in that tradition by giving this legislation speedy consideration and passage.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and related legislation.
This is an omnibus bill that, when coupled with separate assumed undertakings by the government to right past wrongs, caused elderly merchant navy veterans to end their hunger strike on the steps of Parliament Hill last fall.
As with much omnibus legislation, there are several separate legislative initiatives, so that voting against the legislation means that one could be seen to be voting against certain provisions that actually improve matters for veterans, including merchant navy veterans. In the alternative, one could vote against the legislation based on what is not included in it. There is much in this legislation that does little to improve the the circumstances of merchant navy veterans in terms of their well known grievances.
Voting against legislation based on what is not there is not particularly constructive in my view. Voting against legislation because all the provisions are not as one might wish is also not particularly constructive. On the other hand, the parliamentary practice of introducing omnibus legislation is not a particularly fair or honest way of addressing primary grievances.
I want the record to show that while I favour specifics of the bill I do not believe that its format allows for a debate on this substantial issue at hand, that of compensation to our merchant navy veterans for past government wrongs, for past avoidance of responsibilities.
To correct this I will propose at committee that a special subcommittee be formed to examine compensation claims for years of denial of equality from the war to this date. I am expecting our government's wholehearted co-operation and participation in this special subcommittee.
In this bill there are two provisions that should meet with general approval in the House. Both relate to the lifetime effects of war, effects along with memories that are rarely erased. By way of amendment to the Pension Act former prisoners of war may now apply for special allowances even though they are not in receipt of a disability pension. An allowance of this nature could be used to provide for an attendant. This amendment would be welcomed in such cases where a prisoner of war never claimed a disability pension but now finds there is need for assistance. By this amendment there appears to be a general recognition that experiences as a prisoner of war will always have an effect on the enjoyment of later life even if no specific disability can be traced to the prisoner of war experiences.
In similar fashion spouses of deceased veterans classified as partially disabled at the time of death will now be able to seek a re-evaluation of the disability status of the departed veteran in order to receive increased survivor benefits. By this amendment it is recognized that any war related disability may become progressively more incapacitating even though the veteran chooses not to inform veterans affairs as to his deteriorated state.
Veterans have demonstrated time and time again that they are proud people, proud of their service to the country and proud of their independence. Veterans do not readily stand in the queue for a government cheque. By this amendment it is recognized that such independence of the veteran, while admirable, should not result in financial prejudice to a veteran's spouse whose post-war life was also affected by war related disabilities.
For example, a veteran may have suffered permanent hearing loss as a result of bombing missions over Europe. The veteran was assessed as partially disabled. However, his balance became progressively worse due to the effects of diminished hearing. At some point the veteran ceased to work due to difficulties with walking and balance. What this amendment does is recognize that once again a war related injury may have lasting and progressively more serious effects on the well-being of any veteran. The effects of war are again recognized as lifelong.
Many arguments have been made to deny merchant navy veterans the benefits they have claimed. I will canvass the principal claims. It has not been easy to obtain agreement as to these four points given the various factions within the merchant navy veterans organizations, although I did succeed in obtaining agreements from all parties. There are four main demands of all groups representing the various factions: to be recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for years of denial of equality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial days.
Bill C-61 addresses recognition of war veterans status. Merchant navy veterans are war veterans for all purposes and in all respects. Therefore formal recognition of merchant navy veterans on ceremonial days, in particular on Remembrance Day, should now occur as a matter of course. Equivalency of prisoner of war benefits is also implicitly addressed.
The key issues not addressed in Bill C-61 is compensation to our merchant navy veterans for years of denial of equality. As with prisoner of war benefits, general benefits available to all veterans have been available to merchant navy veterans since legislative amendments in 1992. The fact that they may or may not be treated equally now is not the issue. The issue not addressed in this legislation and also not addressed in the 1992 legislation is retroactive compensation, to acknowledge that merchant navy veterans despite their crucial and valorous service in war were not placed on the same benefit footing as other returning veterans after the war.
An inequality of post-war opportunity leads to an inequality of post-war outcomes. In short, the post-war lives of our merchant navy veterans were short changed by the government.
The valour and sacrifice of our merchant navy veterans are well known. They faced death more than any other Canadian fighting force with one in seven merchant mariners being killed in World War II. This horrendous statistic is evidenced by the fact that, until corrected recently by veterans affairs, the commonly held wisdom was that the death rate was one in eight, which is equally horrendous.
Members of our Canadian merchant navy were vital suppliers to the war effort. It is true that merchant mariners were not subject to the same military discipline as those in the armed forces. It is also true they were paid marginally more than those in the armed forces. However, their service to Canada's war effort was very different from those who contributed to the war effort in factories and offices but who did not face death daily. Their service to Canada's war effort was also very different from those currently in receipt of veterans pensions who were members of the armed forces but who never went overseas.
The reason we view members of the merchant navy as war veterans is that the nature and dangers of their service were clearly no different from anyone else on the front lines. Given the paltry difference in salary between those in the armed forces and those in the merchant navy, it cannot be said that merchant navy veterans risked their lives for the money. Like others actively serving in the war, they risked their lives for their country and to preserve its freedoms. At minimum, they could be viewed as resistance fighters for Canada and certainly should be treated no differently from allied resistance fighters in other countries who our political leaders have been so quick to compensate with Canadian taxpayer resources.
Compensating our merchant navy veterans for years of wrongful denial of equality is both a symbolic and tangible means by which we can thank fellow Canadians for their efforts in preserving the freedoms we enjoy today.
Consider that 12,000 men and women served in the merchant navy in World War II. Many were older than the average age of Canadians in the armed forces since many of these merchant mariners had also served Canada during World War I. Members of our merchant navy, in addition to playing a vital role in the transportation of supplies in support of the war effort in Europe, also defended Canada's shores during the battle of the Atlantic.
In my capacity as opposition critic for veterans affairs, I participated last year in ceremonies commemorating the 55th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic. The battle of the Atlantic was the only battle of World War II that was waged close to Canada's shores. German submarines reached as far as the shores of Halifax and the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Armed merchant navy carriers contributed significantly to turning the tide as the battle of the Atlantic was being won by the allies in 1943.
Perhaps politicians have chosen to ignore the plight of merchant navy veterans due to the comparative smallness of their numbers. The merchant navy was comprised of no more than 12,000 seafarers. Of the 12,000 who served in the merchant navy, 1,629 lost their lives in World War II, 8 of whom were women. This represents over 13% of the service or approximately 1 in 7.
Members of the merchant navy were not a world apart from those in the armed forces. It should be remembered that at the outbreak of World War II, the Royal Canadian Navy took control of all shipping. It should also be remembered that all who served in the merchant navy were volunteers. None were compelled to sail but most did. Once signed on, merchant navy seamen were subject to sail or jail orders just as the navy.
What was denied to the merchant navy veterans at war's end, such that they did not have the equality of post-war opportunity available to other veterans? The benefits denied are not minor and clearly their absence would have lifetime impacts. Merchant navy veterans received no financial assistance to attend university as did other war veterans. Many of the leaders in professions during the 1960s to the present are or were veterans who received such assistance.
Merchant navy veterans were not accorded priority in public service employment as were other returning veterans. After the war the employment of the public service offered the benefit of economic stability and the opportunity to re-establish one's life in an orderly fashion. It was a particularly important benefit remembered by those whose youth occurred during the great depression when employment in the public service was also often the only gainful employment available. The denial of this benefit to the merchant navy veterans had lifetime effects.
The third benefit denied to the merchant navy veterans was land or its cash equivalent. Returning veterans were provided with an opportunity to acquire housing under the Veterans Land Act as well as income support. The opportunity to acquire housing coupled with financial assistance to attend university, income support and priority in public service employment meant that many veterans could overcome the scars of war and look forward to stable family lives and careers. None of this was available to merchant navy veterans except in limited circumstances where such veterans were disabled.
That this wrong has not been addressed for nearly 55 years after the end of World War II is a national disgrace which will hopefully not continue. It is true that as of 1992 merchant navy veterans have essentially been “on equal footing” with other veterans in terms of benefits. Now with Bill C-61 they will be on equal footing under the same legislation and are therefore no longer symbolically separate but equal.
This still does not address the issue that the lives and families of every one of our merchant navy veterans have been scarred by a government imposed inequality of post-war opportunity.
There are several reasons given for this discriminatory treatment at war's end. Some argue that it was because there were many socialists in the merchant navy and it was believed by the government of the day that any support accorded merchant navy veterans would strengthen socialistic and pro-union sentiments. That these beliefs continued into the cold war of the fifties is understandable given the tenor of the times, though it does not make them right.
To this day I can advise the House that organizations representing merchant navy veterans represent a broad political spectrum that results from time to time in a degree of fractious discord. The fact that to this day merchant navy veterans have difficulty speaking consistently with one voice should not be a matter to be taken advantage of politically.
On occasion and quite recently I have been asked to detail my goals with respect to my current role as official opposition critic of veterans affairs. As has been publicly reported, I stated that one dimension of this portfolio, the same portfolio addressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is that many of the files are not new. Many of these issues are not new. Some of these issues have been going on for 50 or 55 years, far too long.
For reasons best left to historians many of these issues that could have been addressed by governments 20 and 30 years ago were not addressed, let alone resolved. I support the bill as one small step toward resolving the merchant navy concerns and I encourage the government to do more.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with great respect that I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
The purpose of this bill is to provide financial compensation to make up for our governments' negligence.
The government passed legislation providing numerous benefits for armed forces veterans returning to Canada at the end of World War II, but refused to help merchant navy veterans who were trying to resume their lives, which had been interrupted when they volunteered to serve their country, particularly during the two world wars in the heavily torpedoed convoy lanes.
For over 50 years, the Canadian merchant navy veterans, the fourth arm of the fighting services as they were called during World War II, have been discriminated against by the government because they were paramilitaries.
This bill will correct certain anomalies and has the support of the Bloc Quebecois. But unless these individuals receive retroactive compensation and the same treatment as their military comrades, the injustice inflicted on them by our government will never be erased.
It is important to give some background when talking about the merchant marine. On November 16, 1939, two weeks after Great Britain declared war on Germany, the first merchant marine convoy left the Port of Halifax.
This convoy opened the war-time route to England and the Soviet Union, carrying vital supplies to overseas allied forces, and many of the crew members on these ships lost their lives. Their losses were proportionately higher than those of all the other military forces.
The merchant navy was the backbone of the supply system in the North Atlantic that helped preserve the freedom of the British and of their allies. At the beginning of the war, Canada's merchant navy, which was governed by the very strict measures in the Canada Shipping Act, had a total of 37 ocean going ships and about 1,400 seamen.
The government played an active role in the evolution of the situation. A Canadian interdepartmental merchant navy commission was established. A crown corporation, Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited, was set up in 1941 to look after the merchant navy and, the following year, the Park Steamship Company was created to supervise merchant seamen and ships under construction.
Recruiting offices were set up to send people where demand was strongest. Merchant seamen were under the authority of DND's naval section. Ships left in convoys or alone, with sealed orders from the British admiralty that were handed out locally by the commander of the naval forces.
In spite of the casualties, by the end of the war, Canada had 157 ships and some 12,000 seamen, or an additional 120 ships and 10,600 seamen. We had the third largest merchant navy in the world.
On February 8, 1944, C.D. Howe, the Minister of Munitions and Supplies, said on CBC radio that “without our merchant seamen, our combat forces would have been immobilized and the brilliant campaign in North Africa would not have been possible. We would not have succeeded in landing on the coasts of Sicily and Italy”. Without our seamen, thousands of soldiers would not have been transported to the battlefields of Europe or the Pacific, as members of inter-allied operations clearly remembered. They were also responsible for delivering Malta.
Their precious cargoes made them immediate targets for the Axis powers. The German strategy was to follow the merchant marine to cut the supply lines to Canadian ships. German submarines and planes knew their itineraries and unmercilessly attacked the merchant ships. In addition, the German submarines hunted them up and down the Atlantic coast in an effort to find them, monitor them and catch them.
In fact, in 1942, they penetrated deep into the Gulf of St. Lawrence where they attacked a convoy and sunk six merchant ships, including two Canadian ships and two of their Canadian escorts.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill admitted, and I quote: “I was much more concerned over this battle than I had been over the glorious air battle known as the Battle of Britain”. He acknowledged that all would have been lost had the merchant marine failed. However, it succeeded and kept the British and their allies in the war.
Before the start of the second world war, the German navy had planned a campaign to attack allied merchant marine ships en route from North America. The destruction of the merchant marine ships, which were neither well armed nor well armoured, became the prime objective of the Nazi warships, planes and submarines.
Packs of 10 or 12 German submarines roamed the Atlantic to hit and sink the supply ships. German aircraft bombarded them as they approached the coast of Europe. German warships disguised as cargo ships used their hidden deck guns to attack the merchant marine fleet at sea. Alone or in convoy, these ships faced the risk of attack at any point.
As the orders of the German high command indicate, the merchant seamen were at the heart of the Battle of the Atlantic. As the merchant ships were constant targets for enemy ships, the allied warships were unable to detect or combat German submarines. Until 1942, the mere sight of a submarine periscope was enough to put convoys to flight. Slower replenishment vessels trailed behind and were torpedoed. Merchant ships were not equipped for serious fighting.
While they were required to carry anti-aircraft guns as well as gas and fire protection equipment, merchant ships were seldom able to defend themselves against torpedoes, bombs and shells launched by heavily armed enemy ships. This was what the merchant marine was up against during the war.
In other cases, the most valuable cargo was placed in the middle of the convoy, the surrounding ships acting as buffers. The ships on the outside were the easiest targets. When under attack and heavily damaged, they were left to their own devices. If the ship sank, seamen then faced the perils of freezing water, icy gusts of wind and 10-foot waves. They knew they were likely to die. The German submarine commanders had received the order to take no prisoners. Fortunately, some did anyway.
It was not until 47 years after the second world war that legislation was finally introduced in this respect.
In 1992, the government passed a bill to correct these anomalies, namely the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. This act provided wartime merchant seamen with the same rights to all the benefits that were currently available to the armed forces, but not retroactively, and without recognizing the merchant navy as a paramilitary force.
Bill C-61 introduces some technical changes by which merchant navy veterans will be covered by the major pieces of legislation that apply to veterans, but once again without retroactivity.
At the present time, benefits to merchant mariners fall under the legislation applicable to civilians. This denigrates the efforts of these veterans, yet they plied the same waters as the navy, faced the same enemy aircraft as the airforce, had to dodge the same bullets as the army. Canada did not, however, consider them veterans. In all other allied countries, they would have been entitled to the same benefits and the same war service status as other veterans.
In short, this omnibus bill makes it possible to amend a number of acts at one time with a very specific objective in mind. Primarily, these changes will make it possible for the programs available to veterans to be extended to merchant navy veterans.
I repeat, the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with these principles of equality, of recognition, of equity, and of support for all those who risked their lives, or lost their lives, in the cause of peace. Our greatest regret, moreover, is that this government was so long in acknowledging the role played by the merchant mariners in the two world wars and in Korea, and most especially the fact that it refuses to grant retroactivity for benefits merchant mariners did not receive, while army, air force and navy veterans did.
The major features of this bill are as follows: inclusion in the definition “member of the forces”; payment of a veterans allowance under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act; a prisoner of war allowance; assessment increases for survivors of disability pensioners; deadline extension for termination of war veterans allowance payments; regulations assigning funeral and burial programs to a non-government body, such as the Last Post Fund; continuation of pension payments for those blinded during the 1917 Halifax explosion and provision for the board to review earlier decisions.
Recently, three former members of the merchant marine staged a hunger strike on the steps of the Parliament Buildings in order to obtain compensation for something that should have been sorted out right after the war ended.
As Bloc Quebecois critic, I recognize that merchant mariners have suffered for too long at the hands of government bureaucracy.
Former members of Canada's merchant marine have been fighting for a very long time for recognition of their courageous actions before, during and after World War II. Members of the merchant marine were the first to enter the war and the last to come back to peace. They transported our troops and supplies to Europe throughout the war, and brought them back afterwards.
It is true that merchant mariners working on board the Park Steamship Company's vessels formed a union in 1944 in order to improve their working conditions, obtain mattresses, drinking water, food, blankets and better wages, and that they were reluctantly recognized by the government, although they had promised not to strike.
Nonetheless, a special V-Day commemorative ceremony was organized in February 1944 in Montreal to honour merchant marine veterans and their contribution to the war effort. Newspapers ran headlines reading “Merchant marine veterans demand soldier status”. And throughout the war, they were constantly referred to as Canada's “fourth armed force” by many of the politicians of the day, including Prime Minister Mackenzie King, C.D. Howe, the Hon. J.T. Michaud, Minister of Transport, and many others. The idea was taken up by the media and the House of Commons, but dropped when the war ended.
After the war, merchant seamen were no longer needed. The fleet was privatized. It was estimated that less than 4,000 jobs would be available to the 12,000 seamen, who were very badly treated, even though they asked to be considered as veterans in order to get the related benefits.
When we ask the minister why he will not retroactively give merchant navy seamen what soldiers got, he says that merchant seamen are entitled to the same benefits as other veterans. What he does not say, however, is that they do not get equal treatment when it comes to retroactivity. In my opinion, without equal access to retroactivity, there can be no equal treatment in terms of the benefits involved. This is why Bill C-61 is not complete.
After World War II, merchant navy veterans were deprived of all the benefits that other veterans enjoyed. These seamen were paramilitaries. Yet, they were ignored by the government for several decades and this is why I plan to move an amendment to the bill, so that they can be entitled to tax-free retroactive compensation. This retroactivity would compensate merchant seamen for lost opportunities, while also ending the discrimination practiced by previous governments.
Where these people discriminated against because they formed a union so as to be treated like human beings, or because the fleet was privatized?
Let me give you some examples of discrimination. The governments denied that merchant seamen were the “fourth arm of the fighting services” or the “fourth arm of the armed forces” as they were called during the war.
They denied that merchant seamen were bound by their enlistment contracts. They could not leave at any time they wished; they were assigned to their post by order in council and by ship's articles. They were thrown in prison, if they were absent without permission.
The authorities denied that they had suffered the highest losses of all the services, even though this fact was admitted during the war. They were easy prey in the submarine war.
The authorities denied that they had criss-crossed dangerous waters for the six long years of the war. The war went on in their theatre longer than was the case for any other service.
The authorities denied that they had sailed under admiralty orders.
They denied that the merchant mariners were badly paid. They were not as well paid as their counterparts in the navy, although government files indicate otherwise.
The authorities denied that they were subject to disciplinary measures, although they reported to the judge advocate general of the navy, and were part of the structure of the military operations groups and could be incarcerated by the military police and the RCMP.
The authorities denied they paid income tax.
After the war, they could build houses for their military comrades if they worked in construction, but they could not get one of their own.
There were not given the employment preference reserved for the military in the public service. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires was not open to the merchant marine until 1989.
They had no say in the drafting of Bill C-84 in 1992.
In 1946, briefs were submitted to the special veterans affairs committee of the House of Commons calling for their inclusion in the veterans rehabilitation programs. Most of the demands made at that time have never been dealt with.
They were denied representation at official Remembrance Day ceremonies, although they had been represented during the second world war.
And then there is the whole miserable history of the Hal Banks period. In 1963, after nearly a year of investigation, the industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping, under British Columbia Justice Norris, brought down a report that strongly denounced Banks, his methods and his associates.
In it, Banks was compared to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini because of his dictatorial tendencies. Justice Norris described the outcome of his acts as “industrial death”. Sailors were deprived of the opportunity to work at sea and labelled as communists and thus unemployable on land.
They were subjected to brutal treatment. One of the most favoured means of dissuasion was to put a sailor's legs up over the curb of a sidewalk and then to jump on them in order to break them. These acts of brutality were not reserved for sailors alone; even captains were attacked for something as minor as delaying a sailing.
Since the merchant mariners' average age is 77, and that of the prisoners 87, the following retroactive benefits are being demanded: a public apology by the federal government; reimbursement of income tax with compound interest; reimbursement of forced savings and unclaimed wages; compensation and benefits retroactive to the date of death or injury for medicare and the veterans independence program, benefits under this having been refused since its inception; a tax-exempt lump sum payment for merchant mariners with wartime service, with an additional amount for merchant mariners who were POWs for more than 36 months; exemption from income tax for the rest of their lives; and inclusion of unionized merchant mariners in the programs available to their comrades.
Government can afford to rectify the situation since there are millions of dollars in unspent funds available, according to Public Accounts of Canada, Volume II, part 1.
To conclude, given that neither Bill C-61 in 1961 nor Bill C-84 in 1992 rectified the situation, I hope this government will not make the same mistake today with Bill C-61.
While the minister was seen on a number of occasions, at memorial services in Europe, crying his heart out for those who died 50 years ago, he remains ice-cold today, apparently unmoved by the representations of their surviving brothers in arms, who are suffering physically and mentally.
I think this circus has been going on long enough. I ask that this government take action and rectify once and for all the situation of merchant seamen and retroactively grant them these benefits.
The Speaker: I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax West now. With your agreement, I would like to proceed to Statements by Members but I recognize you now so that you will have the floor when we come back and you will have one second less than you would ordinarily have.

Statements By Members
Canadian Environmental Protection ActHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, approved by parliament in 1988, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act aims at protecting the health of Canadians by preventing pollution through national standards and their enforcement.
The act follows the traditional pattern of federal-provincial relations in which the federal government takes the lead role. A province can implement the act but it must do so at an equal or higher standard.
The act is now being revised in committee. It has become clear that the federal government is best situated to set national standards and to enforce them. We live in times of greater internationalization of environmental policies. We therefore need a strong federal role in standards setting so as to better protect the public from toxic substances and their effects on human health.
Home InvasionsMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes judges make questionable rulings and sometimes they make inappropriate comments. Occasionally we hear from a judge with a finger on the pulse of the community. This week a B.C. judge imposed a 14-year sentence on a parasite for his part in a home invasion.
Home invasions have become epidemic in British Columbia. Primary targets are the elderly but entire families have also been terrorized. At least one murder has resulted. Charities are suffering because people are afraid to open their doors. Community crime prevention meetings are packed.
This judge has delivered a clear message by using what in his words is “the only remedy the law now provides a trial judge”. He also said “courts can do their part to preserve a citizen's right to live in security by imposing progressively severer sentences on those offenders who commit this type of crime”.
We can only hope that his colleagues at the appeal court level will show the same commitment to their communities.
Perth—MiddlesexMr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my pride in the riding of Perth—Middlesex. My riding has one of the best unemployment rates in the country, standing at 3.6%. This rate has been constant for quite some time but hides an interesting fact.
Thousands of new jobs have been created in the area through private and public sector initiatives. The unemployment rate remains the same only because thousands of people have renewed hope and have returned to the work market.
Perth—Middlesex is a microcosm of all Canada. Government policies and the private sector initiative have given Canadians a renewed hope and a bright outlook for the future.
Volunteer OrganizationsMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, February is Big Sisters month in Canada. One of my joys as a member of parliament has been to support the work of this excellent organization that provides mentoring to young Canadians, one of our best resources and a key to our future.
Volunteer members of our communities help young people. The relationships that develop are a positive demonstration of the best sense of community: people looking out for other people, especially those who are most vulnerable.
Big Sisters and Big Brothers have a proud history in Canada. The nature of their work has changed over the past few years but like the children they mentor the organization has proven itself adaptable.
I am pleased that the federal government is providing funding for two innovative projects being launched under Health Canada's population health fund. An amount of $164,000 will be used to develop tests and programs to enhance and strengthen the self-esteem and self-image of adolescents.
Under the leadership of Michael McKnight, Big Brothers and Sisters of Canada continue to play a critical role in the lives of young Canadians. I am pleased the government financially supports programs to improve the lives of young Canadians.
NunavutMrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday, February 15, is election day in Nunavut. There are 71 candidates competing for 19 positions as members of the first legislative assembly of Nunavut.
The government of Nunavut will be responsive to the unique needs of the residents of Nunavut. The Nunavut election is not party based. In fact the new government will be a consensus one.
I am sure the voter turnout will be very high, an indication of how excited Nunavut residents are about this historic vote. I wish good luck to all candidates on Monday and I will be listening as the results come in.
Maple Leaf GardensMr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, February 13, will be the end of an era. Canada's hockey shrine on Carleton Street, the Maple Leaf Gardens, will host its last hockey game for all to see on Hockey Night in Canada .
Nothing is as intrinsically Canadian as hockey. Nothing captures the souls of Canadians like hockey, and Maple Leaf Gardens has been the stage for many defining moments in our history.
There was nothing quite like the feeling of attending a game at the Gardens. It is like stepping back in time: the ghosts of battles won and lost, the memorabilia of the glory days of the original six, and the haunting voices of Foster Hewitt and Danny Gallivan. That was hockey. Con Smythe, Foster Hewitt, Frank Mahovlich, Darryl Sittler, Lanny MacDonald, Punch Imlach, Wendel Clark and oh, yes, Harold Ballard, are just a few of the names that will live on in the legacy of the Gardens and the Canadian dream.
For generations of Canadians the home of hockey will always be the house that Smythe built.
Citizenship WeekMr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is Citizenship Week, and we are preparing for Flag Day and Heritage Day. These events represent an opportunity to recognize the values that we, as Canadians, share and the enduring traditions that have formed the fabric of our nation.
Canadians know that our nation's diversity is our nation's strength. Just the very word heritage must in this diverse Chamber instantly evoke different personal thoughts and memories. Our heritage is a binding force that unites all Canadians.
I encourage all parliamentarians to pay tribute to the individuals and organizations that have been participating in the program of special events in their communities
Let us take this opportunity to further strengthen the vibrant, positive community bonds that exist throughout the country.
HousingMs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank a very generous Toronto resident who made a $525,000 donation today to the United Way.
This anonymous donor's only request was that the money be directed to projects serving the homeless. Some of the money will support a project known as 30 St. Lawrence. This new construction project of 10 townhouses will house 40 people from the emergency shelter network. The city of Toronto has contributed the project site and $400,000 in cash equity.
Another project that will benefit from the donation is Dixon Hall, an established community agency. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has stepped in to provide a zero interest project development fund loan for this group to build housing as well as mortgage insurance for a loan of over $1 million. Human Resources Development Canada has also pledged $150,000 in equity toward the project.
As a result of this partnership between the Canadian government, the non-profit sector and one very generous individual, this project will operate on a break even basis from the rents collected as the shelter component of welfare.
Nicolas FontaineMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last competition of the season for the free-style skiing world cup was held last Wednesday, in Altenmarkt, Austria. For the third consecutive year, Nicolas Fontaine, a 28-year-old man from the Sherbrooke area, won the prestigious title of world cup champion.
This third consecutive title is all the more prestigious since it is the first time a male athlete has ever accomplished such a feat in that discipline. Once again, an athlete from the Eastern Townships has achieved world fame, bringing honour to all the people of our region. Nicolas' fighting spirit and determination have helped him reach a level of performance that is unprecedented in Canada.
On behalf of all the people of the riding of Sherbrooke, I want to congratulate Nicolas Fontaine and wish him every success in future competitions, especially in the upcoming free-style skiing world championships to be held next month.
Again, congratulations, Nicolas.
Western CanadaMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was swooshing down the slopes at Whistler his minions in Ottawa were putting the finishing touches on a frontier fact finding mission. A 10 member Liberal task force will be dispatched to what they consider Canada's nether regions. The mission is to find out why western Canadians continuously reject Liberal overtures.
My constituents can hardly wait to speak to members of this delegation. They are primed to tell them that it was the Liberals who started the country down the slippery slope to debt and deficit. They want to tell them that they cannot be bought with their own money. They want to show them how high taxes are hurting small business. They will also show them photos of their sons and daughters who were educated in this country and driven south by the insatiable Liberal appetite for taxes. They will also tell them that they are tired of having their grain held up by 20 or 30 strikers.
If members of this group want the facts they will hear them, but will they accept them? Aye, there's the rub.
Flag DayMrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Monday is flag day.
On February 15, 1965, Canadians watched with pride as our new maple leaf flag was raised for the first time on Parliament Hill. Thirty-four years later we are still proud as the flag has become an important symbol for all Canadians.
Throughout our history, the maple leaf has always been a solemn symbol of the values that unite Canadians. The flag pays tribute to all Canadian men and women, irrespective of race, language, beliefs or opinions, who have built this magnificent country of ours.
As a first generation Canadian, the flag has always represented to me the opportunity that is available to all Canadians including the privilege of being elected to the House where the flag was first conceived.
Hiv-AidsMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, communities across the country are working hard to stop the spread of AIDS, yet the federal government has not increased the level of funding for the AIDS strategy in eight years.
The AIDS strategy funding does not take into account the increased need for services or the money needed to support new programs, prevention, support services and new clients. The result is that many existing programs are actually receiving less money than they have in the past.
In Windsor, Ontario, the Aids Committee of Windsor had its funding cut by $100,000 this year even though Windsor has the fourth highest HIV rate in the province. That means people living with aids and their families may not receive the important information and support they need. Despite the rising HIV rate in Ontario only 20 out of 36 agencies that needed funding actually received it.
We cannot afford to let these urgent needs go unmet. I call on the government to address this serious problem and join communities across Canada in the fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS.
Parks CanadaMr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that yesterday an important step was taken to protect and promote the grave sites of our former prime ministers.
Through Parks Canada these 14 locations will have Canadian flags and information panels installed. As well maintenance and preservation work where necessary will be carried out. Additionally a website will be developed to inform Canadians about where the sites are and to provide information about the lives of these important individuals.
The maintenance of these sites for today and the future is an acknowledgement of their significance in contributing to the life and development of our national heritage. Ceremonies at these 14 sites will be held during upcoming months to acknowledge their contributions to our country.
TaxationMr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, since 1993 Canadians have been paying more in taxes and getting less back in services. The employment insurance program is a good example.
Despite the claims that the Liberals have been cutting taxes, payroll taxes have gone up steadily since 1993. The surplus in the EI program is still running about $6 billion per year with a total surplus of about $19 billion. That means that the government has taken $19 billion more from the workers and the employers than it gave back in benefits.
This situation is absolutely intolerable. In Newfoundland and Labrador the EI changes have directly contributed to our massive out-migration. Over 30,000 individuals in the last three years have left Newfoundland. Throughout St. John's West from Bay Bulls to Placentia our rural communities are being devastated.
This year in Newfoundland with an unemployment rate of 18% many individuals cannot receive EI benefits, even though Newfoundlanders this year paid $32 million in premiums more than they received in benefits. It is time to use the EI fund for the benefit of those who need it most, the unemployed.
Black History MonthHon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month we as Canadian citizens have many important dates which allow us to express appreciation while recognizing our good fortune to live in peace and harmony in our multicultural, multiracial, bilingual nation.
Important days are flag day, heritage day and citizenship week, while also celebrating Black History Month. The cultural, racial and linguistic mix of Canada, its Constitution and charter of rights are unique in the world and express rights and freedoms and include values of caring, sharing and respect for differences that have brought us world renown.
Community and government support for the safe, sound and creative communities surrounding us is demonstrated by support for the Matthew Da Costa Foundation in Montreal. Supported by three levels of government, it is one of the models that was designed and created by the black community.
Within the context of Black History Month I salute the organization as well as many other black activist groups that promote fairness and equality for black Canadians in their day to day lives.
AgricultureMr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this past Wednesday night farmers in the Bengough area of Saskatchewan jammed a community hall to discuss the growing farm income crisis. This meeting attracted much media attention, a portion of which was aired last night on CBC As It Happens .
These proud prairie people are bending under an ever increasing load of provincial and federal taxes, particularly the hidden taxes on fuel, fertilizer and farm machinery, not to mention escalating property taxes. Family relations as well as community relations are approaching the end of their tolerance and patience. Many of the people in our communities have already given up and moved out.
Farmers told visiting politicians that they cannot survive under present conditions. They also expressed their feelings stating that the federal government and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax West.
Black History MonthMr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the first ever black member of parliament elected from Nova Scotia I am especially proud to celebrate Black History Month.
The history of Nova Scotia and all of Canada reflects the tremendous contributions by black Canadians from all walks of life and often against incredible odds.
Black History Month, also known as African Heritage Month, has been celebrated in North America since 1926. These celebrations mark the contributions made by black Canadians through exhibits, informative lectures, cultural events, political activities, recognition ceremonies for distinguished black Canadians and many other events.
I encourage as many people as possible to participate in black history and African heritage events whenever they occur throughout the country. There are over 160 events planned in the greater Halifax metropolitan area alone. I am especially proud the opening night for this year's celebrations in Halifax were held at Hammonds Plains Consolidated School in my riding.
I encourage all Canadians not only to honour this event but use it as an opportunity to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
Gulf Ferry ServiceMr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the gulf ferry service connecting the island of Newfoundland with the mainland of Canada was guaranteed in our 1949 terms of union with Canada. However this is not to say that we are provided with the type of service we feel we deserve.
There have been many complaints over the years about service quality, vessel cleanliness, the rate structure and the constant threat of labour unrest at the start of our tourist season. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, regional development agencies and the local business community have all been addressing these concerns on an ongoing basis.
I call upon the Government of Canada to set up a federal-provincial committee to examine the gulf ferry service with a view to initiating improvements in that service. The gulf ferry service is not between Newfoundland and Canada, it is in Canada and, as such, should be a service that all Canadians can be proud of.
50Th Anniversary Of Asbestos StrikeMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of an important date in Quebec's history.
The workers and the people of Quebec as a whole owe much of their freedom to the Asbestos strikers who, in 1949, threw off the shackles impeding Quebeckers' march toward modernity. The process was neither painless nor quick as their path was strewn with doubts, despondency and suffering.
Asbestos workers were able to express and demonstrate the strong desire of the people of Quebec to take control of their own destiny through sheer resistance and willpower and with dignity. The Asbestos strikers were instrumental in ushering in the Quiet Revolution, which signalled the birth of the Quebec nation but also brought significant scientific, economic and cultural developments.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois remembers and reflects on all the progress made in the past 50 years, which makes us very proud. When we think about what the future might hold, the long way we still have to go and the political shackles we have yet to throw off, we should remember Asbestos and be inspired by this lesson of resistance, perseverance and dignity.

Oral Question Period
TaxationMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this government is now collecting $1,800 more from every Canadian taxpayer than when it came to power in 1993. That is just the increase in personal income tax alone. When we pile on the Prime Minister's much loved GST and PST, and payroll taxes like CPP and EI, the tax load is simply staggering. Yet over this same five year period the government has contributed $1,150 less per taxpayer for health care. Why?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even in difficult times, from our first budget, we started out with targeted tax cuts to help Canadians who are most in need. We started with students, Canada's disabled, the poorest families, charities and the voluntary sector.
In the last budget we were able to take 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. We introduced tax measures which cut income taxes by $7 billion over three years. We were able to benefit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, if the government's intention was to cut taxes, it missed its target. The government's tax policy is like Zeller's in reverse: pay more, get less. Pay more taxes, get less health care and other services.
This year the Liberals are squeezing $1,800 more in taxes from each taxpayer than they did five years ago. But during the same period they cut social program spending by $1,150 per person. When tax revenue is at an all time high, why is health care funding at an all time low?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, as we faced these difficult circumstances, one of our first priorities was to reinvest in health care. That is why our first major expenditure was to put $1.5 billion into the CHST for health care.
That shows what our priority is. I ask the hon. member to wait for our budget on Tuesday.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this government decided long ago that health care was not its number one priority. Total government taxes are at an all time high and, of course, it continues to steamroll $1,800 more in income tax out of each and every one of us. Despite this record breaking tax collection, it has gutted hospital spending by $1,150 per person.
With taxes at a record high and health care funding at a record low, why does the government continue its pay more, get less policy?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a much more fundamental question, one which goes right to the heart of the credibility of the Reform Party itself. The Reform budget calls for $54 billion in new fiscal goodies, but at the same time it is assuming growth rates for the next three years of 5.5%. That is a Bre-X budget: full of hype, but bankrupt.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have truly earned the title of the pay more, get less government of all time: pay more taxes, get less to raise one's family; pay more taxes and wait in line for health care; pay more CP and get less retirement income; pay more EI premiums and get less when you lose your job.
Why can this government not realize that it has sucked the life out of Canadian taxpayers? Why will it not give taxpayers a real break, right now, right here, today?
Jim Peterson: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait four days for that when the budget comes down.
Our priority has been a balanced approach, unlike that of Reform. We have pursued a balanced approach by first getting rid of the deficit, by now paying down the debt, by re-investing in the necessary economic and social programs that are going to make a strong future for all Canadians, and by implementing a program for overall tax relief.
In the last budget we were able to give tax relief to 13 million out of 14 million Canadian taxpayers.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, here is the new Liberal ad for next Tuesday: “Come on down to our newly expanded, pay more, get less store. We guarantee you will get less for your money: less household income, less health care, less Canada pension benefits, less EI benefits. We guarantee to reduce your standard of living or our name is not the Liberal government”.
Why are taxes going up again this year, while at the same time this government continues to gut health care and every other service that Canadians are getting?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about cuts, the Reform budget would cut existing programs by $9 billion. Guess what? Not surprisingly, it has not told us where.
We remember in the last election how the Tories had an $8 billion black hole in their numbers. Now Reform has done them $1 billion better. They are perfect soulmates.
AgricultureMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The federal government has decided to compensate farmers, in light of the crisis they are facing. The Government of Quebec has compensated pork producers to help keep them from bankruptcy.
Are we to understand from the minister's remarks in the House yesterday that he intends to penalize pork producers who have received assistance from Quebec?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said in the House yesterday and that is not what will happen. Provincial safety net programs in some of the provinces have both federal and provincial money, as well as companion program money from the federal government.
When the new program is put in place, the new federal dollars that will go into the program will free up federal dollars that are already being used by the provinces in those programs to do other things with their industry, in co-operation with it, so the farmers will gain from that.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, my question is a simple one, but the response is convoluted, to say the least.
The minister has been given clear recommendations by the advisory committee. He wants to set very low floors on income so as to penalize producers who are doing well, without taking into account their indebtedness which, at the height of the crisis, was as high as $40,000 a week.
Will Quebec's pork producers be penalized, yes or no? That's it, that's all.
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, they will be treated exactly the same as every other pork producer around the country.
Canadian Rural Partnership ProgramMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently announced the winners of the Canadian Rural Partnership Program competition, an unofficial and unannounced political patronage event.
Can the minister tell the House what criteria are used in awarding these funds?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what she means. If the interpretation was right, she said unofficial patronage. Maybe she would want to clarify it, if she has a supplementary question.
We put in place in the rural secretariat over $3 million for pilot projects in Canada. I appointed an arm's length independent advisory body to make the selections. Those selections have been made and there are 68 pilot projects going on across Canada.
Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister expect us to believe he is responding to urgent problems in rural areas by coming up with funds for food security in Longueuil, Boucherville, Chambly and Châteauguay, and paying a nurse in Saint-Étienne-des-Grès in the Prime Minister's riding to supervise health care?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the hon. member is upset that the federal government is working with local communities and the provincial government to strengthen economic activity and co-operation among all of us and in rural Canada. Rural Canada is a big and important part of this country and we are going to do all we possibly can to strengthen it even more.
HealthHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The whole country knows that there is a health care crisis right across Canada, in particular in emergency rooms. Canadians have now sent out a distress signal, a 911 call, for their health care system.
The minister said yesterday that he had no idea when the new money would go out to the provinces from the budget on Tuesday. There will be a budget on Tuesday, in four days. Can the minister give the House an assurance and a guarantee that the cheque will be cut on Tuesday and the provinces will get their money for this emergency situation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the best way of dealing with the difficulties in health care is for governments to work together toward the same objective, which is to strengthen quality health care throughout the country.
In the days ahead the Government of Canada will be announcing details of the contributions it will make toward that cause, not only through money but through collaboration with our provincial partners.
I can assure the hon. member and I can assure the House that the manner in which we follow through will reflect the depth of our commitment to that cause.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister blamed the provinces. His friend Mike Harris is blaming the hospitals. This minister is sounding more and more like Mike Harris all the time: procrastinating, delaying and blaming.
Is the minister saying that he cannot cut that cheque on Tuesday? If that is the case, would he agree to stop the proceedings of this House right now to pass a unanimous resolution asking that the cheque be sent to the provinces on Tuesday? Would he agree to that if he cannot do it by himself?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, in a few days the Government of Canada will table its budget and we will follow through on our commitments.
I remind the House that there are two ways to endanger medicare in this country. One way, of course, is to follow the counsel of the extreme right over there, the Reform Party, which would repeal the Canada Health Act and walk away from publicly funded health care.
The other way is to follow the counsel, the folly of the NDP, and spend until we are bankrupt. We are not going to do that. We are going to take a balanced approach. We are going to make sure that medicare is there for the long term.
The EconomyMr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the government's dirty little secret is out. A recent headline in the Wall Street Journal read that low productivity clouds Canada's competitiveness and living standards.
The article cited a recent OECD report which said that high taxes and regulation are reducing Canada's ability to compete. The OECD predicts that in 20 years, due to high taxes and regulation, Canada's per capital GDP will drop to 15% below the OECD average.
Does the industry minister agree with what the OECD has said about Canada's productivity and dropping living standards?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of productivity gains is one of the most important economic issues confronting Canada at the present time. I agree with the hon. member to that extent.
I think, however, to be fair, he should look at a number of the measures that have been taken over recent years which are contributing directly to an improvement in Canada's productivity performance, which in fact we did see in the 1997 statistics, the last year for which we have those numbers, including the investment in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, including renewed investments in the university research granting councils, including support for industrial research and development through technology—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I should expect no more than that from a minister who once said that high taxes help productivity. Even a former senior Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Don Johnston, now head of the OECD, says that our taxes are too high.
Francesco Bellini, CEO of BiochemPharma, once the star of Canada's pharmaceutical industry, blames high taxes for his company's move to the U.S.
Will the government provide meaningful tax relief in next week's budget and will it reindex tax brackets so that it is not taking from the back door through bracket creep what it is pretending to give through the front door?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we will continue our broad based tax cuts which were begun in a very meaningful way last year. I encourage the member to wait until Tuesday to see what the next chapter is on tax cuts.
Health CareMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this last Tuesday was my aunt's funeral.
When she was in the hospital she fell out of bed repeatedly because there was no one available to answer her calls for help.
I want to ask the health minister how he can justify gutting health care as the Liberals have done in the last five years while they keep on increasing our tax load. We as a family are offended by that.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the important thing is for governments to work together in partnership to improve health care.
Our commitment is clear. We have made clear that health care for us is a priority. We will reflect that in the budget we table in the House next week. That is what Canadians expect of us, to show that health is our priority.
We are there to work in partnership with the provinces which of course must deliver services on the ground to make sure that Canadians are well served by their health care system.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to say that, but the record of the last five years shows very clearly that the government has not delivered.
People like my aunt went through misery because of the health plan the Liberal government has. Is it really going to do something about it or is it just more words, hoping the Canadian people will believe it?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, it is an odd sort of complaint to come from a party that would gut the Canada Health Act, sweep away what it took generations of Liberal governments to build, public health care in this country.
It is an empty and a hollow complaint from such a group who favours the American approach to health care.
They may spend the coming days trying to unite the right. We are going to spend the days uniting Canadians' fine health care which we will strengthen for the future of this country.
The BudgetMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a news report broadcast by Radio-Canada yesterday evening, information on measures to be announced in the upcoming federal budget has been leaked by federal sources.
According to these sources, the federal government is planning to increase transfer payments to the provinces for health, but the terms and conditions for distributing the funds among the provinces would result in Quebec no longer receiving its fair share in two years.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm that his government intends to change the method used for calculating how transfer payments are distributed among the provinces in such a way that Quebec's share will continue to drop?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there has been much speculation about what the upcoming budget may or may not contain.
Fortunately, the hon. member will not have to wait too long as the budget is to be tabled in the next four days.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, if it is this government's intention to distribute federal funding for health on the basis of the provinces' respective demographic weight, will the minister also start distributing his goods and services contracts based on demographic weight as well, because Quebec experiences an annual shortfall in excess of $2 billion in this respect?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this still is speculation. I would encourage the hon. member to wait another four days.
Health CareMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Surrey, B.C. is the fastest growing city in Canada. The only hospital there is overcrowded.
At Surrey Memorial Hospital on Monday and Tuesday, day surgery was cancelled because there were no beds available. Even stretchers were full. This Liberal government is to blame for the sorry state of the health care system. It cut $16 billion in provincial transfers in the first place.
Why does the health minister not care about the patients—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, as I have said already, the important thing is for governments to work together to make sure Canadians have access to high quality health care. That is as true in British Columbia as it is with the rest of the country.
This is the Reform Party, the party that would repeal the Canada Health Act and do away with publicly funded accessible health care and leave it to people's bank accounts to determine what kind of care they receive. We will never choose that course. We will never adopt the American style approach and I urge the hon. member to reconsider his position.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the health minister tries to put the blame on everybody else, over the past 15 years the federal share of health care has been cut in half in British Columbia.
This translates into 1,000 fewer hip and knee replacements, 1,000 fewer heart surgeries, 3,000 fewer cancer operations and 7,000 fewer long term hospital beds.
Why is the minister blaming every province in the country when the federal government is responsible for the crisis in health care in Canada?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, what is important is for governments to work together. That is why the Prime Minister has led us into the social union framework agreement to allow us to work together for common social objectives.
We are going in one direction to strengthen health care and the Reform Party is going in the opposite direction. Reformers said a few weeks ago in Victoria that if it were up to them they would take the surplus, divide it in two and put one half toward reducing the debt and the other half to tax cuts, leaving nothing for health care. Canadians will see what we do on Tuesday with health care. We are going to put our money where our mouth is.
Employment InsuranceMr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Tomorrow, fishers, workers and residents from the Gaspé—Magdalen Islands region will hold an important rally. They will once again talk about jobs and dignity. The minister was invited by the Liberal MNA for Bonaventure to come and see for himself the perverse effects of his policies on the people in these regions.
Will we see the minister in New Richmond tomorrow?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not see the invitation to which the Bloc Quebecois member is alluding.
I can tell you one thing though: I am always interested in meeting people who want to talk about job creation and regional development.
If I look at the concrete measures taken by our government, I see that job creation in this country is at its highest level in years, particularly for young people. I can assure you that regional development and job creation across the country will remain a priority for this government.
René Canuel: Mr. Speaker, the minister could come, even without an invitation.
We realize that the minister is very busy. If he wants to go skiing like the Prime Minister, he should come to New Richmond, which has a nice ski slope.
Am I to understand that the minister, who bled the unemployed dry with his quotas and his cuts to the employment insurance program, refuses to come and meet—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: our government's priorities will not change even though the Bloc Quebecois wants to keep people in a state of dependency. The Bloc is living in the seventies and saying “give us unemployment”.
We know Quebeckers well. We know the people of the lower St. Lawrence region. We know that what they want are jobs to adequately support their families, and our government has made a commitment in that respect. True dignity comes from working. This is why we are taking active measures so they can join the labour—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
JusticeMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is quoted as saying that even one more pervert on the streets is one too many. He is also quoted as saying that he was incensed with Justice Shaw's ruling making possession of child pornography in British Columbia legal. I agree with him.
Given that Justice Jardine has dismissed a charge against another child pornographer based on the Shaw decision, is the government still prepared to wait until the appeal on April 26 before it changes this law?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, we had this debate in the House. Obviously the Reform Party was not listening. This is before the appeal court. We have intervened. The appeal will be heard on April 26 and 27 of this year and we will be upholding the law.
To repeat what I said in the House, the law is still the law of the land. It is only one court in the land that has ruled someone can possess child pornography for personal use but we are going to be appealing. We are awaiting the decision of the court of appeal where we have intervened.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has indicated in this House that there is no federal urgency to overturn the B.C. child porn ruling because it only affects British Columbians, a sentiment now echoed by our justice committee chair colleague when he stated if they walk anywhere, it will only be in B.C.
I wonder what the justice minister's position is on child porn perverts in her province of Alberta. If this ruling affected her province would she still support allowing child pornographers to go free as she is now allowing in British Columbia?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, the debate was not about perverts. I think that is a misuse of what took place in the courts. The law is the law of the land still in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. I repeat that there is an appeal. It will take place April 26 and 27, and we are intervening. We respect the law. Unlike the opposition we do respect the due process of law.
Health CareMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that the federal government is apparently preparing to invest $750 million to beef up the federal bureaucracy for the specific purpose of policing the provinces in the health field.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Does the minister not realize that the people of Quebec and Canada do not want the federal government to spend millions of dollars on policing the provinces, and expect their money to be used first and foremost to improve direct patient care?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait for next Tuesday's budget.
Canada Mortgage And Housing CorporationMr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In the battle to eliminate the deficit and debt all federal departments and programs, including CMHC, had to do their share. What assurances can the minister give that the savings within CMHC will be reinvested to assist low income Canadians and the homeless?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in January 1998 the Canadian government announced $250 million in funds for RRAP. Furthermore, I announced in December an additional $50 million for this year ending March 31. The money will go toward programs for the homeless and persons with disabilities, the home ownership program, home adaptation for seniors, emergency repair programs and services for aboriginals.
Thanks to RRAP extended by the government, 7,500 Canadians have been helped with their homes. If the province of Ontario would have participated in RRAP we would have had more.
TaxationMr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister of National Revenue twice why organizations like the B.C. Spaces for Nature, the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation get a tax holiday as registered charities when they act as a front and accept huge contributions from wealthy American corporate and family interests to kill jobs and investments in Canada. The minister said he did not have the evidence and so I provided it to him yesterday. Now that the minister knows the truth will he commit now to act and remove this charitable status from these ecoterrorists?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I informed the hon. member yesterday, if he provides evidence of any charitable group that is not abiding by the law, we will look at it. If the member puts that forward, I will do it.
Judging by the questions today by the Reform Party members, it is no wonder they are desperately looking for an alternative because they need one.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1997 an audit revealed that the Saulteaux first nation was $71,000 in debt. At this point the community was asked to hire a financial manager to clean up this debt and it went to $1.5 million.
The name of the financial manager was Jesse Primeau. It was revealed in documents that he paid himself $8,000 a month plus expenses, except for March where he paid himself three times.
Can the minister tell me if she approved of the hiring of Jesse Primeau and what steps has she taken to correct this terrible error in judgment?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on whether the minister did or did not have any knowledge about the hiring of this particular individual.
However I can tell the member as he knows, in his own province of Alberta we have been working extensively over the past number of months with a number of bands to improve the financial management. They have agreed in many instances and are working currently with the Assembly of First Nations for example on accountability practices not only of these selected communities but generally across Canada.
We are working closely with the first nations to ensure proper management and expenditure of those dollars to go to those people in the communities.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This is heritage week. Canada Post, CMHC and Heritage Canada pay tribute to Canada as home in a series of stamps. Native housing is depicted by longhouses 24 metres by 8 metres that held three to five families. That was native housing in the past. Today we have three to five families living in homes half that size. Indian affairs has for years built houses at barely acceptable standards, houses that could not withstand everyday living. Conditions are so bad that the United Nations has criticized Canada's treatment of aboriginals.
When is this government going to realize Canada is not home sweet home to all Canadians?
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, the minister has replied recently to a former question with respect to housing increases in Canada, some $50 million, which would include for example off-reserve aboriginal people.
In our department this year we are spending $160 million, an additional $20 million, $43 million of which is going to Manitoba, the member's own province. We are working very closely with a number of bands, namely the Peguis Indian reserve and Dakota Tipi for innovative housing projects which would involve also the infusion of private capital.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are living in squalid conditions. Last evening CTV reported on just how bad things are in Pine Lake and Red Lake, Ontario. Surely the government was shamed by the conditions these people are forced to live in. It is the same in Moose Lake, South Indian Lake and throughout Canada.
Homelessness and poverty are a prescription for poor health. It is a prescription for death. Why is this government turning a blind eye to the poor and the homeless?
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, we are very distressed about the videotape which was displayed last night on CTV. We are aware of the situation. I have had a briefing this morning with the member of parliament representing those particular communities.
I would also like to advise the House that the local police department is closely surveying those who are living in the bush in these temporary housing placements to ensure there is no loss of life.
I would encourage the hon. member to perhaps try to persuade the provincial government that most recently closed 70 beds in that community which has forced many of these unfortunate people out of the Red Lake and Pine Lake communities into the bush. We are going to continue to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
National DefenceMrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the Minister of National Defence said that Canadian doctors tested fully the anthrax vaccine given to our troops. Then on February 4, the next day, he claimed he never said the drug was tested in Canada.
At a DND briefing this week which I attended, the military stated the vaccine was never tested in Canada for use for our troops. This vaccine was never approved by Health Canada and the military only obtained special permission to inject it.
How can the minister claim to have done this to protect the troops knowing full well that this drug was not licensed or tested in Canada?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has always worked in good faith and in the best interests of the men and women of the Canadian armed forces to provide them with the best protection possible in what we must remember was a potentially dangerous operation.
We have been open and transparent on this issue and have been as forthcoming as possible with members of parliament and the media in explaining the facts, while respecting the rights of individuals who are before the courts to a fair trial.
Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence repeatedly claims that the Canadian doctors and the Canadian government were informed and well informed from the U.S. on the anthrax vaccine. If that is the case, how come Ian MacKay, a Health Canada official, said that no one in the military told him the U.S. FDA had repeatedly threatened to revoke MBPI's licence for producing the anthrax vaccine because of its serious regulatory violations.
Once again, who gave that order to inject our troops with this potentially dangerous and non-Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said on a number of occasions in this House, the majority of the people who took the anthrax vaccine had no problems whatsoever. Only a very small percentage of people had any reactions to it at all.
Child LabourMr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a horrendous problem of child labour around the world. What is Canada doing about this problem of child abuse?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the International Labour Organization is developing a new convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. Canada strongly supports the key objectives of this initiative and played an important role during the first discussion last June. Our goal is to ensure the ILO adoption of new instruments which are effective and can be universally ratified.
AgricultureMr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, farmers still reeling from the income crisis have now been hit with rotating strikes by the grain weighers. Grain shipments are off 200,000 tonnes costing farmers more money. The government has had since 1993 to negotiate a new union settlement.
Will the Treasury Board minister guarantee farmers that this dispute will not cost them another dollar?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of negotiating with the union. It has taken a long time. It has taken a long time because the two parties have been trying to get the best possible conditions. We are offering to the table two blue collar workers the same amount of money that we have offered to the rest of the public service. Eighty percent of them have accepted it. I hope this will be settled very quickly and that the grain farmers will not suffer the consequences.
Social HousingMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in Canada today, 1,600,000 households spend more than 30% of their annual revenue on rental accommodation.
Since 1994, the Government of Canada has cut more than $200 million from the budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Since by March the corporation will have achieved the downsizing objectives assigned it by the Minister of Finance, will the minister now give it a clear mandate to develop public housing in accordance with provincial jurisdictions as the mayors of Canada's major cities are requesting?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not wait for the member's request to invest the savings it made through good management.
In January 1998, as I mentioned earlier, $250 million was invested in the RRAP program, from which Quebec is benefiting fully. Moreover, I announced a further $50 million in December.
I would also like to inform the House that we are working with various levels of government and the private sector to build affordable housing; 2,800 affordable units were built in 1998 and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Public ServiceMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one truth is definitely out there. Regional rates of pay policy by this government is economic discrimination among the lowest paid of the public service workers. Today marks the end of the fourth week of rotating strikes by the table two employees and Treasury Board has refused to meet with them since mid-December. Next week the strike will escalate clear across the country.
My question for the minister is why are you refusing to meet and why do you not end the regional rates of pay at this time?
The Speaker: I know you forget once in a while my colleague, but always address your questions to the Speaker. I will permit him to answer the question.
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, regional rates of pay are there for a good reason. The good reason is that we respect not only provincial regulations about trades such as plumbers and electricians, but because if we offer more or less than the local market conditions in for instance Fredericton, we will create problems of recruitment, or we will simply not be able to get the tradesmen.
These regional rates of pay are fair. They respect provincial regulations. They have been there for a long time. They are what should be the rule and we will keep them.
FisheriesCharlie Power: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the ever evolving Newfoundland fisheries, fishermen are being hampered by out of date regulations. In particular now that individual quotas are in place, there is no need for length restrictions on vessels so as to limit the harvesting.
Three fishermen from Petty Harbour, Messrs. Howlett, Chafe and Madden, are being forced to cut four feet off a recently purchased vessel. Conforming to the old regulations will cost them an additional $10,000, as well as force them to fish in a less safe boat.
For the safety of these and other fishermen, will the minister authorize temporary vessel registrations for 1999?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been vessel limitations in place in the Atlantic region and in Newfoundland for many years as a method of reducing the capacity of the fleet. We have fleet capacity in addition to buy out of licences.
The member has actually asked a very perceptive question in that there are safety concerns involved in this as well. We revised the rules back in 1997, 18 months ago. We attempted to take into account safety and comfort considerations of fishermen and the constant pressure to increase the size of vessels, thus the size and capacity of the fleet.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The issue of housing and homelessness has been a very important topic of discussion, especially this week. Our aboriginal peoples are in dire need of adequate, affordable and safe housing. Why is this ministry not doing more for aboriginal Canadians?
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member on this side of the House for that question. I only regret it did not come from the Reform Party, the official opposition, to ask that kind of a question about the plight of aboriginal people in Canada.
I can tell the hon. member, as I said earlier in my first response, we are working closely with the communities to ensure that they are looked after. It goes beyond the question of providing housing for aboriginal people. We need to settle land claims with the aboriginal people of Canada to give them an opportunity to participate fully in Canada and enter the 21st century.
JusticeMr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last fall I asked the justice minister why she was prosecuting defenceless poor farmers for exporting their own grain while wealthy ones were being ignored. Her answer was that the prosecutions taking place were on the basis of due process of law. Four months later, why is the government still prosecuting these same poor, defenceless farmers while for three years it has refused to prosecute a wealthy farmer who can afford to defend himself and challenge the government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has an obligation obviously to uphold the law, not in a selective manner but broadly and even handedly across the board. That is in fact what we do.
In terms of individual prosecutions, of course the hon. gentleman will also know the appropriate role of the provincial departments of justice. The hon. gentleman refers to specific cases where he thinks there is some discrepancy in the administration of justice. Obviously all of those cases are looked at very closely to ensure that justice is even handed.
Francophones Outside QuebecMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three official reports from three different sources have referred to the federal government's inability to honour its commitments to francophone communities.
One of these, the Savoie report, proposed the creation over five years of a $60 million fund for francophones outside Quebec.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Would it not be time, in order to better co-ordinate programs providing support for francophone minorities threatened by assimilation, to create a secretariat with the means and the autonomy to meet these commitments?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the Savoie report is an important report, and we are currently studying it.
However, I would like to reconfirm at this point the government's firm commitment to the official languages and its intention to honour it.
Veterans AffairsGordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, 26 Canadian prisoners of war held by the Nazis in the notorious Buchenwald concentration camp have been insulted by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Government of Canada.
After years of presenting their case for compensation to deaf ears in Ottawa, these veterans were presented cheques of barely over $1,000 each. This compensation is nothing short of a disgrace. My constituent, Bill Gibson, wrote “refused” across the cheque and sent it back.
Will the minister do the right thing by offering our veterans a just and honourable settlement?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's statement because after the announcement was made on December 11 I called some of the proponents who said they were delighted. They said it was not the money, that it was the principle of the thing.
Notwithstanding that, a few weeks ago when he was in Germany the Prime Minister, as a result of the initiative taken by this government to provide compensation to the Buchenwald veterans, discussed this with the Chancellor of Germany. Mr. Schroeder said that he would be looking into the issue to see what follow-up action could be taken.
Fisheries And OceansCharlie Power: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
As I mentioned earlier, many of the regulations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans need to be changed because the Newfoundland fishery has changed.
Will the minister appoint an independent commissioner to review the present regulations with the intention of replacing or removing all unnecessary regulations so the fishermen will not have to spend half their time in the fisheries offices? Further, will the minister approve temporary vessel registrations until this study is completed?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier response to the hon. member's question, this study was undertaken and the results were reported in 1997, some 18 months ago.
We did look into the issue of vessel size. It is a complex problem. On the one hand there are safety considerations with respect to larger vessels being safer vessels, which is a brief way of putting it, but at the same time larger vessels mean that fishermen will stay out longer in the face of adverse weather and they will go farther. So the safety issue tends to equalize.
On the other hand we have the major problem of increasing capacity in the fleet, which this government is spending some $250 million in the Atlantic region to reduce. It is a complex issue.
Again, I appreciate the hon. member's question, but we have done the study which he has requested.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 57th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee on Health.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations concerning sections G.06.001(1) and J.01.033(1) of the food and drug regulations. The text of these sections is contained in this report.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 57th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified as follows: Roy Bailey for Gurmant Grewal; and that Gurmant Grewal be added to the list of associate members.
(Motion agreed to)
Questions On The Order PaperGar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-61.
I rise in support of Bill C-61 on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party caucus.
While this bill does have some shortcomings, and a very serious one which I will get to a bit later, the legislation does represent a step forward.
This bill, as has been mentioned, is an omnibus bill which touches upon many aspects of veterans affairs. It touches upon benefits for prisoners of war and benefits for widows of pensioners. It touches upon the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the Halifax Relief Commission and so forth.
One very important aspect of this bill is that it seeks to put merchant marine veterans on an equal footing with regular forces veterans.
I was quite interested in hearing the hon. member opposite referring to that aspect of the bill as being symbolic only. It is a very important aspect of this bill. Perhaps because of the omission concerning compensation for past grievances it does become symbolic within the framework of this legislation.
However, I want to commend the merchant marine veterans, their organizations, families, activists and supporters for bringing this bill into being. It is only through their efforts and hard work that we are able to discuss this bill today.
At the outset, let me make it very clear that my comments and this bill in itself do not in any way take away from regular forces veterans, but seek to bring the merchant marine veterans up to an equal footing.
The monster Adolph Hitler issued a directive in 1941 which included the following: “Attack shipping, especially when homeward bound, by all methods. The sinking of merchantmen is more important than attacking enemy warships”.
These brave Canadians who sailed the corridors of hell played a central role in our war effort, as central a role as the regular forces.
As the Halifax-Dartmouth branch of the Merchant Navy Veterans Association for my region put it in a submission to the provincial legislature in July 1998, “The ships carried explosives, fuel, food, oil, gasoline, tanks, airplanes, iron ore for the hungry British smelters, butter and flour, bacon and beans”. Yet they were fitted with often obsolete breech guns, castoffs, antiquities better suited for military museums than defending the lives of Canadians at sea. In short, these Canadians risked their lives and often gave their lives to support our war efforts.
The tragedy of the matter is that when I say they often gave their lives, the figures speak for themselves. It has been estimated that a full 13% of merchant mariners who played an active role in our war effort were killed.
Last fall I went on a pilgrimage of remembrance to honour our war dead in Belgium and France. I was struck deeply and irrevocably by what I saw and what I learned. To have had the opportunity to see the trenches and the remnants of artillery and war equipment, and having felt the cold and damp biting winds blowing across the fields of Flanders, eating into one's very bones, certainly gave me an appreciation in part of what our Canadian young men who fought and died experienced.
Having stood in cemeteries where there were tombstones, row upon row, as far as the eye could see and knowing that thousands of bodies lay in those graves and many more lay unaccounted for in the surrounding farms and fields left me with the haunting image of man's inhumanity to man. The question still rings in my mind as to how we can do this to one another. Even worse is the knowledge that we are still doing it today throughout various parts of our world. As human beings, all of us must do our part to bring an end to the senseless slaughter of war.
As a start we must remember those who fought and died for freedom, those who sacrificed themselves so that succeeding generations might live in peace and harmony, free from oppression and tyranny. While many of those who we remember and honour today are those who served in the regular military, we must not forget the many others who served their country in an unique yet important way as special construction battalions or merchant marines. That is why the Liberal government's apparent unwillingness to negotiate a fair compensation package for Canadian merchant marine veterans is so unacceptable.
The current treatment of merchant mariner veterans is one that I personally and as the federal NDP spokesperson for veterans affairs find deeply disheartening. When it came time to serve their country Canada's merchant marines did so with dedication and courage equal to their military comrades. Why then are the merchant marines not receiving equal treatment in terms of compensation?
While the bill seeks to establish current equality, which my caucus colleagues and I support, it does nothing to compensate for all the lost opportunities suffered as a result this discrimination. There is no reason to continue to deny merchant marines the full compensation due them. I urge the government to let the second reading of Bill C-61, which in words grants full equality, be a springboard to action, negotiation, compensation and hence real reparation.
The Liberal government has a choice. The government has the capacity to choose to set matters right and get negotiations for just compensation back on track. While the federal government was finally prodded into introducing the bill, others acted sooner, in some cases much sooner. Britain accorded full veteran status to merchant mariners in 1940. In the United States these veterans were realized as having the same status as regular forces veterans in 1988. Australia recognized full equality in 1995.
How many merchant mariners have passed away in Canada who would have appreciated this gesture from the government at an earlier stage?
In a letter I received from George Conway-Brown in January of this year he quotes Canada's Rear Admiral Leonard W. Murray, who served as commander in chief, northwest Atlantic, from 1943 to 1945: “The battle of the Atlantic was not won by any navy or air force. It was won by the courage, fortitude and determination of the British and allied merchant navy”.
These mariners often encountered the Nazi Donitz U-boats, the grey wolves that deprived so many Canadian families of their loved ones. Closer to Europe merchant mariners were attacked by Germany's FW-200 Condor air force.
But what happened to Canadian merchant mariners upon their return to Canada? In Britain they returned as full and equal veterans with equal access to post-war programs, services and benefits.
In Canada they returned to virtually no support. They were denied upgrading courses at technical, vocational and high schools offered to regular force veterans. There were denied health support and employment opportunities available to army, navy and air force personnel.
This discrimination weighed heavily on so many merchant marine veterans. I mentioned earlier that I am glad to see the bill being brought forward, even though it is too late for many deceased merchant marine veterans. That is what makes the actions of this government concerning compensation for these brave Canadians all the more odious.
The government saw fit to provide an ex gratia payment to Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war of $23,950 each. This payment was promised just this past December.
It is unconscionable and meanspirited that this government has betrayed Canada's merchant marines by refusing to compensate them for the discrimination they faced upon their return home from serving in Canada's war effort.
It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the rate of about 12 per month. A St. Albert veteran said in an interview earlier this month in the Edmonton Sun : “The whole thing is a run around. We figure [the federal government] is waiting for us to die of old age”.
On November 24, 1998 in response to a question I put to him, the minister said concerning compensation negotiations for merchant mariners: “I am there to listen”.
Debating Bill C-61 before the House surely signals the time to act, not just listen.
Justice delayed is justice denied, particularly when the death rate among these veterans who served Canada so nobly is so high.
As merchant navy Captain Hill Wilson wrote in a letter in January of this year, other countries have made reparations for these veterans. He refers to a veteran living on Vancouver Island who sailed on Norwegian ships during World War II and receives a pension of over $2,000 a month from Norway for his merchant navy service. He also cites examples from the French government and the United States government for Vietnam war merchant navy veterans.
While on the issues implied in Bill C-61, it is essential to refer to another atrocious act of negligence and outright scandal perpetrated by this Liberal government on Canadian veterans who were sent to concentration camps by the Nazi government. These men, survivors of the horrors of Buchenwald, were recently sent cheques in the amount of $1,098 to supposedly compensate them for the horrors faced in Buchenwald.
My constituent, William Gibson, returned the cheque, a comment on this government's sad failure to successfully negotiate reparations from the German government.
The U.S.A. has recently negotiated an enviable settlement from the German government. This Liberal government has failed so miserably where others have succeeded and may be trying to hide its shame by offering these paltry sums to Canadian forces survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp.
I will conclude my comments on the second reading of Bill C-61 with an anonymous poem which pays homage to Canadian merchant navy veterans:
All hail to our soldiers, our airmen, our tars, Who in these dark days are the victims of War, All hail to these heroes who flash on the screen, But what of the men of the Merchant Marine?
No halo, no glimmer, just duty that's all, Day in and day out through the heat or a squall Grit, courage, endurance and bearing serene, These are the men of the Merchant Marine.
How much do we need them, these sons of the sea, Without their devotion, how could we be free? For one vital cog in the great machine Is filled by the men of the Merchant Marine.
And so if the cares of these days dark and clear, Weigh down your spirits and cause you to fear, Remember the hardships and dangers unseen, And pray for the men of the Merchant Marine.
Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-61, but I feel there is something left out with regard to Bill C-61 and I wish to address that.
Bill C-61 will allow more veterans to qualify for benefits and it will place them under the War Veterans Allowance Act. We all know that in 1992 the PC party put the merchant navy men under the Civilian War Veterans Allowance Act. However, many things were left out for them over the years.
Look at what the men and women of our army, navy and air force received when they came home from the war, and rightfully so. They received a clothing allowance, rehabilitation grants, transportation to place of enlistment, war service gratuities, re-establishment credit, reinstatement or preference in civilian employment estimate, out of work allowance, education assistance, treatment for pension disability including appliances, Veterans Land Act or housing assistance, business or professional loans and waiting returns allowance. All that at that time would total $30,590.
In addition, veterans were entitled to a number of other benefits, including veterans independence program, prisoner of war benefits, education assistance for children of the war dead, legal assistance for preparation of pension claims and counselling and referrals, and rightfully so.
The above figures are based on the fact that a former member of the merchant navy would be in receipt of either a war disability pension or a war veterans allowance if he did not receive both.
I have met regularly in my riding office with the merchant navy veterans. As members know, many of them were here on the Hill on a hunger strike. I have never seen that happen in Canada with any veterans who felt they had to go to that degree to get the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
After World War II the Canadian government had the task of demobilizing over one million troops. Some of these troops were offered positions within the military, but not the merchant navy men. Others were offered many advantageous opportunities that were not offered to the merchant navy men.
Merchant seaman Ossie MacLean informed me of how he went to the local veterans office to inquire about a business start-up loan after World War II when he was no longer with the merchant navy. He thought he could receive a loan to start his business like the loans being offered to other veterans. When he arrived he was asked for his service number. He gave them his merchant marine number and he was told that he did not qualify for any of the programs.
Mr. MacLean was there when this country needed him yet we failed him when he needed us. Mr. MacLean was one of the merchant navy veterans who stood outside this House on two separate occasions last year on that hunger strike. He was joined by other fine gentlemen, Randy Hope, Ward Duke, Willis Marsolais and Doug McMartin. Together these five brave men drew more attention to their cause in a few weeks than ever before. Now we are at a second reading and these men feel along with their 2,300 surviving shipmates that they deserve a payment from the government once again. Is is possible to do this? Yes, it is.
I know the minister says that we cannot deal with retroactivity. We are saying he does not have to deal with retroactivity but he can deal with these men in manner in which he can give them a grant. With the formula in the Cliff Chadderton report some would get $5,000 for putting their lives on the line and taking over all the goods, ammunition and equipment needed by our men. If they only went on one trip the report said give them $5,000 but some were in the merchant navy during the whole war. All of us know the number of lives lost. One in eight of our merchant navy men lost their lives.
As I was putting my notes together I was thinking about what it must have been like to be on one of those boats. The Germans knew exactly what they were carrying so the Germans were steadily looking for them. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to torpedo. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to get. They knew if we did not get the ammunition and materials over to our forces our forces could not do anything.
It is time for us to take the necessary steps to completely make them equal. Bill C-61 puts them under the War Veterans Allowance Act but this is 1999. What about in 1945? What about in 1939? They were not equal in those days.
In 1992 when the PC government of the day brought in omnibus Bill C-84, it allocated $100 million to be used for benefits to serve our merchant navy veterans. That total was later reduced to $88 million which would still be ample money to cover and offer sufficient benefits to these veterans. But when this government took office for some reason it put that money in general revenue. It was never set aside for what it was intended to do for our merchant navy men. After being put into general revenues the money could never be allocated specifically for the merchant navy. When the minister was at one of the meetings I asked if they could please tell me where the $88 million went. Nobody seems to know.
However, the Department of Veterans Affairs has had surpluses every year between 1992 and 1997. These surpluses have ranged anywhere from $20 million to $154 million. We received this information from the Public Accounts of Canada. The money was there and it is still there today.
Recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself has recognized the role of the merchant navy in World War II. Each merchant navy veteran has been forwarded a copy of Valour at Sea . This is a book that was commissioned by veterans affairs to recognize the role of Canada's merchant navy in both world wars and in Korea. The letter that accompanies the book states “It describes the role of Canada's merchant navy in the defence of freedom and democracy”. It also states “The armed forces and the merchant navy helped secure supply routes that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the liberation of Europe”.
Imagine. The minister has put out a book called Valour at Sea which is beautiful. It really is. And he is stating to our merchant navy men that they helped secure the supply routes that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the liberation of Europe. Our merchant navy men did that. This letter, as I have stated, was sent by our Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The Canadian merchant navy was considered to be the fourth arm of the armed forces. The odds of dying in the second world war was greater for the merchant navy than for any of our other troops. These men were some of the bravest. They kept our troops supplied on the front lines and they braved the intolerable elements of nature to do so. How many of us today would know what it was like to stand on the bow of a boat loaded with explosives in the middle of winter on the North Atlantic pushing back the ice and the mines and wondering if a German U-boat had us in its sights?
These men know what it was like. They lived it. Mr. Speaker, they lived it for you and for me. We would not be in this House of Commons today, not one of us, not one of the 301 members of parliament and not any of the others that are here, if it was not for those men.
When this bill is referred back to committee for further study, there will be a motion that I put before the committee on November 26 last year. It deals with the issue of a one-time grant payment for the men and women of the merchant navy in lieu of benefits not received after duty to their country.
I put forward the motion, as I stated, on November 26 asking “that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommend that the merchant navy veterans be recognized as war veterans,”—and they are being recognized under Bill C-61—“that they receive prisoner of war benefits”—and that will happen under Bill C-61—“that they receive a one-time payment in lieu of benefits afforded to other veterans of World War II and that they be recognized as veterans on ceremonial days”.
When this bill is referred back, we will once again be dealing with my suspended motion. I trust that all of my colleagues on both sides of the House will agree with it.
It is time to act on behalf of our veterans. Bill C-61 is a piece of legislation that should be passed and we will support it. I know many of our veterans and their widows want to see it passed. Many of these veterans are in their mid to late 70s and approximately 13 die each month in Canada.
I want this House to know that this bill and the motion that I have before the committee should not be deemed as partisan and should not be considered along partisan lines. We should not be partisan when it comes to our veterans.
I join many of my colleagues in congratulating the government in its recent decision to compensate the Hong Kong war veterans for their service to their country. I felt that we should have pressed harder to have the Japanese government recognize these veterans and the unacceptable merciless treatment they endured. But the bottom line is when it came to doing the right thing for the Hong Kong veterans, it was done and I am pleased. The government and the House did the right thing.
There is one other thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House with regard to our veterans.
A lady came to see me. Her husband, a veteran, had died. She thought that we would be paying to bury him. It was not until after the burial that she found out the means test used to be $24,000 just for the veteran but then in 1996 it was reduced to $12,000. That was $12,000 for husband and wife; it used to be $24,000 just for the veteran. They thought that she had too much money. She had $6,000.
I looked at all of her expenses again. I went over to the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked “Do you not take into consideration the expense of the coffin and the funeral and take that from what she had and then tell me she still has $6,000?” In the end the department said that it was wrong and it would pay for his funeral.
I feel very strongly about this. There are so few of them left. For us to lower the means test to $12,000 is an insult to our veterans. We are forgetting the role they played. I sometimes wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that some of the younger people on the Hill do not understand the role the veterans played to save Canada and bring it to what it is today.
I say to the minister that yes my party and I will be supporting Bill C-61. But I am also telling him, and I want it on the record, that I will not go away until the merchant navy men receive some form of recognition through a grant.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on previous discussions I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments on the member's speech? I think there are. I assume that if we are calling it 1.30 p.m. it would mean that Government Orders are at a conclusion.
The hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a comment on the speech of the hon. member for Saint John.
Sometimes I think Canadian citizens and members of the House forget the lesson that was taught to all of us by World War II. Quite simply, we were taught in the history books that this war was fought on European soil and in European waters, in Asian waters and in Japanese waters when as a matter of fact much of that war was fought in our waters.
During World War II we captured prisoners of war. We captured German spies in Halifax with theatre tickets in their pockets. They knew what boats were going out in convoy. There was a submarine net across Halifax harbour which had to be raised in order for our troops, soldiers and supplies to get to Europe.
A comment I remember well was from my father who was a veteran of World War II. He never saw action. He was a military policeman stationed in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were dozens and dozens of dead merchant marine sailors floating in the waters from torpedoed ships off Newfoundland, in Canadian water, black with coal oil. This was the very essence of war and the part of war none of us wants to think about.
I ask the hon. member, is that a lesson which we should all remember, that the war was not fought all on European soil and in European water, that the war started on our doorstep when we had a 12 mile limit in Canadian waters?
Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Nova Scotia is absolutely correct.
I want to tell him that one in eight of all merchant navy men were killed during the war. He was commenting about his father in Newfoundland. In Saint John, New Brunswick on Partridge Island we are the most Irish city there is in Canada and there were bunkers there. Our men were in those bunkers because those German ships were right outside Saint John, New Brunswick. They were looking for the merchant navy men and were ordered to get them before they could get overseas to Europe with the supplies that were needed.
It has been estimated that a Canadian merchant ship with 10,000 tonnes could carry enough foodstuff to feed 225,000 people for a week. Cargo could also include clothing, fuel, steel, aluminum, lumber, aircraft, tanks, jeeps, trucks, guns, munitions and whatever else was required for the war effort. Not surprisingly they became the prize targets for enemy surface raiders and U-boats. That is exactly what they were. That is the reason for it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 1.30 p.m. in accordance with the suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary earlier?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being officially 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Code Of EthicsDick Harris: moved:
Motion No. 31
That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see so many of the government members in the House today. I know they are here because they want to have a bit of enlightenment about what it means to run an ethical government. Members from all parts of Canada are here today.
I am really pleased to speak today during Private Members' Hour on a votable motion which I put before the House. This motion goes to the very heart of what an open and transparent government should be and the way it should operate.
We remember in 1993 and 1997 in the famous failed red books of the Liberal Party how the Liberals talked continually about openness, transparency, integrity, honesty, straightforwardness and being in touch with the people. In general, they promised the people that they would operate in an ethical and responsible manner. Canadians across the country heard that promise in 1993 and they heard it again in 1997.
The problem is that Canadians first have not seen much openness, transparency, ethics and honesty from this government. But the most important thing is that no one seems to know exactly what kind of an ethics code this government wants us to believe it operates by. We have never seen the so-called ethics code which is parked away somewhere in some forgotten drawer.
One would think that in this great country of Canada, where the people embrace such values and such integrity in their lives, that any government that is looked upon for leadership would want to pride itself in being open and accountable to the people that it has sworn to serve.
But this concept, this incredible thought, has never focused with the Liberal government of Canada. Liberals are very familiar with expressions such as secrecy, behind closed doors, under the table, cooking the books, cutting corners and pulling the wool over the voters' eyes. These are all words and phrases that are very familiar and near and dear to the hearts and minds of the government.
It is these words and phrases that sort of highlight the Liberal way of governing which can be roughly translated as do not let anyone know what the government is up to or there will be a revolution, or it may have to be explained. That is what compelled me to prepare today's motion, that a humble address be made to his excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for his ministers.
Is that such an unreasonable request to come from me, the members of my party and members of the opposition parties, from the people of Canada? Is that such an unreasonable request to ask the Prime Minister to put before the country the code of ethics that he expects his ministers to be bound by? I do not think so.
What I am getting at is quite simple and I will try to say it in language the Liberals can understand and that you can understand, Mr. Speaker. I know you are a very learned gentleman so I could probably talk lawyer talk and you would understand it but for the sake of the Liberals who have been having a hard time getting their heads around this ethics code, we will try to keep it simple.
The private sector, banks, businesses, major industries, charitable organizations, associations and service clubs all hold dear to their hearts some sort of a code that their members, employees, managers and volunteers should be operating under for day to day activities.
They believe in that. They believe that if they cannot be accountable to some code of conduct then they can be accountable to nothing. The Liberals do not see it quite that way. They have not allowed their ethics code to see the light of day.
I will take a moment to explain to the Liberals just what an ethics code is. I will explain it at a level that these members here today, and there are lots of them from across the country, can understand.
An ethics code is a system that sets out proper conduct and behaviour, just like at home. In our own homes we try to set out a code of conduct and behaviour for our family, for our kids, so that they can have role models to look up to and that they can understand the right and wrong way of doing things.
If the Government of Canada cannot have a code of ethics that is clearly demonstrated, that is clearly visible to the Canadian people, what kind of leadership is that? What kind of message are the Canadian people to take from that? Is it that the supreme governing body of this country refuses or maybe does not even have some sort of code that directs and gives it sort of a guideline for proper behaviour and conduct? What is more important about this so-called code of ethics that we have not seen yet is that the average Canadians would think that the person administering the ethics code of Canada, and I find this absolutely disparaging, would think that he or she would be required to report to the Parliament of Canada so that we all know what is going on, so we all know how the ministers are conducting their jobs and to ensure their jobs are not interfering with or conflicting with or enhancing their private lives in some way, their private well-being.
One would think that would be just the natural thing to do, that this ethics counsellor would report to all MPs and therefore to all Canadians. But no, the ethics commissioner reports to only one person, the Prime Minister of Canada. He tells him whether his ministers are, we expect, doing their jobs in an upright and honest manner and with great integrity. If they are not, how is anyone else to know if the Prime Minister will not tell us?
For this Liberal government, when it comes to a taxpayer funded institution, zero accountability is simply the order of the day. Why does one have to tell Canadians what one's ministers are doing, how they are spending their money, how they are using their budgets or how they are using their government credit cards? Is there any reason? I can think of only one. Maybe they would like to know. Maybe they would like to be in a position to judge how the cabinet ministers of this highest government in the land are operating. Maybe they would simply like to know so that they could form some opinion. Maybe they would like to hold them accountable. Is that not a strange concept?
The longer Canadians are in the dark about what this Liberal government is doing the better the government likes it. That is just the order of the day. I bet if they thought they could get away with it, the Liberals would pass a bill to make Canadians wear blindfolds and put in earplugs so that in addition to not knowing what the code of ethics was they could neither see nor hear what the government is doing.
This is the kind of thing we simply have to change in the House. This is what Reformers came to Ottawa to do. This is why the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada do not like Reformers, because we came here to break up the very comfortable country club they had here where they hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Any of the evil going on is all within the country club members.
We told them we did not want a membership to that country club and that is why they just despise our being here. The more they despise us the better we like it because we know that we are getting to them. We know that we are bringing things out in the public sector that people are beginning to get upset about and that really upsets the government, the Tories and the NDP.
That is what we are trying to do once again with this motion, to force the Liberals to show us their ethics code. Put it before the House for not only us to see but for all Canadians. If they are so proud of it and if there really is one, let us have a look at it.
So far the Liberals have been unwilling to fulfil this very basic and straightforward request. We have asked them in the House. We have asked them in committees. We have asked them at every possible opportunity. The answer has always been no. It is absolutely unbelievable and appalling for a supposedly democratic country having a supposedly democratic government within a supposedly democratic parliament that time and time again the government, which is the keeper of this code of ethics, has been asked to put it forward so we can see it and has simply said no. The Liberals never told us whether there really is one or not but they certainly have not been able to let us see if there is one. If there is one we could not see it anyway.
These guidelines have never been made public. They are locked away inside the Prime Minister's desk. The Liberals have swallowed the key. They are keeping their mouths tightly shut and their lips tightly sealed so the key does not get out.
The Liberals have been demanding and we will continue to demand that the Prime Minister cough up the key to the drawer and show us and Canadians this so-called ethics code.
For example, my colleagues and I have been calling in committee and in the House in question period for this ethics code. It has not come. Every time we have made a motion in the House it has been ruled out of order. But not today, because this is a votable motion. It is clearly written. Even the Liberals can understand it and they are going to be forced to vote on it. If they say no they will have to back to their ridings and tell their constituents why they voted against making public the code of ethics that the government is supposed to be operating by.
I do not envy Liberals in that task. We are certainly treading on taboo ground when we request a code of ethics. That is the ground we came here to Ottawa to shake up. Now Reformers are demanding in parliament that the code be released at long last. What is different this time is we are all going to have a chance to vote on it. Let us see them show their colours.
This government does not want taxpayers to know what is going on. It does not want taxpayers to know all the dealings it does on a daily basis. It does not want taxpayers to know what the ministers are doing and how the contracts are let and how hotels are sold in this country, how grants are handed out, how loans are given from government crown corporations. The Liberals do not want taxpayers to know that.
Canadians want to know. Whether it is the current government or our party after the next election, they want to know the guidelines the government operates on. If the government is not prepared to bring it forward we can bet after the election the Reform government will be prepared to bring it forward. Is that not what democracy is all about?
I know we all know about democracy and is that not what democracy is all about, being open and accountable to the citizens of your country? Canadians are tired of being held in the dark. They want and deserve to know what the government of the day is doing, especially considering some of the things that have gone on recently such as the APEC issue, the golf club, the hotel and the list goes on and on.
What is the Liberal version of ethics? Why are Canadians not allowed to see the ethics code? If Canadians know this much about what is going on with the government in APEC, the tainted blood, the anthrax vaccinations, the hotel sales, the golf course stuff, they must ask what else is going on that they do not know about.
How are government members and especially cabinet ministers supposed to operating? Are they not supposed to be telling us all this stuff? Canadians are asking is this Liberal secrecy a sign of more funny business going on and is there more to come. How are Canadians to know?
The real question is, how are Canadians to know they can trust this government if they do not know the guidelines and the proper conduct they are supposed to be operating under? How are they ever to know? We just have to look in the newspapers. When it comes to ethics, it is most likely about Bill Clinton and the Olympic committee.
Is this the kind of image that we as Canadians and parliamentarians want to show to the rest of the world? I say not. I say let us put a code of ethics front and centre so that when Canadians look at parliament, at this House of Commons, at the government and at the ministers, they can say they are proud because this country's politicians have a standard by which they operate and they like that standard.
Will they ever get that chance? Never. Not as long as this government is in power. That is why we have to get rid of this government, which would be the most ethical thing the Reform Party could ever do.
This motion is all about ethics, openness and transparency. This motion is simply asking the Liberals to present their ethics code. That ethics code has to be backed up with an independent ethics commissioner who is answerable to parliament, not just the Prime Minister. That is what is known as open government. It is a basic political concept that the Liberals are going to have to learn because today Canadians expect and deserve open government. That is what they want.
I challenge the Liberals, when it is time to vote on this motion, to stand and vote on behalf of their constituents. If they do they will have no other choice than to vote yes for this motion.
Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, let me say a few things in response to my hon. colleague, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
First, the hon. member said that we Liberals despise Reformers. I actually have a great deal of respect for this motion. I think it is quite legitimate for the opposition to put the government's feet to the fire, as was said, about the whole issue of ethics, accountability and openness. I commend the member for bringing this motion forward. However, I do not agree with it. I will be quite happy to vote against it and I will be quite happy to explain to my constituents why I am going to vote against it.
Let me make another point about Liberals generally despising the Reform Party. We do not despise the Reform Party because we know that as long as the Reform Party exists we can look forward to governing for a long time.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: You wait.
Gar Knutson: Yes, I look forward to the next election and the election after that. I say that in all humility and with the greatest amount of respect for the Reform Party.
I am proud to be a member of a government which has made integrity a top priority. All that my laughing colleagues in the opposition need to do is look at how this government is viewed by Canadians today and compare it with previous governments. How many cabinet ministers have we had resign because of conflict of interest violations or ethical implications? Zero. We have a great record and that is why Canadians will re-elect us again and again.
Our promise about integrity goes back to the 1993 red book commitment to restore honesty and public trust to our political institutions and regain the confidence of Canadians in their government. Canadians wanted a fundamentally different approach to politics than they had experienced in the nine years before this government took office.
Once elected, this government acted decisively to deliver on its commitment. We have put in place many initiatives. First, we introduced amendments to strengthen the Lobbyist Registration Act by increasing the transparency of lobbying activities and by giving the ethics counsellor the power to investigate complaints about lobbying. All lobbyists now have to reveal more about their projects. Not only must they disclose their fees, but they are prohibited from including contingency fees in their contracts. There are also stiff penalties for lobbyists who do not adhere to the rules, up to and including prison sentences.
Second, the Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for public officeholders in the House on June 16, 1994. Perhaps hon. members opposite might take the time to read this very public document.
The code is a public document and is available to the public. The code demonstrates that this government recognizes that restoring public trust involves strengthening the system from both the public office and lobbying side. Cabinet ministers are bound by it. All public officeholders are bound by it.
The code sets out key principles that apply to all public officeholders: ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees.
Canadians would be pleased to see that this code of conduct clarified old obligations and added new guidelines for government decision making. It also requires that ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries disclose the assets and the activities of their spouses and dependants.
The new code has clear rules and the government is committed to upholding them.
I am sure that all members would agree that we have a responsibility for maintaining the trust of Canadians in their political institutions. As the Prime Minister said in the House in 1994, “Trust in the institutions of government is not a partisan issue, but something all of us elected to public office have an obligation to restore”. We all have a responsibility to serve Canadians with integrity and to be accountable to them.
Third, a new ethics counsellor was appointed with responsibilities in two related areas, conflict of interest and lobbying. This office administers the code of public officeholders.
The ethics counsellor investigates allegations against ministers and senior officials and reports his findings to the prime minister. The ethics counsellor also provides guidance to lobbyists on their dealings with government and may investigate complaints about lobbying activities. As hon. members will know, the ethics counsellor provides an annual report to parliament on matters related to lobbying.
As we promised in the red book, we have worked to restore trust and relevance to the House of Commons. For example, members of parliament now have greater influence in the legislative process. This government has supported increasing the opportunity for policy debates in the House on issues such as peacekeeping, and MPs are engaged in the budget planning process before the budget is presented.
We also promised to change the pension plan for members of parliament to end double dipping, establish a minimum age for entitlement to benefits and cut the cost of the plan by one-third. With all-party support, including my hon. friends in the Reform Party, changes were made last June to maintain the plan's fairness.
I have just mentioned that the government has already made the conflict of interest code public, and I would be happy to send hon. members a copy.
The prime minister also provides personal advice, and just as cabinet deliberations are confidential, just as the advice that bureaucrats give to their ministers and the advice that bureaucrats give to the prime minister and the advice that ministers give to the prime minister is confidential, so too is the personal advice that the prime minister gives to his ministers.
The prime minister provides personal advice on a wide range of government issues. As such, this advice is protected from release under section 69 of the Access to Information Act as a cabinet confidence. Some things in government need to be kept secret. Those that do not should be made public, but some things need to be kept secret.
In this regard, I would note that section 69 states that the Access to Information Act “does not apply to confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, including records used for reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy”.
I understand why the workings of cabinet would be foreign to members of the opposition as they have never been in cabinet and are not likely to be in cabinet for a very long time.
However, in passing the Access to Information Act parliament decided that documents which constitute advice from the prime minister to his ministers would be protected.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the important principle of cabinet confidences with my hon. colleagues.
The heart of the Canadian system of government centres around collective responsibility. This means that the government is responsible to parliament and the government must maintain the confidence of the House in order to govern.
But for ministers to fulfill their collective responsibility to parliament and Canadians they must be able to discuss their views frankly and fully.
Cabinet confidentiality allows ministers to debate issues openly among themselves and to concentrate on the objective of our system of government which is taking good policy decisions for the benefit of Canadians.
I note that Canada shares with a number of other foreign jurisdictions, for example the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, provisions similar to those in the Access to Information Act which protect cabinet confidences. That is why the government has responded to Motion No. P-31 by stating “The information sought by the hon. member is considered a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council, and in keeping with Beauchesne's 446(2)(i) and section 69 of the Access to Information Act, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion”.
In conclusion, we are proud of our record on integrity in the government. We have acted to deliver on our promises on integrity and ethics, just like we have acted to deliver on our promises on economic and social issues and national unity. We have made integrity a cornerstone of our government. That is one reason why Canadians chose to re-elect our government in 1997.
The Prime Minister has already tabled a comprehensive conflict of interest code that applies to public office holders, including ministers.
I therefore call on all hon. members to oppose this motion.
René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, as the motion of my hon. colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley was read, I noted the potential for confusion, as he is calling upon the Governor General to cause the Government to lay before the House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.
In addition to the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public officer holders, federal government ministers are subject to a code of ethics adopted in June 1994. In addition to this code, federal government ministers are also governed by ministerial guidelines. These guidelines are only partially known, because the Prime Minister has always refused to disclose them.
In light of what the two previous speakers have had to say, we now understand that the motion refers to the Prime Minister's guidelines for his ministers.
In the wording of their motion which is being debated here in the House today, the Reform Party is calling for a copy of this ethics code to be tabled in the House. Given that the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public officer holders is already known, we understand, and I repeat, that they are referring instead to the guidelines for ministers.
If the Reform members had been referring to the code I have just mentioned, their motion would, of course, have been pointless, since that document already exists. Now we know this point has been settled.
The guidelines for ministers set out a framework for ministerial conduct to ensure that they not only conduct themselves properly but are perceived to conduct themselves properly. It is not enough for them to act correctly, but they must also appear to be acting correctly.
Two of these guidelines are now known to the public. One of these guidelines deals with conflicts of interest, while the other concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals.
With respect to conflicts of interest, the rule is simply that a minister who believes he may be in a conflict of interest or may find himself in one in the future must phone the ethics counsellor to let him know. That is what we know about this first guideline given by the Prime Minister to his ministers.
As for the second guideline, it concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals. Here is what the Globe and Mail of October 10, 1996, had to say on this issue:
“Basic Principle. Ministers shall not intervene or appear to intervene on behalf of any person or entity with federal quasi-judicial tribunals or any matter before them that requires a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity unless otherwise authorized by law”.
We realize that ministers must not interfere in any way in proceedings or with the quasi-judicial tribunals.
This guideline extends to ministerial staff as well. It is also a practice that ministers and their political staff must go through the appropriate ministerial office rather than deal directly with the officials of another department.
Obviously, many criticisms and comments may be made about these guidelines for the ministers. Here are a few.
First, the guidelines should be made public immediately, because it is a matter of public interest. The government must be transparent. And if guidelines on the ministers' integrity are in effect, hiding them totally defeats the purpose of such guidelines, which is to establish a trust relationship between the government and the public.
These guidelines are seriously flawed from a democratic point of view, given that they were established in 1994 by the Prime Minister and that no one, not even the duly elected representatives in this House, has yet been able to discuss them in a fully informed manner.
Third, the trust relationship between the government and the public is further weakened because we know that, in the case of a conflict of interest, the only known directive is, for a minister, to report to the ethics commissioner, Howard Wilson. Does this mean that a minister could report to the commissioner and the conflict of interest be settled without the public knowing about it?
Similarly, given the lack of transparency concerning these guidelines, are we to understand that a minister who is at fault for whatever reason is ultimately judged only by the Prime Minister, who then becomes both judge and jury?
The Prime Minister is not prepared to release these guidelines. It is as though he is telling himself “I will decide whether I should demand that my guidelines be complied with, or whether I will tolerate that a minister does not comply with them. And since no one else will know what happened, it will be easier for me to decide if it is appropriate or not to implement my guidelines, to be more or less tolerant, to cover a mistake made by a minister or a senior public servant that could be embarrassing for the government, or to say nothing about it”.
The Prime Minister retains this prerogative, whereas if the guidelines were known, public, any member of the House of Commons could say “Prime Minister, here is a case where a minister did not follow your guidelines. What are you going to do? Will you explain these rules? What are the consequences?”
At this point, the Prime Minister would be obliged to provide an accounting. He would be obliged to tell the House why he did not apply his own directives. Transparency in such cases is vital. It is like the first principle, which states “It is not enough not to be in conflict of interest, there must also appear to be no conflict of interest”.
This same reasoning works with the application of the Prime Minister's directives with his ministers. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to apply these directives and have them followed by his ministers, there must be the appearance that these directives are being followed. The only way for these guidelines to appear to be applied fairly is for them to be made public and the other members to be able to judge, discuss and see how the Prime Minister uses this instrument of justice and fairness for all members of parliament.
The Bloc Quebecois will support this motion, because it is an instrument of democracy. As we are in favour of transparency and of furthering democracy, we will support this motion with pleasure.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. Like some of my colleagues, I was a bit confused with the motion when I read it because it reads:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.
The code I have seen is a conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. This was produced in June 1994. This document is available. If we are talking about that, I do not see a need to have it laid before the House.
I gather from the discussion and from the comments being made that one is looking for more than this document. One is looking for perhaps guidelines or directives that may have been issued by the Prime Minister specifically and apart from this document.
I will address my remarks to the document since I do not have anything else before me in terms of any other document. This document has some good points in it but there is a serious problem with it. The preamble talks about ethical standards, public scrutiny, decision making and a lot of very important issues for our democratic society. For example, under ethical standards it talks about how public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity of the activity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. No one would disagree with that. It is a very important principle.
The difficulty with this document is the manner by which it goes about to enforce this code and to try to follow up on the principles stated in this code. It appoints an ethics counsellor. There is nothing wrong with appointing an ethics counsellor, but the difficulty is that when we real about the ethics counsellor it states that under the general direction of the clerk of the privy council the ethics counsellor is charged with the administration of this code and the application of the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part as they apply to public office holders.
It does not put the ethics counsellor in an independent position. The ethics counsellor in essence ends up reporting to the Prime Minister in secret, and that is wrong for our democratic system.
One of the things that is very important is openness and accountability to the public if we are to carry on the functions we are elected to on behalf of the public. It is very important that if there is any code of ethics set up or any kind of code of conduct that there be an independent ethics counsellor, someone who is accountable to parliament, to the elected representatives of the people.
This is very important. If we read further in this code we see where it talks about compliance arrangements. It states arrangements being made by public office holders to comply with the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part. They shall be approved in the case of ministers of the crown by the Prime Minister and in the case of all other public office holders by the ethics counsellor. We see that the ministers of the crown are above this scrutiny by the ethics counsellor. In terms of this kind of accountability, they account only to their boss, the Prime Minister.
This is something that is really deplorable when talking about openness and integrity for government. There was a release on June 16, 1994 by the Prime Minister, announcing the appointment of the first ethics counsellor.
It sounds quite admirable when listening to the words: “The Prime Minister today appointed Howard Wilson as Canada's first ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister also announced a comprehensive package of measures to help promote public trust in national institutions including tough new restrictions on lobbying”.
Yet we see a lot of the lobbying that takes place and we see a lot of things happening that cause us to wonder exactly what kind of accountability there is in the government structure and who can scrutinize when things go wrong.
We look at the APEC affair and what happened there. We see that the Prime Minister does not want to be held accountable for any role he may have played in that incident. We have seen various other incidents of things happening right across the country where people have called out for accountability and always it comes right back to the Prime Minister, but there is no independent body looking at the activities of what is taking place.
One very important principle of being an internal or external investigator, or external complaint handler, is independence. As a former ombudsman this is a principle that we as ombudsmen held very dearly, the idea that we must be independent of the system and must be able to report independently. The findings should be objective, clear and when the report is made it should be made in a manner that people know they have had a fair hearing.
Certainly if someone has a complaint against a minister and feels the minister is not operating in accordance with proper ethics that person will not be comforted by the Prime Minister saying it's okay. They might have more confidence if an independent ethics counsellor were to review the matter and report independently to parliament.
It is important that independence be there in a very real and meaningful way. Another section of the code talks about various permissible activities under the code. Where the Prime Minister or a person designated by the Prime Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, full time governor in council appointees to crown corporations, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, may retain or accept directorships or offices in a financial or commercial operation and accept remuneration therefore in accordance with the compensation policies for governor in council appointees as determined from time to time.
Again, the Prime Minister can decide that his friends or whoever can have directorships in these corporations while they are still carrying on public duties which may or may not conflict.
There is a need to really go through this code, to see what it says and to see where the ultimate responsibility lies. The biggest problem with this code is that there is no real independent method to enforce it or to ensure that the noble values outlined in it are properly protected.
Another example of the same sort of thing comes from the military. We recently saw a military ombudsman appointed, but who is that person accountable to? The ombudsman is certainly not independent. That person is accountable to the minister. How can someone objectively review and make recommendations if that person is accountable to the minister responsible for the exact organization that is being investigated?
If the government is serious about accountability it would know that if something is being done right there is nothing wrong with scrutinizing it. Far too often we do our public servants a disservice by hiding things, by saying we cannot give this information, that it is secret and confidential. Far too often we do a disservice because if the information is given quite often it clarifies what is being done, why it is being done and a reasonable person will accept and understand that.
That is one of the biggest things we found in the ombudsman business. A lot of the complaints from the public were because people did not know what was being done. When an impartial investigation revealed what was being done quite often members of the public were willing to accept that the government had done right once it was clarified. It is this fear of the unknown that people are concerned about. Because there is not openness and accountability it leads to problems.
I will not dwell much longer on this code because it is in need of severe fixing. I see I only have one minute remaining and I cannot fix it in one minute. The biggest point is that there must be an independent ethics counsellor.
I appreciate the spirit of the motion and would certainly support it because it intends to get at the secrecy of the government and the fact that it will not hold itself accountable in a very real and meaningful way.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion for the production of papers, sponsored by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
As has been mentioned previously, the Motion No. P-31 reads as follows:
That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.
I would be remiss in commenting on the motion without quoting from a great work of fiction called Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan For Canada . The Liberal's red book in the 1993 election stated:
A Liberal government will appoint an ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the code of conduct for public officials. The ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.
The Liberal government in fact appointed an ethics counsellor back in June 1994. Howard Wilson was assigned to take the job but his office was not independent. It was not developed in consultation with the other political parties. It was not legislated as accountable to parliament.
While the ethics counsellor reports to parliament on matters related to lobbying, he reports to one and only one person on matters related to ethics, the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister makes the decisions about the enforcement of ethics.
The question then arises, if the Prime Minister is the final judge of the ethics of his cabinet ministers, who judges the Prime Minister's ethics? That is why we need to have full transparency with respect to government ethics.
Motion No. P-31 is extremely timely in light of the efforts put forward by my caucus colleague from Markham to get answers from the Prime Minister in the Yvon Duhaime affair. I would like to review the troubling revelations that have recently come to light.
In April 1993 Les Entreprises Yvon Duhaime purchased the inventory, furnishings and ongoing business of the Auberge Grand-Mère located in the Prime Minister's riding of Saint-Maurice from 161341 Canada Inc. At the time the opposition leader of the day, now the Prime Minister, held a 25% stake in the numbered company.
In September 1997 Duhaime's company received a $615,000 loan from the Business Development Bank of Canada Tourism Investment Fund. At the same time he also received a $50,000 loan from the Canada Economic Development Fund for the Quebec regions. These loans were to be applied to a 24 room addition to the hotel. The expansion plans were expected to total $1.2 million. Duhaime said he discussed the proposed expansion with Chrétien's special riding representative and was told where to apply—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he must not refer to other members of the House by name; only by title or by the name of the member's constituency. I know he will want to follow the rules in that regard.
Gilles Bernier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Duhaime added that the location of the inn in the Prime Minister's Saint-Maurice riding undoubtedly helped him to get the loans for the expansion and get them fast. He further claimed that he applied for federal loans after his local caisse populaire credit union even declined to finance the expansion.
Duhaime's company already had a heavy debtload from building a previous addition to the hotel that included a large banquet hall.
The money flow from the Prime Minister's former property did not stop with Industry Canada or Canada Economic Development. According to internal Human Resources Development documents Duhaime also received $188,799 from five grant programs during the 1997-98 fiscal year. These grants included $164,000 from the transitional jobs fund program, $10,350 from local labour market partnerships, $9,293 from youth internships, $4,356 from the targeted wage subsidies program and $800 from summer career placements.
Who is Yvon Duhaime and what qualified his company to obtain so much cash? He failed to follow the Business Development Bank rules by not disclosing some of his personal records on the BDC's application form which clearly states that applicants list information about those same personal records on which his application could have been denied.
I am not saying that we should not forgive those who have made mistakes in the past. I am not saying that they should be excluded from government programs to which they are legitimately entitled. However Duhaime's past problems certainly point to someone less than credible in seeking financial support. Duhaime has since claimed the expansion to be a profitable success.
From my own professional experience I know how useful it is to check with contractors to determine a project's success. One local contractor on the Auberge Grand-Mere expansion filed a business lien against the property in July 1998, claiming that he was owed $172,000 by Duhaime's company for work completed in the spring of 1998. While Duhaime has since reduced the debt to $47,953, according to recent land registry documents the contractor filed legal notice on January 7, 1999. The contractor states that if he is not paid within 60 days he will ask the sheriff to seize the Auberge Grand-Mere property and to sell it at an auction to recover his own debt.
Mr. Duhaime, a man who does not follow application requirements, is assisted by the Prime Minister's riding office and then gets over $840,000 in loans and grants. Will the Prime Minister answer questions on this matter? No, he will not. Can the ethics counsellor investigate? Yes, he can but he reports in secret to the very person he potentially investigates. This must change.
Thankfully my colleague from Markham was successful yesterday in getting the industry committee to summon the ethics counsellor for questioning. He did so after much difficulty from the government members and indifference from Reform, NDP and Bloc members. We should not have to fight tooth and nail to get information from the ethics counsellor. He should be an independent officer of parliament, accountable to all. He should have a public code of ethics for the Prime Minister and all cabinet ministers.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I support Motion No. P-31 and I urge all hon. member to do likewise.
Roy H. Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I was alarmed to note that the first speaker on the government side deliberately tried to mislead the House and confuse the issue in that he claimed that they had a code of ethics. We were not talking about the general code of ethics and government members know that. We are talking about a public code of ethics and we are asking for a copy of the ethics code which the Prime Minister has for his ministers. It is two different things.
Let me put it this way. Every speaker on this side of the House knows full well the difference. They have stated so. When ethics counsellor Howard Wilson reports, he reports only to the Prime Minister.
That reporting is in secret. That is exactly the thing the Reform Party is trying to clear up before not only this House but this nation. Canadians deserve an independent ethics counsellor accountable to parliament and who will operate under the authority of a public ethics code. That is what my hon. friend from Prince George has in his motion. That is what Canadians want. That is what we will be voting on. I fail to see how the party opposite can continue to confuse a very simple issue.
I have a copy of the Ottawa Sun which states that the auditor general says that the defence department is blocking his bid to investigate buying practices. It goes on to say that almost a year after tabling detailed department questionable equipment purchasing practices the auditor general told the Commons defence committee that he is still being stonewalled. By whom? None other than the defence minister, a member of cabinet. That is the real guts of this motion. This is what Canadians want.
The private sector, the banks, the businesses, the major industries all pride themselves on having ethics codes. But not this government. When it comes to taxpayer funded institutions such as the House of Commons, what do we get? Stonewalling. This is zero accountability.
In the life of this parliament we have seen what is happening. Look at the APEC inquiry to judge the actions of the RCMP. What does the government do? It orders in a whole troop of lawyers. The government is not being investigated. When the students want lawyers, no way. That in itself is a real conflict. Canadians are seeing it as a conflict.
There is a growing trend. The last survey that I saw on the accountability of government listed professions that are respected the least. Who topped the list? Members of parliament. Who came a close second? Lawyers.
I asked a group of grade 11 students to write down what was the most common thing they had heard or what they thought about the House of Commons. The leading comment was that they were a bunch of crooks.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the member can go on and he will have that opportunity. The next time this matter comes up for debate he will five minutes remaining in the time for his remarks.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1.45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.43 p.m.)