2003-09-26

[Stage Direction]
Bill C-41. On the Order: Government Orders
June 4, 2003--the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of Bill C-41, an act to amend certain Acts.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): moved:

That Bill C-41, an act to amend certain Acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly today about Bill C-41, the technical adjustments bill, which proposes minor corrections to a number of statutes that would not justify stand-alone bills in Parliament.
The government has introduced this kind of bill as a housekeeping initiative to make the most effective use of parliamentarians' time and to ensure that our laws are accurate and up to date and often particularly reflect changes in terminology between the French and the English languages.
By proceeding now with this bill, Parliament can consider minor amendments to statutes without having to wait for legislation dealing with more fundamental changes to the statutes in question.
Bill C-41 is the second technical corrections bill the government has introduced. A similar bill was introduced in 2001 to correct a variety of statutes.
I want to quickly summarize the provisions of this bill.
For example, amendments to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act would change the French title for the new one that is now accepted for deputy commissioner from “commissaire adjoint” to the new term “commissaire délégué”, which I understand reflects the modern way of describing this term in French.
The title for the executive director of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy would be changed from executive director to president. Again, this is a more up to date title.
The Financial Administration Act would be amended to clarify the definition of officers-directors to provide for clearer administration of these positions.
There is a provision involving lieutenant governors. Bill C-41 updates the disability provisions for lieutenant governors over age 65 consistent with provisions for lieutenant governors under 65 and changes for parliamentarians made in 2001. The bill would also allow lieutenant governors to contribute to their pensions for up to five years in the event they become disabled and receive disability benefits.
This provision would ensure that disabled lieutenant governors can become eligible for their pensions, consistent with the provisions available to MPs and public servants. We addressed these issues in the MPs' plan a little while back. This merely standardizes the form for lieutenant governors as well.
With respect to fees for consular services, since 1998, the government has been levying such fees based on a decision made by the Treasury Board.
An administrative correction is needed to validate this authorization to levy these fees between January 1998 and January 2003.
Bill C-41 also makes corrections with respect to customs-related matters, notably the coordination provisions in the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and the references to tariffs in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.
As I indicated earlier, these amendments are purely technical and do not imply any general policy change. I hope that the members will facilitate the passage of these amendments to correct and update our legislation, as required.
I call on my colleagues to support this initiative so that we may make corrections and have proper translations in our legislation as soon as possible.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 is an omnibus bill containing a number of provisions that would normally have been subjected to the miscellaneous statute law amendment program. This program was initiated in 1975 and was established to allow for minor, non-controversial amendments to federal statutes in an omnibus bill. Under the program, a draft version of the bill is submitted to the Standing Committees on Justice of the House and the Senate.
The MSLA process requires any item objected to by the Senate or the House committee to be withdrawn from the bill. To be included, the proposed amendments must meet certain criteria. They must not be controversial, not involve the spending of public funds, not prejudicially affect the rights of persons, not create a new offence, and not subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
The procedure is designed to eliminate any potential controversial items, ensuring quick passage of the bill. Meeting these criteria and going through the MSLA process legitimizes the use of the omnibus bill. Since the process was not followed, the official opposition would like to register an objection to the use of an omnibus bill. When this bill goes to committee, we will be asking the government to explain why it has abandoned the MSLA process.
The purpose of this act is to make technical amendments and corrections to various statutes. This enactment makes technical corrections to: the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act; the Customs Act; the Financial Administration Act; the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act; the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act; the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act; the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act; the Salaries Act; the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act; the Public Service Modernization Act; and the consular fees regulations coming into force.
Several amendments correct the French versions, bringing them in line with the English versions, namely: amendments to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Customs Act, the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act, and the Public Service Modernization Act.
Several amendments clean up the language and correct misuse of gender. These corrections are made to the Financial Administration Act, the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
One amendment brings the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act into line with the Costa Rica free trade agreement Canada signed and the House passed in the last session.
With respect to the changes to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, the environment critic for the official opposition will address that matter later.
Changes to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act make provisions for the partner of a former lieutenant governor to have a pension.
Finally, the changes to the Salaries Act entitle lieutenant governors to a disability allowance.
My party will support the bill, but we wish it had been done in a different manner.
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend certain acts. Let me state from the outset that this piece of legislation is not as straightforward as some would have us believe. The bill is very technical and one that requires tough scrutiny and examination prior to its passage.
The bill proposes a series of minor technical amendments to various federal acts, including the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act.
Bill C-41 is not in itself a so-called statute law amendment act. To be such it would have to meet certain criteria established by the justice department's legislative section. For example, the proposed amendment should not be controversial or require the expenditure of public funds, which is not the case with Bill C-41. Rather, this is an omnibus bill that will update and maintain certain laws. The last parliamentary initiative of this sort dates back to June 2002 when Parliament passed Bill C-43.
According to the government, Bill C-41 permits minor corrections which do not warrant separate bills to be made to a number of existing federal laws. In some cases the amendments aim to make the English and French versions of an act more consistent with one another. In others they clarify the definition of certain terms to make an act's provisions easier to interpret.
The technical amendments are to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Customs Act, the Financial Administration Act, and the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.
Despite what the Liberals say, Bill C-41 also contains major amendments to two other federal acts. The bill amends the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act so that they may continue to pay into their pension plan up to a maximum of five years should they become disabled and have to leave office before completing the five years of service required to be entitled to a pension plan.
Moreover, Bill C-41 establishes a formula for the segment of a pension if, following the death of the lieutenant governor, there are two surviving spouses. Corresponding amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act will complement the government's proposed amendments in this area.
Bill C-41 also amends the Salaries Act to establish a disability allowance for lieutenant governors who become disabled after 65 years of age. This will provide them with the same coverage that they had before turning 65. According to the government, this amendment is based on provisions applicable to parliamentarians over the age of 65.
These amendments seem to be part of the ongoing review of the benefits and obligations scheme for lieutenant governors. Last year Bill C-43 also amended the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act to lower from 65 to 60 the age at which provincial representatives of the Queen became eligible for a deferred pension. It is interesting to note that instead of using a single bill to do so, the government has decided to modernize this plan under the guise of technical amendments.
Bill C-41 makes two amendments to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. First, the person responsible for managing the round table, who in passing is appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure, will now hold the title of president instead of executive director. Second, this person from now on will hold office for a term not exceeding five years, rather than the three years currently provided under subsection 10(1) of the act.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the bill in principle at this time; however, we feel that Bill C-41 requires further study and examination, which requires our full attention.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-41. I will just go through the area that relates to the environment.
This omnibus bill does nothing substantial to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. It simply changes the title of the executive director to president. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about this national round table and what I feel it stands for and let Canadians know some of the problems with it.
First, I do not think the job title particularly matters. The current president, as he will now be called instead of executive director, is David McGuinty. That probably says quite a bit currently. It tells us who has to be named to the position. The person obviously has to be a good Liberal.
Like most publicly funded Liberal boards, there are a huge number of Liberal supporters on them. The national round table is no different. I am not saying that many of these people are not qualified; some of them do an excellent job. The problem is they have to be Liberals in order to be there. That is pretty much a major problem.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Almost everyone is a Liberal.
Bob Mills: Not in my area, sir. They are a rare breed. They are an endangered species in some parts of the country.
The other problem is that those people are appointed by the Prime Minister. Again, we have this top down process where the Prime Minister has all of the power to name this particular group. I suppose it follows that he is going to name his friends.
Therefore we see people like Mr. McGuinty, people like Quebec lawyer Alfred Pilon, career politicians like Mike Harcourt and so on. As I say some of them do a very good job but the problem is there is not that broad base which really would be a better way to do it.
We are really saying that it should be based on a person's qualifications. It should be a wide range of people. It should be open and accountable. The budgeting should be done up front so we know exactly what these things are going to cost.
Let me relate a couple of experiences that I have had over the last 10 years with similar types of government boards and meetings. The first one was in Vancouver. I was there as a critic and sat at a table. It is very interesting because around that table of 10 people, nine of them were Liberals. Eight of them had been candidates who had lost in the previous election. They had come with their wives to Vancouver. They were staying in a five star hotel. They complained rather bitterly that they had been forced to come to the banquet because it really interfered with some of the other activities that they and their wives had planned to do while visiting Vancouver.
They had absolutely no interest in the topic of discussion. They had absolutely no concern for what it was about. They were on a two or three day paid junket to Vancouver. That was what it was all about. They were very clear and open. This was early in my political career and they probably thought I was one of them as well. It was interesting rather than to talk to listen to what they had to say.
They had a lot to say about what they expected. I recall one fellow saying, “If I run three times for the party, even if I lose I will get a really good appointment, so that is my motivation for running”. I would hope most people in the House had a better motivation than that for wanting to be a member of Parliament.
As well, I am pleased that we can debate the environment and speak about the Kyoto round table. That was very interesting. There was an invitation list primarily of people who supported the protocol.
The media were not allowed in. No one who was not on the list basically at the beginning was allowed in. Eventually I said that I was the official opposition critic for the environment and it would seem that maybe I should be there. I was advised by the bureaucrat I was talking to that they would see if I could come in but if I did come in, I could not talk, I could not ask questions and certainly they would not expect me to be politically partisan out in the coffee room.
It was a set up deal. It was a bunch of supporters who were out getting public opinion at 14 meetings across the country with a set list of invitees who were all on one side of the issue. There was no media allowed in and it was paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.
That is the problem with these round tables. They are not for the public. They are a way of rewarding political people for whether they run, whether they raise funds or whatever they do.
While the change in title from executive director to president is what Bill C-41 talks about, that is not the issue. Should we have round tables? Yes, I think it is good that the minister wants to hear from the Canadian public, from all of the interest groups on all sides of the issue, but I do not believe that is what the round table is all about. As a result obviously I think it is time that the Canadian public engaged and said “Look, if we are paying the bill, we want to be sure we are getting value for money. We don't particularly care whether you call him an executive director or a president. That is not the point”.
A good example would be a report that came out this week which was done by the University of Alberta and was commissioned by the Alberta Chamber of Commerce. It was a three or four month study. It was very in-depth. A lot of Canadians would have liked to have looked at all of those things. As the member for LaSalle—Émard has said, we need much more discussion. Canadians need to understand what it means.
The government says it will ask every Canadian to reduce by 20% and that it will pay $64 million per carbon credit. Of course, the plan is not totally in place and it really does not know. If it is like the REDI program, for every dollar that is spent on the environment, $4.35 will be spent on bureaucracy and administration. That is just an example of what happens.
The government does not engage with Canadians, that for $64 million per megatonne, it may reduce a maximum of 20 megatonnes. The forest fires in B.C. produced a 100 megatonnes. Our commitment is 240 and the government plan at very best would hit 170.
Would it not be better to engage Canadians and ask them what they really want for the environment? I think the answer would be, if we had that round table of all Canadians, that they want clean air. They want clean water. They want us to emphasize the smog days in Toronto. They want us to talk about the smog that one can literally chew in places along the border and in the Fraser Valley where the Americans are building power plants.
They want us to talk about those issues. They want that out in front where they can participate, not simply a bunch of political people getting together to be rewarded with a nice long weekend in Whistler, Banff, the Gatineaus or wherever. That is not what Canadians want to pay for. That is not what they should get.
While our party is supporting the bill and we are supporting the change in title of the executive director to president, we certainly would have a much better way of conducting national round tables on the environment than the way they are being done at present.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments, but not to the same extent as my hon. colleague. He did a great job in dissecting some of the challenges in the acts when it comes to the amendments and the concerns we still have with the appointments of some positions.
As we heard, Bill C-41, an act to amend certain acts, lists a number of different areas that will be dealt with. I will read them into the record. However, I will focus on a couple of the areas that pertain to revenue and customs, the portfolio for which I am responsible.
This particular bill would amend the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Customs Act, the Financial Administration Act, Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, the Salaries Act ,and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
My colleague from Red Deer was very eloquent about highlighting the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. There are still challenges in the act that we in the House should be looking at very closely.
The changes that are being made in the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Customs Act, and the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act are mostly housekeeping that are not too significant but need to be shared with the public.
Other areas of change deal with benefits and obligations in some of the retirement benefits. There will be some minor changes to the disability allowance and other benefits for former lieutenant governors, and also consular fees and specialized services regulations.
As my hon. colleague mentioned, we are supporting the changes. We do have some challenges still facing this particular bill that would amend some of the acts.
In the area of the CCRA Act, the Customs Act and the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, I will share specifically the changes. They are simple housekeeping changes. Changes in the CCRA Act bring the French version in line with the English version of the act. Specifically it adds the French word “délégué” after “commissaire” throughout the act. Other than that there is nothing of which we are aware that is too significant, but significant enough to mention.
The Customs Act has a similar wording change, especially to update the French version with regard to the Costa Rican Free Trade Agreement. All members in the House and most Canadians know that the members of the official opposition have always been staunch supporters of free trade and obviously will continue to fight for free trade, because not only Canadians, but many developing countries in the world benefit directly from free trade.
Much of our strategy when we talk about foreign aid and development emphasizes that if we have a balanced free trade policy alongside the aid to many of these countries, it helps them develop even faster than just dumping money into them. We need to have that two-pronged strategy and we in the Alliance support it very strongly.
Finally, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act has changes in the wording in the English language version to reflect the Costa Rican Free Trade Agreement.
That is about all that pertains to revenue and customs. I thought I would mention those changes. Hearing all this talk about intoxicating liquors, I am sure hon. members are getting thirsty, so I will stop right there.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
Canadian Forces Superannuation ActRahim Jaffer: 
moved that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning in support of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act dates from the 1960s. Although the fundamental principles of the system are still valid, the act has been improved a number of times over the years, and major changes were made in 1999.
Despite these changes, the act has not been substantially amended for some thirty years.
Times have certainly changed since the 1960s and new issues have arisen, issues that oblige us to take a fresh look at military pension legislation and begin working toward its modernization. One significant issue that has come up in recent years is the recruitment and retention challenge facing the Canadian Forces.
When the 1960 pension plan was drafted, the situation was quite different. At that time it was assumed that the Canadian Forces could count on being able to draw from a large pool of labour. The act was therefore designed with a view to supporting the forces profile and human resource realities of that time.
Today, we are facing a radically different job market. The trend toward smaller families, the aging population, and an increased enrollment in post-secondary education have all meant a smaller pool of potential recruits for the Canadian Forces. Competition for skilled workers is fierce and employment options available to people with the right skills are greater than ever.
For this reason, the Canadian Forces have taken, and are continuing to take, action to position itself as an employer of choice. Pension modernization is an essential part of this process.
In order to be competitive in today's labour market, the Canadian Forces must be able to offer a very complete benefits package comparable to those offered by other employers.
At present, the Canadian Forces need a pension plan that strongly favours recruitment and retention. They need a modern system with more flexible retirement programs that offer military personnel more control and choice with regard to their career path and financial planning.
However, modernizing the Canadian Forces pension arrangements is not just about recruitment and retention. It is about the government doing the right thing for the men and women who serve this country in the Canadian armed forces. It is also a quality of life issue.
The government has made impressive strides in improving the quality of life of our military personnel. There is still considerable work to be done. The amendments contained in this bill represent another positive step forward on the quality of life agenda by bringing fairness, flexibility, efficiency and inclusion to the military pension plan.
With these amendments we can ensure that our military personnel and their families are well taken care of and are properly compensated for their dedicated service to Canada. They deserve nothing less.
The bill before the House today would modernize military pensions through a series of major and minor amendments to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. For example, some of the changes being proposed in this bill would shorten the period of time required to qualify for a pension benefit from 10 years to 2 years, improve pension portability, provide greater flexibility for members of the forces in building their pension incomes by basing calculations on total pensionable service rather than on completing a precise term of engagement, offer entitlement to an immediate unreduced pension after 25 years of service, and improve pension benefits for survivors. And a final but important point, the new bill would provide pension coverage for reservists.
I think we are all aware of the enormous contributions made by our reservists to the country and to the Canadian Forces. We have a duty to ensure that they are adequately recognized for their service.
In 1997, the Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity was established. This benefit is intended to encourage reservists to stay longer in the Primary Reserve and to reward them if they do.
Nevertheless, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, among others, continues to push for a real pension system for reservists. The modernization of the pension plan lays the foundation for implementing just such a system.
The amendments set out in Bill C-37 bring long term, full time reservists under the same pension arrangements as their regular force counterparts. The bill lays the foundation needed to develop a pension plan for reservists who serve on a part time basis.
Pension modernization would not require new funding from the defence services program. Any cost increases are related to the implementation of the initiatives approved under the 1999 pension legislation. The costs for these initiatives have already been earmarked in the fiscal framework.
The chief actuary of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions estimated that the other changes contained in Bill C-37 would not result in cost increases and might, in fact, result in modest savings.
The benefits associated with this legislation are self-evident. To conclude, let me reiterate the two reasons why this legislation is not just important, but why it is crucial. First, the amendments would provide for a pension plan that better meets the needs of our regular and reserve forces, and their families as well. It is a plan that would ensure they get the benefits they need and deserve. Second, the proposed changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act will support the human resources strategy of the Canadian Forces in the critical areas of recruitment and retention.
For these reasons I hope the House will support the proposed amendments contained in the bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the legislation introduced today by the government on behalf of pensioners and future pensioners currently employed in the armed forces in the defence of our country and in the many other functions our armed forces personnel are required to fulfill these days.
I have a considerable interest in the matter of pensions. Some people will remember that on one occasion I took part in a philosophical debate about how pensions could be improved but unfortunately the timing was wrong. It made some interesting headlines in the newspapers, and we received a bit of flak about it.
Whether we are talking about Canadian pensioners at large, members of the armed forces, members of the RCMP or whomever, my interest is primarily and solely to improve the benefits and the fairness of the benefits received by people who work on our behalf.
We probably are not aware of the debt of gratitude we owe to our armed forces personnel as much as we should be. In my mind they are very special people. Not only have they chosen a career in the armed forces in the defence of either our civil or international liberties, they are willing, if necessary, to put their lives on the line on behalf of others as well. That is something which most of us do not think of often enough or deeply enough.
It is important to recognize that our armed forces personnel are serving in peacekeeping missions abroad in places like Afghanistan and others trying to improve the situation for people around the world as well as preserving our rights and freedoms in our country. These people occasionally live in very high risk situations. The fact that they are willing to do that makes them special people. We should pay particular attention to ensuring that they and their families are adequately and properly looked after when they reach retirement age, or heaven forbid, if they have some calamity in their lives requiring those benefits to be paid out before they reach that age.
I would like to commend the government for most of what is contained in Bill C-37, and the House may find that surprising. It is usually considered that the opposition's role is to oppose, and indeed it is. We oppose those things which are wrong. By the same token, our party is a party which is based on principle, and I am very proud of that fact. We are not here just for political reasons. We want to promote the principles that are good for our country.
Bill C-37 would improve the superannuation and retirement conditions for our armed services personnel. It is an improvement, and therefore I cannot, on that principle, oppose it. I agree with it because we need to make these improvements.
One very important change is one which strikes at some work that I did in my riding on behalf of several individuals who were with the armed forces and then for various reasons were asked to leave. The Canadian armed forces was reducing its personnel due to cutbacks and these individuals received a buyout which was fair according to the rules at the time but which was scarcely defensible. Then they were asked to return to the forces and continue serving in the capacity in which they were trained.
These individuals came to my office and said that little exercise had cut them out of their pension. I could not believe it. We tried to go to bat for them and very frankly did not have success in that case. The regulations were very clear. Once having been in the armed forces, if they quit for whatever reason, there was a final deal on the pension. It was a payout, or a transfer or whatever, and they could not buy back in. These individuals were, if I may be permitted to use a slightly unparliamentary term, shafted. They were not given a fair deal and it was not possible to correct it. I still feel badly about that.
I do not know whether the bill will serve retroactively to correct that error. I rather doubt it. However this is one of the issues which is addressed in Bill C-37 and it is one of the items I would like to include in my list of things for which I want to commend the government. No longer does it talk about continuous service to earn pension, but it talks about years of pensionable service, so if it is interrupted the member does not take a hit. I can only say, in a mild but sincere way, kudos to the government for recognizing that flaw and for repairing it. This is probably the most important feature of Bill C-37 and I wanted to talk about that first.
The second thing the government has included in this bill, with which I agree, is it gives access to armed forces personnel to their deferred pension benefits. This is a very common situation when people retire or they are pushed out of their positions early, often because of injury or other factors. The bill will give them access to pension benefits all the way down to age 50.
I do not know whether members are aware of this fact, but when one does this, actuarially the pension is reduced, which sometimes puts these people under some duress financially. However I really do not know any other way that that can be done. It would not be right to have one person who serves until age 60 or age 65 receive no more pension for the years of pensionable service left than the person who has been collecting pension since age 50. Actuarially reducing the pension is fair and we have to live with that. That is provided for in the bill and it is a very good situation.
Some people in the armed forces choose to retire early. In some cases it is a combination. Some individuals get into positions of extremely high stress and they really need to get out because of that stress they have had to endure. Even though they are not asked to retire, some of them recognize that their effectiveness in the armed forces is being diminished because of the toll the stress has taken on them over the years.
I commend the government for making these provisions available to members of the armed forces. I have not had a chance to read the bill in its entirety unfortunately, but I believe that those provisions, or at least some variation of them, are also being made available in this bill to the RCMP. That is another area where we have had presentations or representations from people who say that due to the very nature of the job, it is really unrealistic to expect them to work for 45 years before they reach retirement age, say from age 20 to age 65.
The RCMP also has made representation to all members of Parliament and have asked if its members could, for the sake of for example the Canada pension plan, make a one-third greater contribution to it to enable them to receive full benefits at age 55 instead of 65. Therefore there would be an additional contribution rate in proportion to the time that they have paid in.
Of course I had some discussions with them. I have this slight mathematical bent which I have difficulty turning off. I pointed out to them that even though they were asking for the contributions to be increased in proportion to the time the contributions would be made in fewer years, they failed to take into account the actuarial fact that the pension was now paid out for many more years, assuming that their age of death was about the same as if they would have kept on working to age 65. In fact if the stress relief provided by retiring early actually worked, they would probably live longer, actuarially speaking. Therefore one has to take those things into account as well.
However I still support that measure. Canadians benefit greatly by the work of our peacekeepers in our country, our police forces, and we ought to have that ready for them on behalf of taxpayers. I know I would much rather spend my money on providing decent benefits for our armed forces personnel and our RCMP officers than I would spending it in the many ways that the government wastes money.
For example, I would much rather put $1 billion into the RCMP and armed forces pension fund than I would to have them register duck hunters who go hunting in fall. Absurdities like that are very obnoxious to Canadian people at large, especially to the people who work in the defence of peace in our country. We ought to really be thinking about that.
The next element I would like to refer to briefly is the element of portability. I really think we have a lot of work, in total, on the portability of pension plans. This is true in the domestic world as well as for our armed forces.
A person who works for 20 years in one business, or who works for 20 years in the armed forces, should not be a slave to staying in that position simply because if they leave they lose any pension benefits they have accumulated. I would like to see full and total portability. I would like to see that among industries. I would like to see that among schools and colleges, for people in my profession. It is outrageous that people can lose their benefits and be forced to simply take a payout.
I do not know if members are aware of this but in most contributory pension benefit plans the contribution rates are usually matched by the employer.
This actually happened to me when I taught high school math for four years, when I was a youngster. When I left that to go to the college, I had a choice. I could either transfer it, which at that time was a gift because it was not to be included to make any greater benefits for myself, or I could take back the contributions I had made, forgoing the ones that were made on my behalf by the employer. This is true for armed forces personnel as well.
I am very pleased the bill addresses that issue. It states that if a person who has been serving in the armed forces for more than two years and leaves the position, the pension benefits they have earned are portable. That is a very good provision. At that stage, under the Income Tax Act, they can move it into an RRSP or they can transfer it to another pension plan if they go to another employer, specifically one in the government. In other words, they can transfer that pension benefit over and carry it over in the next plan.
It is my understanding the bill does that. If my understanding is right, then that is a positive step and I need to commend the government for it.

Statements by Members
National Arthritis Awareness MonthDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that September will mark National Arthritis Awareness Month.
This debilitating disease can strike anyone, anywhere, anytime—no one is immune. Arthritis comes in more than 100 different forms and affects four million Canadians—from infants to seniors. Joint paint and inflammation are the common factors, though their impact can range from minor aches to immobility.
The Arthritis Society has indicated that the annual funding for their research and career development program is $5.5 million.
Please join me in extending our appreciation to the collaborating organizations and individuals by applauding their efforts in monitoring the health and quality of life of Canadians living with arthritis.
Forest IndustryMr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, two years ago the forest industry in Canada was hit with a severe blow, softwood lumber tariffs. To date the government has bungled the handling of this problem and it remains unresolved.
My riding is very forestry dependent, especially in the West Kootenay and Boundary regions. Employers like Slocan Forest Products, Kalesnikoff Lumber, Atco Lumber, Pope and Talbot and Hilmoe Forest Products have been hard hit, not only with this latest problem, but also from the government's previous fiasco, the softwood quota system.
In an apparent effort to help the forest industry communities cope with the impact, the government came up with a funding plan that was to see the province of B.C. get $50 million in aid to impacted communities.
Long after this was set up, how is the government doing? Funding to West Kootenay communities is zero and funding to Boundary communities is zero. The only money that came into our entire riding was $14,387. Although the community that received this money is extremely grateful and used the money wisely, it does not have a sawmill.
To the Liberal government, all I have to say is thanks very little.
Les Invasions barbaresMs. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that, following its recent release in France, the film Les Invasions barbares by Canadian director Denys Arcand is a box office success.
Although I cannot give exact figures, an article in today's La Presse hinted that initial ticket sales for the feature film are very encouraging.
Regardless of what France thinks of the film Les Invasions barbares , I wanted to rise in the House to confirm my pride in this country's ability to produce excellent feature films.
Whether they speak the language of Molière or Shakespeare, Canadians everywhere have always done well at exporting our culture beyond our borders.
We all take great pride in this.
Unite the RightMr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to read this morning that negotiations to unite the right are proceeding at pace. Certainly Canadians would be better served if there were a viable opposition in the House of Commons, a voice that could criticize constructively.
So far, and I do not want you to take this as a criticism, Mr. Speaker, both the leader of the Canadian Alliance and the leader of the Conservatives have failed miserably.
But there is hope. Waiting outside with his chauffeur is former Ontario premier, Mike Harris.
Well, as an Ontario Liberal MP I cannot think of anyone I would rather see lead a united right. Considering his track record in Ontario, if Mr. Harris is over there, we will be over here leading the country for a very long time yet to come.
Jewish CommunityMs. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the start of a very important period for all of our fellow Canadians of the Jewish faith.
Today they are celebrating Rosh Hashanah.
The high holy days are governed by the lunar calendar, so they fall either in September or October. The ten-day period starts with Rosh Hashanah, which marks the start of the Jewish new year, and ends with the fast for Yom Kippur, the day of atonement.
Canada's Jewish community is an important component of Canadian society.
On this important day, I take this opportunity in the House to express the heartfelt wish of all Canadians for peace at last in the Middle East.
ReginaMr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mayor Pat Fiacco on his outstanding win by acclamation of a second term as mayor of Regina.
This outstanding feat has been accomplished only twice before in Regina's history. Mayor Fiacco has thrown a political knockout punch. His extraordinary dedication and enthusiasm have earned him tremendous popularity with Regina residents, thereby eliminating all contenders.
Mayor Fiacco's “I love Regina” campaign is boosting the image of the Queen's city, raising the level of pride in the citizens and building enthusiasm in the business community.
The city of Regina has a low cost of doing business, some of the friendliest people in Canada and a lifestyle second to none.
As a long time resident of the city of Regina, I too take great pride in saying with Mayor Fiacco “I love Regina”.
Police and Peace Officers National Memorial DayMr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend, thousands of police and peace officers will gather on Parliament Hill to honour colleagues who have died in the line of duty.
They meet annually to keep their memory alive and to ensure that the magnitude of their sacrifice will never be forgotten.
This year a young officer from Richmond, British Columbia will be honoured. Jimmy Ng was just 32 years old and a six year member of the RCMP when he was killed in the line of duty in a motor vehicle collision last September.
Jimmy was a well-respected and dedicated police officer. His fellow officers paid tribute to his memory last weekend outside the Richmond RCMP detachment by unveiling a plaque in his name and his honour. His colleagues fondly remembered him as an officer who “led by doing and showing” and exemplified the RCMP's core values of honesty, integrity and professionalism.
Jimmy is truly missed.
Journées de la cultureMr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is the opening day of the seventh annual Journées de la culture, which are being held all over Quebec.
Over the next three days, everyone is invited to take part in numerous activities organized in various cultural centres. This wonderful event is only possible because of the over 5,000 participants willing to share their passion for culture.
The Journées provide all of us with an opportunity to experience a number of different facets of Quebec's rich cultural tradition, through visual arts, poetry, arts and crafts, history, and the performing arts. Participants will be encouraged to choose their means of expression, and as a result will be more aware than ever of the importance of recognizing and safeguarding the cultural diversity of Quebec.
Everyone is invited to take this opportunity to let out the artist that lies within them.
Duke of Edinburgh AwardMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Chief Warrant Officer Paul Brown of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment, Army Cadet Corps., who was presented with the Duke of Edinburgh award by Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, last June 24.
The Duke of Edinburgh award is designed to help young people between the ages of 14 and 25 develop a sense of responsibility in themselves and their community by expanding their horizons. The award has evolved into one of the most comprehensive, personal achievement programs in the world.
Chief Warrant Officer Brown is presently studying business administration logistics at the Royal Military College in Kingston. A nine year contract that he signed with the Canadian military includes his four years at RMC and five years of work with a possible six month period overseas.
I want to congratulate him on this most prestigious award and I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavours.
Member for LaSalle—ÉmardMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal leader is not really new. He has a record.
He wrote the red book of broken promises: the promise to eliminate the GST, broken; the promise of an independent ethics counsellor, broken; and the promise of a sex offenders registry, broken. In 1999 he voted for marriage and just the other day he voted against it.
He claims he will end the democratic deficit but he blocks attempts by rivals to sign up new party members.
He is not a good manager. He inherited a robust economy which was none of his doing. He fudged the books by cutting health care and education transfers to the provinces and blamed them. He signed the cheques for the out of control billion dollar gun registry. He overcharged working Canadians by $45 billion on their EI premiums.
Only by Liberal standards would this be called good management.
SportsMr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House and congratulate a constituent in my riding of Brampton Centre, Ms. Alecia Brown, who won the bronze medal at the Pan-American junior track and field championships in Bridgetown, Barbados.
Alecia is a student at Central Peel Secondary School and a member of the Brampton Track and Field Club. She earned the bronze medal for running the second leg of Canada's 4x400 metre relay.
I urge my fellow members to join me in congratulating Ms. Alecia Brown and wishing her success in her studies and in her promising career in track and field.
Newfoundland and LabradorRex Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I have been recently informed that HRDC has decided to stop certain funding to zonal boards in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The labour market development agreement between the provincial and the federal governments expires in early October. This program has provided rural areas of the province with the expertise to develop longstanding employment so that rural areas are financially feasible.
The prime minister in waiting is promising new deals for cities. One has to wonder who will pay this price. People in rural areas know now who will be paying the price.
Eliminating funding from these zonal boards by changing the regulations for the labour market development program, the Liberal government is hurting the development of rural areas in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Police and Peace OfficersMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, next Sunday on Parliament Hill thousands of police and peace officers will pay homage to their colleagues who have died in the line of duty.
In the past year alone, six police and peace officers paid with their lives to ensure the safety and security of members of their communities.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and speaking personally as well, I would like to tell the family of Sûreté du Québec corporal Antonio Arsenault of Laval, and all the families who have lost a loved one over the years, how much we share their sorrow.
Police and Peace Officers National Memorial Day gives us an opportunity to express our thanks and recognition of the supreme sacrifice made by all these men and women.
In such circumstances, the comfort words can provide is small. Know, however, that we stand beside you, in heartfelt solidarity.
Carnegie MedalMr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today three Canadians are going to receive the Carnegie medal in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This prestigious medal is awarded to individuals who risk their lives to rescue other people from danger.
One recipient is George Haas, a farmer from Langenburg, Saskatchewan. Mr. Haas rescued two men when their truck overturned and became trapped in an ice covered pond, almost losing his own life in the process.
The second Canadian hero is William Gibb, who helped to break up a robbery in a store in Toronto and was stabbed and wounded in the struggle.
The third outstanding Canadian is Markham Bunnah from Calgary. He is being recognized for saving a man from the icy waters of the Bow River.
The Carnegie medal is inspired by rescue stories and was started in the United States in 1904.
These outstanding people and their selfless and brave actions illustrate how ordinary Canadians are capable of extraordinary feats when circumstances call for it.
On behalf of the House I would like to congratulate all three Canadian recipients of the Carnegie medal, true life heroes.
Carol ShieldsMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Carol Shields, one of Canada's most loved writers, passed away this summer, leaving her husband Donald, her family, and thousands who counted themselves friends.
With her insight into human nature, Carol cut through pretension and lit up ordinary lives and brought dignity to them.
She began writing at 41 after her five children were in school and then wrote nine novels, many short stories, poetry and plays. Her books, such as The Stone Diaries , Larry's Party and Unless , won many prizes, including the Pulitzer, the Governor General's award and the Order of Canada.
Life in all of its complications was her material. When she was diagnosed with cancer it became just another part of life to understand, like child bearing, sex or choosing curtain fabric. In her last years, she brought together women from across the country in the book project called Dropped Threads .
Gay and straight, young and old, those dealing with loss, illness, joy, great love, memories, hopes and violence: in the midst of the stress in our lives today she got us talking to one another again and listening.
We thank you for that gift, Carol. We will keep the faith.
Crime PreventionMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre has launched a new training project to teach women and girls about personal security and assertiveness.
Called the Empowerment Project, the program will train rape crisis centre staff and others in how to instruct women and girls to avoid and fend off sexual assault.
This project was supported by the National Crime Prevention Strategy, the New Brunswick Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Foundation. It will be used throughout Canada and some parts of the United States.
Frederictonians and indeed all Canadians should be proud of the program's creator, Mary Whiteside-Lantz, as well as Lorraine Whalley and her team at the Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre for this important work, work that will make a difference in the lives of women and girls throughout North America.
Beef IndustryKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, you would not believe how incredibly difficult this summer has been for the farmers. The closing of the U.S. border to the export of our beef is devastating the industry.
I am sure that the agriculture minister, the finance minister and both prime ministers have a total incapacity to understand the meaning of losing 85% or 90% of their income.
I have a large number of people in my riding who depend on the beef industry. I think of the Andersons, who operate a major feedlot and who are expecting their fourth child. Producing high quality beef is their livelihood and it is evaporating.
There are hundreds like them and this government seems to have no concern for them at all.
Imagine: these Liberals voted against an opposition motion to send a high level delegation to Washington and to make an extraordinary effort to reopen the border. Maybe the motion confused them, because it referred to the Prime Minister and right now we do not have one.
TelecommunicationsMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning cabinet tabled its response to the recommendations made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in its latest report entitled, “Opening Canadian Telecommunications to the World”. The endorsement by the government of the committee's recommendations is yet another example of hard work by parliamentarians.
This past April, the standing committee tabled a report in Parliament on Canada's foreign investment restrictions applicable to telecommunications common carriers. The mandate of the committee was to solicit views on Canada's foreign direct investment restrictions.
The recommendations contained in this report will help to improve investment and innovation in the Canadian telecommunications sector, provide better services to consumers and achieve the government's telecommunications policy goals.
This process is a perfect example of the way in which individual members really can make a difference on public policy.

Oral Question Period
AgricultureMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the government for months about a marketing strategy for Canadian beef.
Public trust must be restored. Where is the public ad campaign to promote the beef industry and what is the government's plan?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that through the work of the government and the industry it is being demonstrated very clearly that the Canadian beef product is completely safe. It has been recognized by other countries in the world by opening their borders in ways that have never happened before as far as receiving product from a BSE country goes.
That has also been recognized in the numbers. Canadian consumers purchased 62% more beef in July of this year than last year and 72% more in August than they did last year. The beef is moving and we just need to continue to work--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent answer from the member whose government gives millions to millionaires and pennies to seniors.
Other livestock industries are being affected by the BSE scare: sheep, bison and cervids. Borders and markets must be opened and kept open for these Canadian products as well. Where is the government's plan for marketing alternative livestock?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, when the markets in the United States opened and when the markets in Mexico were opened those markets were opened in the very same way for the other ruminants, for all the other ruminants, as they have been for beef. The hon. member knows that. I am sure she read the press release. I am sure she read the information that is out there.
It is the science, it is the record of the Canadian beef industry and it is the work of our processing plants and the work of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that have had recognition given to Canada that has not been given to any other country in the world. We will keep building on that.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian livestock industry is going to change its name to Bombardier.
Canadian producers know that until our borders open to year round access to American feeder cattle the American border will remain closed to ours. This has been an issue for 10 years. Will the government agree to reverse its position and get all the borders open?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to realize, so I will remind her and others again, that no other countries have had the borders opened such as we have. Unfortunately, we had a cow back in May with BSE, which puts us in the category that we are now a BSE country. Other countries in the world usually do not import products from countries that had a case of BSE, but our track record, our science and the work that has been done, that has been the strategy, and it is working.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister just gets more bizarre, trying to dodge the bullet for allowing the unbridled growth of bogus visa schools.
Now his office says not to worry. When visa officers see a dubious acceptance letter they investigate and even visit the school themselves.
That is really strange, because student visas are processed at missions abroad.
Would the minister care to explain how an officer in Beijing or New Delhi can personally visit and check out a bogus school operating in Canada?
Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we take each and every application for student visas very seriously. They have to go through the examination and a security check and medical check. Further, we check every document we receive from the school. If the school provides false documents we make sure we investigate that.
I would also like to remind the member that certification of the schools is under provincial jurisdiction. We do not look at the school certificate. Provincial governments provide the certificate for bona fide schools.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, that is complete nonsense. It is up to the government to decide how it processes its applications.
What our officers abroad say is that they are ordered to accept any and all student visa applications unless they absolutely know that a school does not exist. That is pretty hard to know from the other side of the planet.
They have appealed to Ottawa to shut down bogus visa schools. They have even given the minister a list of the worst offenders. Yet unbelievably the minister has done absolutely nothing to stop this rip-off of foreign students, to plug a security loophole.
Why have the Liberals not cleaned up these bogus visa schools?
Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, education is a provincial jurisdiction. If the hon. member is proposing that we go into the provincial jurisdiction, she should make that very clear to us. If she gives us a letter from the minister of education in Alberta telling us to get involved in education in Alberta, we probably would consider it.
HealthMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in February, the Prime Minister committed to providing Quebec and the provinces with $2 billion for health. But the government has been trying to renege on its commitment ever since, using the SARS and mad cow crises, the power blackout and even the forest fires in British Columbia as an excuse.
Should the surplus not be as expected, will the Minister of Finance commit to using the contingency reserve—after all a contingency reserve is for contingencies—to ensure that the $2 billion for health is actually provided to Quebec and the provinces as promised, instead of focusing exclusively on the debt?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear what was specifically promised in January in terms of the health accord.
The Government of Canada committed, and I quote, “to provide up to an additional $2.0 billion for health for the provinces and territories at the end of fiscal year 2003-04, if the Minister of Finance determines during the month of January 2004 that there will be a sufficient surplus above the normal Contingency Reserve to permit such an investment”.
That is what we committed to do and what we are going to do.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance seems to be drawing inspiration for his priorities from his new leader: pay down the debt at all cost, and the heck with health.
Given that health care is first and foremost in the minds of people, should the surplus not materialize, will the Minister of Finance set debt repayment, which happens to be his new leader's priority, aside just a tad and use his contingency reserve to ensure the sick that the $2 billion earmarked for health will be provided to Quebec and the provinces, no matter what?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, that is a switch. The Bloc Quebecois always complained that the surpluses were too high. Now, it is noticing that they are lower, but keeps asking for money just the same.
The greatest threat to our health care system, in my view, is the current debt load. We must therefore, with the help of the population, make an effort to reduce the debt so that future generations can afford a health care system.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows full well that the debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the G7. This is no excuse.
When it comes to interfering in provincial jurisdictions to impose unnecessary structures, the federal government is always willing and able. However, when the time comes to provide money promised for public health care, then the government is elusive and tries to escape its obligations.
Will the Minister of Finance stop being elusive and commit to immediately paying the $2 billion promised to Quebec and the provinces for public health care?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, did the member not listen to the answer? Does he not exactly understand the promise that was made? We committed to do exactly what was promised in the health accord in January.
We have improved the debt situation. We are no longer the worst country in the G-7, even though we are still not the best. The debt is a major burden for future generations and we have to continue making progress in this area as well.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, when Roy Romanow suggested creating structures like the Health Council, the government obviously thought it was an excellent suggestion, since it followed through on it.
Can the Minister of Finance explain why he is not as eager to follow Mr. Romanow's recommendation to go to the contingency reserve, if necessary, for the $2 billion he promised the provinces and Quebec?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we made a promise and we are going to keep it. It is still on the table. Today is September 26. It is not January. We will see in January how much of a surplus we have.
If possible, we will give the provinces money. But first, promises must be kept on both sides.
Human Resources DevelopmentMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, while the new Liberal leader is gallivanting around the country promising new money to the urban centres, rural Canada is under attack.
HRDC has announced it will be cutting funding to the Newfoundland-Canada Labour Market Development Agreement on October 3. This agreement has an annual budget of $130 million, which is directly aimed to rural communities in Canada. At the same time, rural post offices are being stamped out and lighthouses are in the dark as to their future.
How can government justify this double standard in this great country?
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, the department's mandate is to enable people to acquire the necessary skills for their own economic and social development. Naturally, I would like to state clearly that the department is not reducing financing for the labour market partnership program. Rather, the issue is whether or not the program funds should be used to pay the salaries of Canada Economic Development officers.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the government is pushing and pulling at the same time, and there is another expression similar to that.
Right now, infrastructure in Canada is crumbling. It will take $400 million to bring the wharfs up to standard, and now the Newfoundland-Canada Labour Market Development Agreement is soon going to be out the window.
Will the minister responsible for HRDC immediately reconsider cutting the labour market development agreement and put $130 million into an area where it can do good, not only for the government but--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, even though we are aware of the importance of Canada Economic Development, its activities are managed by regional agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We have adopted a collaborative approach in order to ensure that the province and the regional economic councils properly understand the requirements of the program.
HealthMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a left wing MP I have just about had it with all of this unite the right stuff.
First the Liberals elect the most right wing leader in their party's history, and now the flirting is leading to heavy petting between the right light and the ultra right wing extremist party. I for one do not think much of the direction that this Parliament is going in.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister show Canadians that he has not completely capitulated to this right wing drift, and will he stand with us today and denounce the privatization of health care and the building of private hospitals? Just what has he done--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the Canada Health Act is there to ensure that all Canadians receive the health care they need, at public expense. I am trying to understand what is meant exactly by all this talk of privatized health care, when we know very well that the Canadian health system is there for all Canadians who need care, and this will continue to be the case.
AgricultureMr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knows that most of the 500,000 government and taxpayer dollars resulting from one mad cow went to Alberta feedlot operators. It helps explain why farmers in other provinces are beginning to liquidate a portion of their herd. In fact, a former agricultural economist and current leader of the Alberta Liberal Party said:

This program has to be the worst thought-out support program of all of the ag support programs I have studied in 35 years of ag policy work.

Why did the minister sign on to such a flawed, inequitable program that benefits a fortunate few at the expense of so many cattle producers?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly not the opinion of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and representatives of all provinces.
The program was put in place in cooperation with the provinces and with the encouragement of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in order to move fat cattle to market. Immediately after the May announcement, we were slaughtering about 25,000 cattle a week. By the end of the program, we were slaughtering 73,000 animals a week, which were more animals than we were slaughtering per week before we announced that we had an unfortunate case of one animal with BSE.
TaxationMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as a right wing MP I am feeling kind of amorous right now.
Yesterday, the new Liberal leader made a budget announcement to the municipalities. He told them that they were going to get to keep their fuel tax revenues. Of course he did not say how much or where the money would come from or when. He said it would all have to be negotiated with the provinces. It sounds like he dashed it off on the back of a napkin.
Has the Minister of Finance been briefed on this plan, and if not, why not?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to resist the temptation to comment on the amorous condition of the member for Medicine Hat. I do hope he stays on his side of the aisle though. However, I like him too.
What is important in discussing the plight of cities in Canada is the issue that has been repeatedly raised by them and by provincial governments as well, and that is the predictability of revenue resources for municipalities. We have tried to address that over the last three budgets with $7 billion of support--
The Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt the love-in. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that sounded like a pretty intolerant statement, I must say.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if we could get to the question. Let us try one more time. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is supposed to be charting the future economic direction of the country, but if he does not know what the heck is going on, if his current Liberal leader is not telling him what is going on, obviously he cannot do that.
Does the Minister of Finance get a briefing from the new Liberal leader on these things, or is he just kind of making it up as he goes along?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear. There is one government at a time.
We have made clear, in our last budget, our commitment to Canada's municipalities with a further $3 billion commitment to infrastructure. Whether we calculate that on the basis of a percentage of existing revenues from a particular source, a dedicated amount of fuel tax, or whether we simply set it out as a sum that can be relied upon by the municipalities, the result is pretty much the same thing.
The result is a better opportunity for Canadian municipalities to rely on revenue in the future so that they can meet their infrastructure requirements.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the future prime minister has said more than once that he intends to get directly involved in municipal affairs by giving municipalities a portion of the gasoline excise tax. He also says he is looking for other ways to help them.
Could the Minister of Finance tell his next boss that the means are there and they are very simple? It is called the division of powers. If there is money for the municipalities, let him give it to Quebec and the provinces, which would certainly know how to invest it wisely where needed.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, as has been said in this House over the past few days, Canadians are concerned not only about the quality of infrastructure in Canada, but also about affordable housing. In Canada, the federal government has long been responsible for this.
The government has been doing this since 1994. We will be able to continue with these partnerships with all levels of government.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, this is not about existing programs. The future prime minister has a new approach, which will be to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants, without any respect for the division of powers that has existed for over one hundred years.
Could the Minister of Finance also tell him that Quebec and the provinces do not share his enthusiasm?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, as was the case with the first infrastructure program in 1994, if other levels of government do not want to take money from the federal government, they do not have to.
But we have already dedicated $7 billion, over three budgets, to fund municipal and strategic infrastructure in Canada; I think that all municipalities and all provinces were very happy to cooperate with the federal government on infrastructure.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, each year the federal government guarantees the initial price of grain sold by western Canadian farmers. Each grade and pool of grain has a separate account. The Canadian Wheat Board is then supposed to market that grain at a higher price. This did not happen last year. In 2002-03 we had a complete marketing disaster. Canadian taxpayers are left on the hook for any shortfalls.
My question for the minister is, how many of the pool accounts are in deficit and what is the total amount of that deficit?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the accounting work for the last crop year is not yet completed. When that accounting work is completed, all of the information will be made public in the normal manner.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it does not add up. We are three months past the end of the crop year and farmers still do not know what their final 2002-03 prices are.
Farmers are actually beginning to suspect that this year's crop and this year's money is being used to finance last year's deficit and last year's marketing failure.
I am going to ask the minister this, has the Canadian Wheat Board been illegally using this year's grain sales to bring last year's pool accounts out of the hole?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman clearly does not know the rules that apply to the Canadian Wheat Board, the accounting practices of the Wheat Board, the manner in which one crop year is brought to an end, and how the marketing of a new crop year is undertaken. All of that is clearly within the rules that are established under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the regulations.
In terms of the day-to-day administration, that is the responsibility of the duly elected directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this past March, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us that, following on the $25 million cut to the Canadian Television Fund, the government would be investing in the CBC this year instead of the public sector television fund.
How then can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain the $10 million in cuts that have been announced, in light of her expressed intent to invest in the CBC?
Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the government has always held the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in high esteem, and its budgets prove this. We have given close to $1 billion to the CBC annually. In the past two years, there has been an additional $60 million. This year, we decided on an additional $50 million.
We do, of course, expect this corporation, which has an independent executive and board of governors, to make the best administrative decisions and to fully respect its employees' rights.
Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's convoluted answers satisfy neither the public nor the employees of the CBC. Her government must provide a real answer.
After the recommendations by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage regarding the need for stable funding for the coming years, after the promises made by the heritage minister this past March, what real explanation can there be for this further $10 million cut?
Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Speaker, it is simple. At the present time, a reallocation process is under way, as announced by the Minister of Finance in the last budget. This process affects the CBC, as it does all other agencies under the responsibility of Canadian Heritage.
Softwood LumberMr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on May 15 I asked the Minister of Natural Resources how much longer communities must wait to receive assistance through the softwood lumber aid package and the minister waffled. Here we are, five months later, and communities and workers in my riding are still waiting.
Why is the government so insensitive to the needs of small communities affected by this dispute? Where is the money?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I responded yesterday, and I think the hon. member should take the time to study the file, we announced $3.5 million to support communities under the community adjustment program.
Obviously his colleague who asked the question yesterday did not even know that in his own riding we put in $310,000 to support the community and his colleague was up asking questions again.
The same hon. member should take the time to read the information so he knows the good work that is being done by WED through this fund to support communities right across British Columbia.
Andy Burton: Mr. Speaker, that is a lousy 3% of the total that the government announced in the past. Announcements do not cut it. They do not put bread and butter on the table of displaced workers.
Yesterday, yes, my colleague from Nanaimo asked a similar question, but basically received more waffling. The fact of the matter is very little assistance has gone to softwood lumber dependent communities.
So I ask again, why has the government failed to assist workers who have been drastically affected by the softwood lumber dispute? Why is it that the Liberals make an awful lot of announcements but do not keep very many promises?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, once again this hon. member should take the time to study the figures. The amount of money that was allocated toward British Columbia was $50 million. Out of that $50 million, we have announced $3.5 million. Over the weeks and months ahead, there will be more money announced.
In fact, we have 1,100 applications of excellent projects throughout the Province of British Columbia to support those communities that have been hurt hardest by the duties that we are working very hard with the Americans to remove.
But the hon. member should stand--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Oakville.
HealthBonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, on September 4 ministers of health committed to move ahead with work to create a health council, a key component of the 2003 first ministers' accord on health care renewal.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health update the House on what steps are being taken by the federal government to set up and to name members to this new health council?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question, which is certainly an important one for all Canadians.
I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that the Minister of Health announced yesterday that the Government of Canada is inviting the public to submit the names of potential candidates for expert and public representatives on the council. People can submit their suggestions via Health Canada's website or in writing.
The creation of the Health Council clearly reflects this government's commitment to enhance, for the public, transparency and accountability in the Canadian health care system.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a Fisheries and Oceans Canada member of Parliament inquiry form. It states:

All staff are required to report contacts with members of Parliament, senators or their representatives within 24 hours of contact.

I find this a bit puzzling. No other government department has it. It amounts to nothing less than intimidation of DFO officials.
The question is simple. Does the minister not trust his department or is he deliberately trying to keep information from Parliament?
Mr. Georges Farrah (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty following the hon. member's reasoning. Our staff is not forbidden from talking to members of Parliament. Our goal is simply to ensure good service. By keeping the minister abreast of the kind of questions being asked, we want to ensure that our employees provide members with excellent answers.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, half the time that a member of Parliament who represents the coastal area in Canada calls DFO, he is calling for a simple question such as when is the clam season going to open. It is not really complicated.
Let us take a look at the facts. The combined budget of DFO and the Coast Guard has shrunk by $44 million, forcing the elimination of search and rescue helicopters and other services. Is this why the minister has placed the gag order on his department? Why else would he apply pressure to control what DFO officers and employees are saying to members of Parliament?
Georges Farrah: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said. I think there would be a problem if the minister did not allow employees to talk to members of Parliament. If that were the case, I could see that this would be a problem. But in this instance, all we are doing is ensuring that members are properly informed about our files and how their files are being handled. I do not see any problem with that.
Electoral SystemHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As he is aware, his own member of Parliament, who is the Liberal leader in Ontario, supports a referendum on changing the voting system, just like the Ontario NDP favours changing the voting system. Yet we have heard all week from the government why it does not like the idea of proportional representation. However, that is not the question. The question is whether or not the citizens of this country like proportional representation.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is, will the Liberal Party support the NDP motion next week which will call for a national referendum on changing our voting system?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is the identical question that was asked yesterday.
The hon. member is putting forward to us a proposition that MPs without constituents are better than MPs representing constituencies. I happen to think that members representing Canadians are better than those who are not elected to represent constituencies.
The member is entitled to his point of view. I think we are entitled to have Canadians represented in Parliament by people from their own community, by one of their own. It is a fundamental principle.
Foreign AffairsMr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Today is the first anniversary of the United States' arrest and deportation to Syria of Maher Arar.
Yesterday the RCMP assistant commissioner stonewalled in committee and refused to say what information the RCMP had passed on to the United States about Arar.
Will the minister now answer that question? Will he stand up for this Canadian citizen and confirm that Canada has absolutely no evidence linking Maher Arar to terrorism?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I reject the allegation of the member that the RCMP stonewalled at committee. They did not.
The RCMP in fact laid out the facts, and the facts are these: The RCMP were not involved in the decision by the United States' authority to arrest and deport Mr. Arar. Nor was the RCMP involved in making suggestions to the Americans that Mr. Arar be deported to Syria.
Those are the facts and the member should understand that. Those are the facts and I cannot say more than that.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyRahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for customs has kept Canadians in the dark about the Liberals' hollow border policy. Documents obtained by my office from CCRA prove that the minister is complicit in concealing the real facts.
For example, when asked in committee last May how many alleged criminals were fleeing past customs officers, she replied, “Just a few dozen people a year”. The documents peg that number at 176.
Did the minister know this real number when she testified, or is it just incompetence?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been always open, forthcoming and giving information to the member, to committees and to all Canadians as I have answered questions in the House.
The member should know that he is creating an absolute wrong impression when he talks about our customs officers on the front lines who have the tools, the dedication, the competence to do the job to ensure that Canada is on the leading edge of customs in the world. We work very closely with the Americans. I am proud of what we do. They have the tools. We have hired an additional 450 since September 11.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing about providing information but it is another thing about providing accurate information and the minister should learn about that.
The minister has said that if someone fails to stop at customs, the standard procedure is to call the local police detachment. In the province of Quebec the average distance between 11 border crossings and the local Sûreté du Québec detachment in the eastern townships is 41 kilometres. The closest police presence to the customs agency at the Dorval airport is 10 kilometres.
When will she stop putting Canadian lives at risk and commit to arming customs officers, making them a full police force? As she says, give them the resources they need.
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, we have had this discussion before. I have said very clearly to the House that it is not the policy of the government to arm customs officers. We take the advice from the commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Zaccardelli. We had an outside expert review this.
I will say to the member that when we need the police, they are there for us, whether it is the local police or the RCMP. They are important partners and they are doing a very good job in helping our customs officers do their job on the borders.
Employment InsuranceMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first the Canadian Labour Congress and now Statistics Canada has confirmed what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying for years: the employment situation of women is not improving but worsening.
What will it take for the Minister of Human Resources Development to do something, when all the signs are pointing in the same direction and telling her that things are getting worse for women?
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois for her question. This gives me the opportunity to inform the House that the report in question continues to track various factors not always related to workers, such as students and people who were self-employed. The facts do not reflect the reality, since according to the monitoring and assessment reports, nearly 90% of individuals losing their jobs would be eligible for employment insurance benefits.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that Statistics Canada would make such mistakes. The report states that 40% of seasonal workers are not entitled to employment insurance and, furthermore, that the majority of these workers are women.
What concrete actions does the Minister intend to take in order to immediately improve the treatment of women in the workforce, particularly those who are seasonal workers?
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, a high number of women have had access, since the changes in 1996, to employment insurance. Statistically, 96% of women are entitled to employment insurance, compared to 95% of men. Some 55% of women working part time are eligible, compared to 41% of men working part time. This proves yet again that the changes we made to employment insurance are yielding results.
Liberal GovernmentMr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the PM's chief of staff, Eddie Goldenberg, has told his bureaucrats, “We have been caught on the expense accounts so we had better smarten up”. Well, the government was caught on Shawinigate. It was caught on the Groupaction scandal. It was caught on the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle.
Why is it that the Liberal government's specialty seems to be to spend money on themselves and keep getting caught wasting billions of dollars of money which provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to any Canadian except themselves?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely normal that regular reminders are made about the standards expected of the government and its political staff, especially since there now is a formal, official code of values and ethics that everyone must respect.
Thus, it is normal for executive assistants or deputy ministers to remind their staff that they must always act in the public interest.
John Williams: Mr. Speaker, this is the whole point. They wait until it has all fallen apart before they say follow the rules. From champagne Charlie Boyer who spent $30,000 to the gun registry that cost us a billion dollars, it always seem to be money down the drain.
My question for the Prime Minister is, how can Canadian taxpayers have any confidence whatsoever in this tired Liberal government or any government for that matter which continues to waste money and cannot even run the country efficiently?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to hold two positions at the same time; on the one hand, demanding that controls within the government be strengthened, and on the other, being shocked when one discovers activities that should not have happened.
When we strengthen all the modern control functions in the Government of Canada, when we strengthen all internal audit policies, and when we now have better information provided by internal auditors, it is absolutely normal to do so transparently, so that all members of Parliament will be up to date on—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.
AfghanistanMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
We are all aware of the superb job the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan to provide security assistance to the provisional government of Hamid Karzai, but Canadians are less aware of the significant reconstruction efforts that are being conducted by Canadian Forces. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could provide us with some details.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we are also aware on this side of the House of the superb job done by the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Canada has pledged $250 million for reconstruction in Afghanistan over the next two years. The Canadian Forces as part of their efforts in Afghanistan work with local people to rebuild schools, provide safe drinking water, rebuild health facilities. On this side of the House we are very proud of the remarkable contribution that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are making to make Afghanistan a stable and safe country.
National DefenceMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the chief of the defence staff, General Henault, recently said that our armed forces were in danger of becoming irrelevant unless there was a significant input of money to address rust out. In fact, one of our sailors recently said, “If there are no parts to be had anywhere in Canada except off other ships, you know you are really hurting”.
My question for the minister is simply this: Why has the government and the minister reduced our military to scavenging for parts from other ships in order to do their job?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of National Defence have shown remarkable success in achieving greater funding for the Department of National Defence. The member knows very well that in the last budget the Minister of Finance allocated $800 million of new money for the Department of National Defence.
The member talked about the problem of spare parts. One of the main expenditures was $221 million that the defence department was allocating to restock spare parts.
We are very committed to a strong and stable Department of National Defence.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, there must be some significant disconnect between the commitment of the government and what the chief of the defence staff is saying now about the irrelevancy of our military because they do not have the tools to do the job.
On the issue of personnel, on the HMCS Calgary its combat teams and officers have spent 47 out of the last 52 weeks in the theatre away from their families. This is hurting them and it is hurting their families. They are utterly burned out.
Will the minister and the government commit to a 20% increase in manpower for our military today?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, many times the government has talked about the importance of retention and recruitment in the Canadian armed forces.
The quality of life agenda was a priority for the previous minister of defence and it is a priority for the present minister of defence. Part of that is ensuring that we have the personnel to do the jobs that we ask the armed forces to do.
I have every reason to think that the Canadian armed forces will be very successful in recruiting the people it needs and retaining the people it needs to do the wonderful job they are doing.
AgricultureMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the federal government refused to take its responsibilities, the Government of Quebec was forced to launch the second phase of its own plan to help farm producers who are victims of the mad cow crisis.
The minister should stop talking about the agricultural policy framework because farmers simply do not want it. Does the minister intend to implement a specific program for dealing with the mad cow crisis, as requested by farmers?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly ready to help farmers more than we have to date and we are already for those provinces that have signed the implementation agreement. That implementation agreement is there with the province of Quebec.
I have had signing authority since last spring and would be more than pleased to sign that document. That will move even more money into the province of Quebec to help beef farmers and other farmers.
Foreign AffairsSvend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question again is for the Solicitor General. Canadians are more and more concerned about this government's abdication of its responsibility to Canadian citizens overseas, whether it is William Sampson, Zahra Kazemi or Maher Arar.
I want to ask this minister a very specific question. Will the minister confirm to the House that in fact the RCMP did supply information to United States authorities with respect to Maher Arar before he was arrested, held for 12 days incommunicado and deported?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. As well, the RCMP before committee yesterday answered that question. The RCMP was not involved in the decision made by the United States authorities to arrest and deport Mr. Arar and the RCMP did not at any time suggest to the United States authorities that Mr. Arar should be deported to the United States.
As far as the Government of Canada goes, we have been trying our utmost to bring Mr. Arar back to Canada. The Prime Minister sent his personal envoy and foreign affairs has been working on that extensively.
Firearms RegistryMr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in tracking stolen guns over the past five years, the federal gun registry has matched only 4,438 firearms with the descriptions of more than 101,000 stolen weapons that the firearms centre attempted to trace. What a success rate, less than 5%, or put another way, a failure rate of more than 95%
With the current $1 billion price tag, that is about $225,000 per firearm and now the registry is looking for another $10 million. At what percentage beyond 95% does the government consider the gun registry program a failure?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, first, I reject the comment that the member made about the $10 million of new spending. I have answered that previously. That is not new spending. The firearms registry is not spending a cent more than what we outlined in our targets in the beginning.
As far as the hon. member's question goes specifically, he should be congratulating us. What he is really saying is the firearms system is working in tracing stolen and unregistered guns. That is where it is really working.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, four female employees of the RCMP, who reportedly were victims of harassment and sexual assault, are not only suing their former superior, who allegedly committed the offences, but also the RCMP, which, according to them, did everything it could to cover up the affair and thwart an internal investigation.
Despite the fact that this case is before the courts, and beyond these specific cases, does the minister intend to review the RCMP internal investigation service to ensure that the rights of victims and whistle-blowers are not being sacrificed to save their superiors' honour?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member himself has said in his remarks that this issue is before the courts and certainly it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
The commissioner of the RCMP is responsible for the operations of the RCMP and takes the matter very seriously.
TransportationRex Barnes: Mr. Speaker, in April of 2000 the Minister of Transport promised the disability community across Canada that new passenger rail cars would be accessible to all persons with disabilities. The Canadian Transportation Agency has ruled that these cars still present obstacles for persons with disabilities.
Why has the minister not kept his promise?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and I will bring it to the attention of the minister at once. I will take this question under advisement.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both officials languages, the government's response to four petitions.
PetitionsLarry Spencer: Mr. Speaker, still thousands of people across our nation are concerned about the marriage issue.
I have two petitions today signed by many members across the country. The petitioners ask Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage.
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from my riding of Red Deer today.
The first group of 359 are petitioning the government to retain the protection in the Criminal Code for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by 71 constituents, calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifetime union of a man and a woman.
Questions on the Order PaperRodger Cuzner: 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-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short interruption to my speech, it being only a little over an hour. I do not know if I hold the record on an interrupted speech but there was one time when I was interrupted and then the bill that I was speaking on was not called for a couple of days less than a year. I started my speech over by saying, “as I was saying when I was interrupted”, and I will not do that today.
I have only a few more points to make on Bill C-37. I draw attention to the fact that with Bill C-37 finally reserve troops are drawn into the pension plan for the armed forces. This again is another item which is long overdue and which I would commend. As a matter of fact, if Canadians were to look at one way in which they could get a lot of value for money, strengthening the reserve forces in Canada would almost certainly be one of those ways.
I know there are other countries in the world that rely very heavily on reserve forces. Perhaps instead of spending a billion dollars on registering duck hunters and threatening to take away their guns if they do not comply with these administrative rules, we might better off issuing rifles to reservists, making it a part of the condition of their having a gun that they take the training and that they be ready to be called upon in case they are needed.
That is perhaps a facetious statement, but certainly the reservists have a great deal to offer the armed forces and the people of Canada. There are many times when there is an emergency that occurs in some part of our country. At that stage, instead of using our regular troops, we could call upon the reservists to help, especially when it comes to helping domestically. I think that would be a very good return on our money.
In any case, Bill C-37 draws them into the pension plan as well. Full time reservists would receive a partial benefit. For those who are part timers, it is a little less generous, but that is fair enough since most reservists have other full time employment and are able to look after their retirement needs in that way.
I would like to comment briefly about the schedule. There are two problems that I have with the bill. One is that there is an awful lot in this bill that will be done by regulation, by order in council. I have spoken on this topic before and I will reiterate it.
The ministers have a great deal of unilateral power when it comes to regulations. If anything needs to be strengthened in our parliamentary system, it needs to be the scrutiny of those regulations. We have a parliamentary committee that does that, but generally it has only the capacity to respond when there are complaints or issues are drawn to its attention.
While it is obviously administratively necessary, we should have perhaps more debate and more public input into decisions that are made and that are proclaimed by regulation.
My final statement on Bill C-37 is that it is long overdue. I commend the government for doing it now but I need to point out very emphatically that looking after of the pension scheme for our armed forces personnel and for our RCMP officers is a need which has been there for a long time. While commending the government for doing it now, I would like to also chastise it for having taken so long to get to this important issue.
Probably most of the members on this side of the House, as certainly on the other side, will be supporting this measure.
I would like to conclude my speech as I began it and that is by thanking the people in our armed forces for the good work they do. I hope that by supporting this measure, we are giving a tangible arm to the support that we are giving them.
Business of the HouseDon Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been conversations among all parties in the House and I think you would find consent for the following:

That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-37 later this day, the House shall immediately proceed to private members's business and at the conclusion thereof the motion shall be deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred until Wednesday, October 1 at the conclusion of government orders.

The motion I am referring to is the private member's motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. You will have understood that this is, quite simply, a modernization of the Canadian Forces pension plan.
That is exactly what it is, a bill to update a pension plan badly in need of improvement. WIth the improvements in this bill, the plan will move closer to the pension plan currently available to the Canadian public service.
The most important changes are the following: provision of a pension for members of the reserve; reduction of the number of years required for eligibility; enhanced transferability of pension credits; eligibility no longer tied to period of engagement; pension after 25 years service.
Let us look a little closer at this. Reservists will, at last, no longer be left out, and it is high time there was such a change. This bill finally entitles them to pensions, which was not previously the case. This is a good thing: finally acknowledging the work of the men and women of the reserve.
In future, given the serious recruitment problem it is experiencing, the Canadian Forces will have to depend increasingly on reservists for its various missions and operations, both here and abroad.
Since military service in the reserve is voluntary here in Canada, the Canadian Forces need to make reserve service as attractive and worthwhile as possible.
We are of the opinion, therefore, that making reservists eligible for the same pension as members of the regular forces will make the reserve more attractive and as a result able to play a more vital role in augmenting, maintaining and mobilizing the armed forces.
Calling upon the federal government to improve the situation of the reserve forces is nothing new, nor is the demand for them to be treated as members of the regular forces.
Pension coverage for reserve force members was studied in detail in the late 1980s. The study resulted in the introduction of the reserve force retirement gratuity program, an initiative that, in effect, is a form of severance pay. This program was considered to be a reasonable and effective alternative to a traditional pension, given the reserve force work patterns and the fact that most reserve members typically have full-time duties and pension plans with other employers.
Pressures continued, however, for the implementation of more conventional pension arrangements for reserve members. The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommended the creation of “a real pension plan” for Canada's Reserve Force in its 1998 Quality of Life report.
Subsequently, as part of the 1999 federal pension reform initiative, Parliament approved amendments to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to allow the establishment of a reserve pension plan through regulations.
This goes to show that the government did not invent anything. The Bloc Quebecois applauds the fact that the federal government finally put these recommendations into a bill, but at the same time we wonder why it took so long do so. Nearly five years have gone by since the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs made the recommendation. Perhaps the effective strength of the reserve force would be greater if these recommendations had been acted on earlier.
In the same vein, much remains to be done with respect to recognizing the work of reservists. In the navy, reservists are too few and lack the training and experience to man all coastal defence vessels. As a result, many vessels are forced to stay in berth.
As for the army, it cannot man all vehicles, for lack of trained personnel. The reserve force could be a major asset in this case.
Finally, the air force is facing a serious shortage of pilots. However, it draws heavily on its retired personnel as a source of trained personnel. In the air force, reservists are often relegated to administrative duties. All this definitely needs to be reviewed.
All this to say that the changes proposed in this bill to improve the lives of reservists are all very good, but are just a first step. We only have to look at the latest requirements in terms of domestic security and defence to realize that the need for more trained and well-equipped reservists will surface sooner or later.
Therefore, the role of reservists will have to be reviewed and changed, based on our new needs. The time may have come to review our defence policy in order to reconsider the role of the reserve.
Let us now turn briefly to the reduction of the vesting period and the portaability of pension credits. That can get a bit more technical. The vesting period is the minimum period for qualifying for a pension. Right now, that period is 10 years, compared to 2 years in the federal public service.
The bill would bring the current requirements in line with what is provided for in the federal public service, which is a good thing. The Bloc Quebecois totally agrees with this new measure, which would allow soldiers to more qualify sooner for a pension and bring their pension plan in line with the federal public service pension plan.
On this issue of portability, the bill would allow soldiers entitled to a deferred pension to transfer the actuarial value of their pension to a prescribed retirement savings plan when they leave the armed forces. That is also a very thing, in our view.
Another interesting feature of this bill is that pension eligibility is being dissociated from terms of service. This means that the concept of period of engagement—a familiar term in the military world and one with intimate links to pension benefits—is being set aside and replaced by a pension system based on accumulated years of pensionable service.
To simplify things, we could compare the periods of engagement now used in the forces with fixed-term contracts in the civilian world. We can say that, until now, this system has perhaps help to retain some military personnel who are still fit for duty, but it has become clear that the system is not adapted to short-term or intermittent assignments which are sometimes necessary to support military operations today.
This new approach will also make re-enlistment easier since there should be no penalty for those who want to leave the armed forces. For example, a soldier could have temporary absences without losing his accumulated pension credits. In a period when recruitment and retention appear to be increasingly difficult for the Canadian Forces, such a measure would certainly make the task of the Department of National Defence somewhat easier, as it watches its personnel numbers drop well below the figures in the 1994 White Paper on Defence, which has still not been updated.
There is another measure which, at first glance, might also appear to be a way to encourage retention of military personnel, but which could just as well be a discouraging factor for those who wish to enlist. I am speaking of the new measure which would grant a pension after 25 years of military service, rather than 20, as is now the case.
This measure, which is the most remarkable one in the whole bill, is nothing short of a small revolution within the Canadian Forces. This measure would only apply to new recruits, which could leave to some envy. We are told that people who have already signed on for 20 years, will receive their pension after 20 years as planned, if they so wish. But, future members will not be entitled to receive their pension until after their 25th year of service. They are being asked to stay five extra years in the forces. This almost has the look of a two tier system, or a sort of orphan clause for new arrivals to the forces.
We realize that this is merely a way of retaining new members in the Canadian Forces a little longer and of increasing the numbers. As far as we can see, there is still a problem with recruiting.
Did the last intensive recruiting campaign, with bonuses for people in specialized fields, not go as planned? Is the number of members who are leaving the forces higher than in previous years? Is it really for these reasons that it was decided that pensionable service would increase from 20 to 25 years? We may never get the real answers.
Whatever the case may be, it is clear there is still a lot of work to be done to make the Canadian Forces more appealing. Its members' quality of life is, and will remain, the focus of our concern. Several thousands of Quebeckers are members of the Canadian Forces and they deserve all our attention. Whether they are stationed in Canada or abroad, their standard of living and well-being have to be protected. It is not because enlisting in the military is a personal and voluntary choice that we should neglect them.
The Bloc Quebecois will continue to be vigilant to ensure that current and future Quebec soldiers in the Canadian Forces are well treated.
Upon examination, we find that this bill is a good step toward improving the quality of life of our military personnel. That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of this bill.
However, some aspects will require further examination, such as the possibility that the government will use regulations to legislate various components in the bill. One of these days we should perhaps examine the Liberal government's new approach to legislation which increasingly allows the Governor in Council to legislate using regulations instead of consulting parliamentarians in the House of Commons.
The explanation will be that it is much faster and more effective, but is it truly more democratic?
Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of a matter of great importance to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve, and a matter that should be of great importance, not only to the Parliament of Canada but to all Canadians.
At its heart, the legislation has the noble purpose of improving the quality of life for those who serve in our military. As such, it should not come as a surprise to learn that it has the support of members on both sides of the House.
It goes without saying, however, that the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve personnel are among our most courageous citizens. They devote the best years of their lives, at great risk, to the protection of this country and its people.
In return, we owe them a duty of care. That duty of care extends to ensuring that they are properly equipped and appropriately compensated for the extraordinary service they offer the people of Canada. I also would say, with the peacekeeping missions that Canadian soldiers have served in the last 50 years, we should recognize the protection that they afford the people all around the world.
The Progressive Conservative Party has many disputes with the government with respect to the larger defence policy issues. There is no dispute at all, however, when it comes to the need to give our men and women in uniform the very best.
The modernization of the military and reserve pension schemes are things that are long overdue.
In the post-cold war world the Canadian military has undergone some very significant changes. Some of these changes speak directly to the demographics of those who are prepared to and those who continue to serve in uniform. The military pension scheme must be sufficiently flexible to reflect those changes and to ensure that our military men and women receive the very best pension possible.
Given the very rigorous and physical demands on our military personnel, the simple reality is that many in the service of the country are quite young. A pension scheme that reflects their youth must also recognize the various factors that can affect their length of service. I believe that both these important criteria are addressed in the legislation now before the House.
Moreover, we are in an age of the citizen soldier. The backbone of our military is now the militia. For too long this fact has not been appropriately recognized in the regulations affecting military pensions. I believe that aspect is also addressed in the legislation we are debating today.
Many of the changes proposed in the legislation speak to the need to revamp the administrative process that governs the military pension scheme.
All Canadians, especially our soldiers, sailors and airmen, deserve to receive the benefits they have earned without having to fight through red tape. After all, I think it is only proper that our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who do enough fighting for us, do not have to fight with us.
All this contributes to the creation of a military that is more competitive in recruiting the best and the brightest young Canadians.
This is, of course, a significant development given the difficulty the Canadian armed forces have experienced in the past in trying to increase recruitment levels.
International incidents, such as the September 11 attacks, can have a marked effect on recruitment efforts, as patriotic young Canadians make the commitment to help defend our country from possible terrorist attacks.
However, to sustain that level of recruitment and to retain those who have already joined, the military needs a pension scheme that is comparable to what is being offered in the private sector.
As members will know, the Canadian armed forces has suffered from the effects of manpower shortages. At a time when the operational tempo, the ratio of time spent by Canadian Forces personnel in deployed missions, increased dramatically, the number of CF personnel was in decline.
When demand exceeds supply, the end result is a military that is stretched far too thin. Our military men and women end up serving in longer rotations on a more frequent basis. This simply means that they have less time at home, less time to rest, less time to train and more time in the field. It also means that they have less time with their families. That is not a recipe for success. In the long run, and even in the short term, that is a recipe for disaster.
Our military has endured a very difficult period in these last 10 years. Cuts to defence spending have weakened our military but not its resolve. Recently the defence publication Jane's Defence Weekly wrote that these spending cuts have caused “irreparable damage” to our military. Irreparable damage: We can only hope that this is not the case.
Where there is no doubt is that we need the military to have an increased budget that remains stable for a definite period of time. Only stable funding at a level sufficient to meet our defence needs will allow our military to make the capital purchases it needs.
There is also a need to make the investment in human resources and human capital. That is what we are doing today, albeit indirectly. There is a tendency to think of our army, navy and air force in terms of tanks, ships and airplanes. The reality is, it is about soldiers, sailors and airmen. For that reason, modernizing the pension scheme for the men and women who are at the core of our national defence is really an investment in our national security.
My good friend the hon. member for Saint John has often said that when it comes to the military we should put politics aside. Once we have ascertained what course of action is in the best interests of our military we should not let our political differences stand in the way of progress.
It is for that reason, and with this sentiment in mind, that today I am pleased we are taking this step toward ensuring that the military has a pension scheme that works and that the legislation presented here for our consideration has as its goal making the Canadian Forces pension scheme more accessible and efficient. After all, when their time in the military is over, our national heroes deserve a hero's welcome at home and a place to rest.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-37 today. I would like to echo some of the comments from the previous member about the importance of providing a welcome to our returning military members when they return home after a long career in the military.
Military pension modernization is sometimes not thought of as the most exciting topic in this place, but in fact it is extremely important to many people who live in my riding of Dartmouth, which is home to many military families, recent retirees from the military and, as I mentioned yesterday, many veterans.
We have a proud tradition of supporting our military, from standing at the docks to see the ships coming and going to and from the latest deployments to being out in full force at Remembrance Day, the Battle of Britain day and D-Day celebrations.
People in Dartmouth recognize the incredible commitment and sacrifice of our military personnel. They know that the men and women of our modern military spent a great deal of their time away from their families in the course of their work.
In fact, the Department of National Defence backgrounder on the bill illustrates the incredible change in our military's role. From 1948 to 1989, the Canadian Forces were deployed on 25 operations. Since then they have deployed over 65 times. That does not include the many training exercises and civilian emergencies such as the recent B.C. wildfires, which called personnel away for long periods of time.
I want to give hon. members an example of the effect of the multiple roles of our military. One of my constituents is in the air force. Two days after his son was born, Swissair flight 111 crashed off Peggy's Cove. He was one of the personnel in charge of retrieval operations. For the next three or four weeks he worked 16 hours a day supervising the retrieval of the plane, its contents and the bodies of the dead. He barely saw his newborn son and he certainly could not give his wife the support he would have liked to give her. That same constituent missed every one of his family's birthdays plus Christmas and Easter when, just two years later, he left for a deployment on Operation Apollo.
This life does not appeal to many of us. Frankly, I think that aspect of it does not appeal to my constituent either. We should be grateful that any of our citizens are willing to put their families through that kind of rigour, to move around the country and leave friends behind, to travel to foreign lands and to face daily danger.
In fact, we all know that our military is understaffed. Fewer and fewer people are willing to be in our military. Fewer and fewer Canadians make that decade long commitment that was once necessary to receive a pension, this at the same time that deployments are increasing. Again, DND points out that at any one time over one-third of its deployable force is either preparing for a mission, away on a mission or just returning.
We need a flexible pension plan that rewards Canadians willing to take on a military role. Instead of only supporting personnel who join the military at a young age and stay for a defined period of service, this new legislation will allow people to join the military for shorter periods of time and still generate pensionable earnings. It also allows breaks in military service without penalty.
Our military is changing and its role is also changing. These reforms of the pension plan for military personnel, both regular and reserve personnel, will help the military attract the best candidates. I think the military has had a bad rap over the years. Where it was once seen as an obvious choice for young people, now they are more likely to attend post-secondary or jump right into the work force.
Low pay, poor living conditions on bases and a draconian pension scheme that demanded lengthy terms of service could not compete with high salaries, stock options and more flexible work arrangements. Out of necessity, our military commanders have to recruit from non-traditional areas and they need the tools to attract the best candidates.
Finally, I want to comment on how important it is to our present military personnel to revitalize and fully staff our military.
I have lost track of how many leave-takings and joyous returns to the dock in Halifax I have had the honour of attending, but I do know that the experience of the constituent I mentioned earlier is not uncommon. Our military personnel are tired from constant deployments and operations. They have to use aging, outdated equipment and spend valuable time figuring out how to keep ships afloat, aircraft in the air, and vehicles moving, all of this during some of the most dangerous deployments Canadian soldiers have faced during peacetime.
Any measure that will encourage more skilled and qualified people to join the military is welcome, and that will allow military commanders to build up personnel capacity when needed to reduce the demand on regular forces.
Pension reform, as I mentioned earlier, is not the most interesting change that can be made, but it is an important one and we will be supporting the bill.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, today it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-37.
It is particularly important for the people in the good riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I have the maritime Pacific command in my riding and it is the major employer. A lot of my constituents serve our country honourably as part of our Canadian armed forces. I have had interaction with them and know of the trials and tribulations which they have endured quietly for a long time.
I just want to speak briefly on the first part of the bill, which really deals with the fact that the Canadian Forces superannuation plan was quite antiquated and desperately in need of modernization and enhancement. We thank the government for doing this, but it took a very long time to get it done. I will get back to the time delays and the government's inability to deal with the very important challenges faced by our military and by extension, faced by Canadians.
The pension legislation has a number of very good points. We asked for these for quite a long time. This first came about in the SCONDVA report of 1998. That seminal work, which was supported by all parties, had a number of very good suggestions that would improve the health and welfare of our armed forces personnel back in 1998. Sad to say, it took the government more than five years to implement these changes.
The bill talks about de-linking pension eligibility in terms of service. We support that. It talks about early access to deferred pension benefits. We support that. We absolutely support the portability of pensions. Reserve forces pension benefits is something for which we have been asking. It was explicitly stated in the SCONDVA report of 1998.
This is also a reflection of the respect that the armed forces reserve personnel should have received but did not. We have been asking for that for a long time and we are glad that finally the government has chosen to respect our reserve forces personnel and give them the pension benefits they should have had a long time ago.
I want to address the issue of life in the services, the challenges our armed services have faced for many years and how this has dramatically affected, in a negative way, our ability as a country to be safe and secure, not only here within the borders of our country but indeed abroad.
Our armed forces personnel are in burnout because the government has de-linked their capabilities. Policy decisions are made and are de-linked to the capabilities of our forces. The Prime Minister and his government have repeatedly made commitments without adequate discussion and analysis of their true capabilities.
Our armed forces have an enormous amount of will, desire or courage. However one simply cannot command and demand from our military an infinite number of work projects. Sooner or later they will burn out and their equipment will rust out. Not only we in the House have been saying that, but anybody who has had anything to do with the military in Canada and outside of Canada has been saying that as well. They have repeatedly said to the Canadian government that it needs to invest in our military in terms of manpower and equipment.
General Henault, our chief of defence staff, said this week that, “The Canadian Forces runs the risk of becoming irrelevant”. That is not something that our armed forces personnel want. It is not something that any of us want, but that is the product of neglect. Why do I say that? Right now we have about 56,000 people in our armed forces. That is a far cry from what we had when this government came to power 10 years ago. The numbers were in the 80,000 mark. In the seventies we had more than 100,000 people in our armed services.
Some suggested that post-cold war would have a peace benefit. However I would argue that the world today is as dangerous or more dangerous than it was during the cold war. Certainly the threats are different. In the two part cold war system, when we had two groups looking at each other with very potent and large numbers of nuclear weapons, there was a gridlock. Now the threats are more diffuse. Indeed I would suggest they are equally if not more dangerous because the tools and weaponry to commit and kill a large number of people are in the hands of uncontrollable individuals and groups. To this day we and our military are trying to deal with this.
However we cannot make the commitment or do the job within our borders and outside if we only have 55,000 people. For example, our soldiers are suffering from extreme burnout because they have been away for good parts of a year, and this has gone on for a long time. They come home and then they are rapidly recycled back into the theatre. That has a negative effect, not only on their personal health, but also it has a dramatic negative impact upon their family lives.
In the case of the command troops aboard the HMCS Calgary , as of December they will have spent 47 of the last 52 weeks in the theatre. One simply cannot be away from one's family for 47 out of 52 weeks on an ongoing basis and expect to have a family left at the end of the day.
We have asked for a dramatic increase in the number of personnel to more than 75,000 so we can begin to address the manpower deficit. We also have to give them the tools to do the job. We need to give them the training opportunities. We need to give them the equipment, whether it is helicopters, ships, fighter planes or a litany of other tools necessary to do the job. We see rust out. It will be virtually impossible for the government to meet the needs of replacing equipment that has rusted in the short to intermediate term. However it has to try at least for the long term so the equipment is there to do the job.
What is completely unacceptable is the government's so-called investment in the military is nowhere close to meeting our short, intermediate or long term objectives. In other words, what the government is doing now is a recipe for disaster. The only way to get around this is for the government to put in a minimum of $2 billion a year for the next five years. This would have a significant impact and would give our troops the manpower and tools needed to do the job. If it does not do that, we will become increasingly irrelevant on the international stage and will be unable to meet our domestic commitments.
Why is that important? Our ability to be at the trade table, to negotiate and engage our allies in economics and have a say is predicated, whether it be trade or security, on our investment and commitment in hard resources to our collective security. Our security as a country is predicated on our collective security. We know the threats we are facing are complex, transnational and diffuse. Whether it is the war on terrorism, or another conflict in the future, or the control of nuclear weapons, or narco-terrorism, we need a multinational, multilateral approach to these issues that not only address aid, diplomacy and trade but also have a significant military component.
Some would like to say that post-cold war we should all be peacekeepers and police personnel, which we can be. However I think the viewers would be shocked to know that while one of our former prime ministers won the Nobel peace prize for peacekeeping, among our allies we are 19th out of 21 in our commitment to peacekeeping operations today. We have been on the lower third of commitments to peacekeeping operations for a long time. The reason for that is our lack of commitment to manpower and resources.
The other aspect that I would like to address is the fact that unless we can make those commitments with our allies, Canadians lose out economically. We do not have the power at the table to negotiate trade and economic benefits for Canadians. Therefore, we must make that commitment to our individual and collective security.
The second aspect is our domestic interest. We saw in British Columbia the heroic actions of the military in dealing with the terrible forest fires this past summer. It did a wonderful job. The fact of the matter is we do not have the personnel to meet the needs of our country for domestic emergencies. Our armed forces can go a long way to addressing domestic emergencies, but we not only lack the manpower, we lack the equipment.
In the Arctic, for example, we do not have the capabilities to deal with a lot of emergencies, particularly when there is a need for helicopters because the government has continued to drag its heals. I believe it is because the Prime Minister does not want to lose face. The Prime Minister cut a deal that the previous government had made to purchase EH-101 helicopters. That was an election promise but it was an election promise to curry votes with the public. It was not a promise based on the needs of our country and our military.
For the last 10 years our military personnel have been trying to cobble our helicopter abilities. They have tried very hard to do this but in the process they have compromised their own safety. Our ability to protect our forces and work with our allies are compromised by not having this asset. Also, our ability to work in the north and deal with rescue operations in the north are also compromised by virtue of not having this capability. Certainly a few have come on board but not enough.
I want to also talk about some work that is being done. I just came back from Sierra Leone. There is an exciting option that our government may wish to entertain in terms of a useful international component in which Canada can engage. When I was in Sierra Leone, two groups were operating there and doing an extraordinary job. One was our RCMP that was training the police force to be a competent internal police force. The other group was our armed forces personnel who were training the Sierra Leone army to be a competent professional military service for domestic needs.
We are recognized internationally as being very good at doing that. Our people are very good at doing that. This is something the government may want to pursue as an international niche. We could take on the job of training other military services on how to be a good military. We could also train their internal police forces on how to be good police forces. At the end of the day, internal security of a country is absolutely essential for it to move on and have a strong stable economy. Indeed, social and economic stability is in part predicated on having good, fair-minded, professionally trained, professionally functioning internal security forces that can maintain the peace within a country. Without that, countries could easily spiral into anarchy or suffer from the predations of other nations.
I also want to talk a bit, if I may, about the situation that we are seeing with respect to our military families. The way in which some of our military personnel are being treated from time to time is really quite deplorable. I know our ombudsman tries hard to do a good job but our military personnel are finding it difficult ensuring their complaints are listened to and addressed within the system that exists today.
I have had a number of complaints that have come across my desk over the years where I wonder why the military does not treat their colleagues in a more professional fashion. I would suggest that the Minister of National Defence take a long, hard look at morale in our military and in how they are treated as individuals.
These are just a few bad examples that I am aware of but they are worthwhile looking at. What I am hearing from many of our military personnel is that the department does not treat them well under the present system.
I will give some examples in terms of personal finances. The government likes to trump up and say that it gave the military a raise. That is good because they desperately needed one. However, what it has failed to tell the public is that it surreptitiously took a lot of that money away. How did it do that? It did it through cuts to the cost of living allowance, also called the PLD, quite significantly.
What the cost of living allowance, or PLD, is supposed to do is address differences in the cost of living in different parts of our country. Since members of our military are sent wherever they are supposed to go based on the hierarchy within the system, which they are willing to do, the cost of living allowance or PLD is meant to address differences in costs. However the government dramatically cut that PLD causing significant harm to the incomes of our armed forces personnel.
The second thing the government wanted to do, which we talked about this week, was cut the foreign service deployment allowance our forces personnel receive when they are in theatre. Not only was it going to cut it, but it was going to be cut retroactively to the tune of $750 from $1,000 for each military family. My military families were aghast and, thankfully, were kind enough to make me aware of the situation.
We brought it up in question period and, I must say, I thank the government for saying that it would not cut retroactively the foreign service deployment allowance to our military. We all understand that a threat decreases and declines and the amount of money they receive is based on that threat, so of course the amount has to be decreased, which is only fair, but the fact that the government was contemplating cutting retroactively those moneys is deplorable. I never want to see that happen again in this House. Our armed forces personnel deserve better.
The government has also raised the rents on the private married quarters. This is based on two things. The government said that it had to raise the rents on the PMQs because it needed to make sure it was not artificially subsidizing PMQ rents. That is fair enough, but it made an enormous error in saying that a private married quarter in say Esquimalt is the same as a home in the private sector. That is completely untrue. Those private married quarters are not the same as in the private sector. There is no equivalent. It is a deeply flawed assessment in the value of those homes. The government bases its rent increases on that absolutely flawed assumption. I would ask the Treasury Board to immediately look at how it is assessing the PMQ rent hikes, because it is wrong.
The government is raising the PMQ rents on the basis that people who do equivalent jobs in the private sector to those in the military are making the same wage. The fact of the matter is that they are not. Whether they are firefighters, electricians, or in any other profession within the military, they do not receive the same amount of money as somebody in the private sector.
Raising the rents in the PMQ is flawed on two basic grounds: First, the houses are not the same; and second, the payment is not the same. If the government wants to ensure there is equivalence, then it either has to ensure that the houses are the same or that our military personnel receive the same pay.
I will close by saying that the government needs to make a significant investment in our military, the manpower and the equipment, and I am not talking about lip service. I am talking about a $2 billion investment per year for the next five years. If it does not do that then not only does it compromise the functioning of our military putting their lives at stake, but it also compromises the security of Canadians and for Canada, as a nation, to be a player at the table for the benefit of our collective security.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to order made earlier today the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 288 introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. The motion proposes that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I think every hon. member in the House will agree that few institutions are more important to a healthy democracy than our courts. The importance of the judiciary comes from the grave responsibilities discharged by judges. Judges are entrusted with a difficult task. They determine a multitude of issues and are responsible for making decisions that can include something as serious as determining the liberty of Canadian citizens. The extremely important role exercised by judges in upholding the rule of law in our society is the very reason that it is crucial to have an independent judiciary.
The objective of an independent judiciary is to ensure the impartiality of judges. It is fundamental to the rule of law that the rights of persons appearing before the court are determined solely on the basis of the facts and the law. In Canada, the independence of the judiciary is given constitutional protection.
I do not think it would be an exaggeration to suggest to hon. members of the House that the quality of the Canadian legal system has been recognized and studied by many countries throughout the world.The esteem with which the Canadian legal system is held is evidenced by the fact that officials from all over the world have consulted with Canadian officials on Canadian courts, judges and legal processes.
Canadians have every right to be very proud of their legal system and of the judges who maintain the high level of integrity and professionalism while discharging their legal duties.
The motion before the House today refers to appointments both to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Court of Appeals of the various provinces. I would like to remind hon. members that the processes for appointments to these two levels of courts are very different.
The appointments to the various Courts of Appeal are subject to the federal judicial appointments process. This process establishes committees in every jurisdiction to ensure that all interested and qualified individuals are considered for appointment. The process has ensured that the Minister of Justice receives broadly based and objective advice about the qualifications of individuals applying for appointment to the bench.
As hon. members well know, the Supreme Court plays a fundamental role in our democratic society, particularly as the ultimate guardian of charter values. It is important that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada be jurists of great distinction and ability. For that reason, great care is taken to ensure that the best persons, by knowledge, experience and personal commitment to excellence, are chosen to fill vacancies on the court.
Among the qualities sought in potential candidates are outstanding intellectual capacity, superior ability in judgment writing, the capacity for innovative thinking on emerging legal issues and, of course, a pronounced sensitivity to the diverse values enshrined in our charter.
The member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier commented on the Supreme Court's appointment process in that it would be too subjective. In fact, the process by which the Supreme Court justices are appointed has proven successful in producing judges of the highest calibre for the court.
The recommendation of the Prime Minister, which is undertaken in consultation with the Minister of Justice, follows a lengthy consultation process with senior members of the Canadian judiciary, the Attorney General, presidents of law societies, distinguished members of the practising bar and other well-informed persons in the region from which a candidate is to be chosen.
It is also important to note that any member of the public can bring to the minister's attention the name of a candidate that he or she believes worthy of consideration.
In his comments in introducing the motion, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier pointed out that the politicization of the appointments process could “seriously jeopardize the public's confidence in the judiciary”. Further, he said, “we must avoid at all costs any association between the judiciary and the political arm”. I could not agree more. However, I would suggest that the current appointments process is already intended to accomplish just that goal.
I am also alarmed that in support of this motion some members referred to decisions of the court with which they do not agree. Reform of the current appointment process cannot be a veiled attempt to get judges on the bench who will support a particular ideology. Such an approach would be inconsistent with judicial independence and the rule of law. Any influence the courts may have on the shape of Canadian law must be in accordance with well established rules of constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Decisions are not reached on the basis of any personal bias on the part of judges. The nature of the judicial function does not permit a judge to represent the region from which he or she was appointed or to favour the arguments of persons or governments coming from that region. Similarly, even though the federal government appoints the judges, they do not represent a political party or a political philosophy. This is entirely inconsistent with the principle of judicial independence that has governed the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch of government since Canada's creation.
Reform of the current appointment process that is intended to influence the outcome of court decisions in a manner that is inconsistent with their constitutional principles is unacceptable. There have been a number of proposals to change the process for making appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, including in the context of two previous constitutional accords. While a number of academics and commentators have suggested reform, further careful analysis of the nature and scope of reform is needed.
There will be some fundamental issues which will need to be carefully examined. For example, the criteria against which particular candidates are considered would be a key issue. How will a candidate's professional qualifications or perhaps judicial style be assessed while avoiding inappropriate and irrelevant inquiry into the personal views or opinions of the candidates?
Careful consideration will also have to be given to the nature of the assessment of a candidate, whether it will be in camera, in confidential or a public process. Keep in mind that many of these candidates will be sitting judges. In my view we cannot have a process that undermines their integrity or credibility, especially given that the unsuccessful applicants will have to return to their duties in their own courts.
We must also be careful not to develop a process that scares away potential candidates. Canadians deserve the highest calibre of judges on our top court and this goal could be undermined if we are not careful.
If this motion succeeds, the challenge for the committee will be to consider reforms that are reasonable and fair, that safeguard the reputation and credibility of all candidates, that preserve judicial independent, that promote respect for the institution of the judiciary, that eliminate partisanship and at the same time improve transparency and accountability. Without those safeguards, we risk damaging the credibility of an important institution in this country.
This will not be an easy task, but in anticipation that the committee will strive to meet these challenges, I will be voting in support of this motion. I am thankful for everyone's attention and the opportunity to speak on this motion.
Marcel Gagnon: Madam Speaker, last spring, my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, launched this debate on Motion No.288 dealing with the appointment of judges. It is an extremely important debate.
I was listening to the minister's representative who said that, in our democratic system, judges play a leading role. I worked with René Lévesque when he was the Premier of Quebec. I was a member of the National Assembly at the time, and I remember that Mr. Lévesque used to say that there is one thing, pehaps the only thing, worth fighting and dying for, and that is our democratic values. These are the fundamental values of our country.
Given the role judges are increasingly asked to play within our system, I think the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier was right to ask the House to review and reconsider how judges are appointed.
This was done in Quebec, under Mr. Lévesque. It is probably one of the first changes we made after 1976. We reviewed the appointment process for judges, to reduce patronage as much as possible.
I am among those who believe our judicial system is a fair one. It must, however, not just be believed fair, it must also appear to be fair. When people see that judges are appointed by the PMO, they have every reason to think there may be a conflict between an individual's values and political leanings and his or her appointment.
If, for example, we look at the polls, we see that Canadians feel judges have too much power, that they usurp the responsibilities of politicians, and that their judgments reflect partisan imperatives. If that is the public's impression, it means there are some questions that need answers.
Once those questions are asked, perhaps the present solution is the best one. I do not know. I think the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is entitled to call for this matter to be put on the table, to ensure that the justice system not only is as perfect as possible, but appears to be totally correct and not influenced by political partisanship, a system tht really works for the good of the community.
In my time here in this House, we have had the opportunity to discuss bills that have caused us to wonder, with reason, whether people's freedoms were being encroached upon. I am thinking, for example, of the young offender and antiterrorism act. When we questioned the Prime Minister, his response was that, if people felt they were being disadvantaged, if they had any fears, there was always the possibility of going before the courts. This proves just how significant a role is assigned to the courts. They even have the possibility of striking down an act or parts of an act.
As a citizen, I think I have a right to ask Parliament to look closely at the appointment of judges. Judges have an increasingly important role to play in the life of every citizen; they will play an even greater role in the legislation we are adopting here as it is enforced.
For example, currently there is a great deal of discussion about same sex couples. What does the minister say? He is waiting for the decision by the Supreme Court; he wants to see how far he can go.
Courts are a part of our democratic and legal system. They help us pass laws that are increasingly relevant to the majority of the population. I believe in this system and I believe it is impartial, up to a point. Still, like everyone else, I also believe that the system does not look as impartial as it ought to.
Last spring, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier emphasized that justice must be seen to be done. Personally, I am very pleased that the vote in favour of this motion will likely be unanimous, or close to it, because I heard my Liberal colleague say he would be voting in favour of the motion.
I think that is a plus and additional assurance we can give to the people of Canada. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, for introducing this discussion. Moreover, I wish to thank in advance all the members in this House who will vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Motion No. 288. For those individuals who are looking in on this debate today, I wish to explain that the motion is asking the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the process by which judges are appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
An independent judiciary is one of the most important pillars for a stable society anywhere in the world. As my colleagues from the Bloc have mentioned, not only should justice be seen to be done, it must also be perceived as being fair. Ordinary Canadians must be able to put their full confidence in a judiciary system and expect judgments to be fair and right.
Canada has a good judiciary system and Canadians do have confidence in it. However, after the charter of rights was introduced Canadians are now perceiving judges as reading into the laws of this land. Our Constitution gives Parliament the power to make laws. The judiciary has the paramount duty of ensuring that those laws that are passed in this Parliament are administered fairly across this nation. That is democracy.
Recently, judgments that have come forward have raised questions as to how far the power in the judiciary or Parliament can go in interpreting laws. On many occasions this has been a cause of serious concern in many parts of this country. Are justices of the Supreme Court going too far?
Since there is so much power overlapping in some cases and since judges influence the laws passed by elected officials, we should look at the process of appointing judges more openly. Hence the motion brought in by my colleague from the Bloc.
As the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his speech, the Prime Minister of Canada appoints judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. The bottom line is quite simple. He can consult with individuals, but nothing in the act says he must follow their advice. At the end of the day he is solely responsible for appointing them. That is quite a lot of power in a society as ours with such regional diversity across this nation. One has to wonder why a Prime Minister would have so much power to shape the direction of society by appointing the kind of judges he liked to the Supreme Court.
Examples in the past have indicated that Conservative Party prime ministers appointed Conservative judges to the Supreme Court while Liberal prime ministers appointed Liberal judges.
Well let us just say this. Canadians do not want Liberal or Conservative judges. They want competent judges. They want judges who are not tied to any political party so that they can make fair and square judgments upon which Canadians can rely.
Such as with the last appointment made to the Supreme Court of Canada, it always comes down that there is somewhere along the line a Liberals Party connection. Formerly there would have been a Conservative Party connection when the Conservatives were in power under Brian Mulroney.
It begs a simple question. Why can we not have a transparent, independent system? The motion calls for that. Let us send it to the committee. Let us look at it.
At the end of the day, the beneficiary of this motion, the beneficiary of an open and transparent system, is the Canadian public, Canadian society. The primary reason we are in the House of Commons is to address the issues that Canadian society wants us to address.
I fail to understand why anybody would not want to look at the system and try to improve upon it to give it more accountability and to make sure that there are good candidates.
Let me say right now it is not my view that there are any bad candidates on the Supreme Court. All we are saying is it is time to look at the process. We must ensure that the process is one with which Canadians are extremely comfortable and which has a fair and equitable system of appointing judges to the bench. That is all the motion is asking for and I will be supporting the motion fully.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his timely motion. I think it is well put.
Judicial activism is not new. What is new however is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the authority it gives our judiciary in scrutinizing legislation.
Canadians were seemingly given a gift by the Parliament of Canada in 1982. The gift was the charter and since that time it has forcefully shaped how our society functions.
Judges have been given the tools that map out and profoundly determine the course that Canadian society will take and we know so little about who they are, where they come from, what experiences, beliefs and ideas inform their decision making.
Prior to the charter, judges by and large would operate as what we would call black letter law judges. A judge would restrict himself or herself to the subtleties of constitutional law: What was ultra vires of a government's jurisdiction? Was the material receivable into evidence or not? How was a statute to be interpreted in light of that set of facts?
Post-charter, judges experience far less judicial restraint. They can now look at the Constitution as a living tree, evergreening in ways and directions that the framers of the Constitution never thought possible.
Clearly, sexual orientation as an analogous ground has opened up judicial law making in areas that few black letter judges would ever have dreamed possible. Parliament through its elected representatives and its then justice minister specifically rejected sexual orientation as a ground of discrimination arguing that it was imprecise and unknowable. Not overly bothered by imprecision, the Canadian courts have relentlessly opened this analogous ground, regardless of the wishes of the people or their representatives.
Equally, judges have not been shy with respect to aboriginal rights. We have seen courts time and again hand down decisions that reflect “liberal” interpretations of the charter and the laws of evidence. The results have been mixed.
Members will recall that we saw the extraordinary example last year of the Supreme Court of Canada offering a clarifying letter on its Burnt Church decision where the decision was taken one way by the aboriginal leaders to mean one thing and by government officials to mean something else.
Canadians by and large are not unhappy with the initiatives of the judiciary. Michael Ignatieff wrote an excellent little book called The Rights Revolution , in which he argues that judicial activism by means of the charter is a distinctive feature of Canada's judicial system, an area in which Canada is seen as a world leader.
However, the argument and the motion are not whether judicial activism is good or bad; rather we are concerned here with the appointment process. Who are these people? How and why did they become these very important political actors? What should we know about them?
Let me ask a question, Madam Speaker. Who is Mr. Justice Fish? I take it from your deafening silence and the silence in this chamber, you did not know that Justice Fish is the latest appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. I actually think you knew that, Madam Speaker, but what do we know about him? What are his qualifications? Where does he come from? And most important, what are his values and beliefs?
I am told that Justice Fish is an accomplished lawyer and a talented jurist. That said, I really do not know a thing about him beyond those descriptors yet, over the course of his judicial career, he will decide and rule upon all of the most significant of issues that affect Canadian society. The issue du jour of course is same sex marriage. He and his colleagues will decide the issue. You and I, Madam Speaker, in our roles as representatives of the people are mere irrelevancies when it comes to this issue.
We have the worst of all possible worlds. We have given the judges this wonderful tool, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to shape society but we use the black letter law approach to appointments. We have retained the secrecy and mystery of the historic way of making appointments and have tried to marry it to a post-1982 judicial revolution in law making. The appointment of a Pope is more open and transparent. Canadians are rightly saying that something is quite wrong.
No less of an authority than Chief Justice Michel Robert of Quebec has said, “The public's keen awareness of the powers of the courts has understandably fuelled demands for more openness and accountability in the discipline and appointment of judges”. In light of these growing demands, he favours “a more transparent and a more credible system of appointments” to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier correctly quotes the future prime minister:

When it comes to senior government appointments, we must establish a process that ensures broad and open consideration of proposed candidates. To avoid paralysis, the ultimate decision over appointments should remain with the government. But a healthy opportunity should be afforded for the qualifications of candidates to be reviewed, by the appropriate standing committee, before final confirmation.
To this end, it will be necessary to determine which of the many thousands of appointments made annually would merit public review. For example, I agree with the position championed by Professor Monahan that a process of mandatory review must apply to prospective justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. To determine which other senior appointments should also be subject to mandatory review in advance, we should turn to a parliamentary committee for direction. In this way, an improved but functional approach could be put into place in a transparent manner.

Senior people, thoughtful people, are starting to ask, why this medieval appointment process?
We have turned our judges into the new high priests. They have a mystical set of texts; they make pronouncements from on high, literally a raised dais; there is an initiation period; they speak a language not easily understood by those without legal backgrounds; they even wear priestly robes. All they need now is a little incense. And based upon yesterday's experience in front of our buildings, possibly with the change in marijuana laws we will even accomplish that.
Everyone has a set of values and beliefs. Beliefs and values are not restricted to religious people. The most diehard secularist has a set of beliefs and values that informs his or her decision making, and that guides what he or she believes to be of ultimate importance. Religion, broadly defined, is that which is of ultimate importance to that individual. If this is true, we all then have a religion to which we subscribe, both the so-called religious from recognized faith groups and the secularists.
It is important for Canadians to know about the beliefs and values of the men and women who are making these decisions that are foundational to our society.
You see, Madam Speaker, you and I can be held to account, as can everyone in this chamber. Every four years or so, I am held to account by means of an election. My beliefs and values are scrutinized, and sometimes frankly it is not too pleasant. But I am in the little league of important decisions.
A justice of the Supreme Court is a virtual unknown yet he or she can trump government and Parliament and send society off in directions in which legislators do not necessarily want society to go, i.e., same sex marriage, legalized marijuana, election laws, aboriginal rights, et cetera. Once he or she is appointed, he or she is completely immune from scrutiny and accountability.
I do not anticipate that there will be a curtailing of judicial activism in the near future. There is, however, a growing uneasiness with the unrestrained powers of the courts.
According to an Ipsos-Reid poll in May 2003, 66% of Canadians said they think the Supreme Court of Canada is driven by politics. The pollster concluded that people are unhappy about the ideology of judges and the way they are chosen. In its most recent poll in August, 71% of Canadians believe that only elected people should make laws. Obviously the general public has serious concerns about this apparent imbalance in our current system.
Some Canadians are concerned that courts have encroached upon the supremacy of Parliament by reading into our laws interpretations that appear to be inconsistent with or outside their intent when passed. This appears to be a violation of the basic constitutional principle that Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and courts interpret them.
In closing, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing forward this timely motion. It is an appointment process that is deeply flawed and inconsistent with openness and transparency expected in a modern democracy. I therefore urge all hon. members to support this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): There being no more members wishing to speak, the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, has five minutes to conclude this debate.
Richard Marceau: I shall be brief, Madam Speaker, because I would not want to repeat the arguments my hon. colleagues or myself made previously as part of this debate.
First, I wish to thank all the hon. members who took the time to prepare and give speeches on such a fundamental issue. I must say that those I heard today were outstanding. I thank those who took the time to work on this issue, as well as those who took the time to discuss with me. I am thinking in particular of my colleague and friend—we set aside our differences of opinion on certain points—the hon. member for Scarborough East, with whom I had the opportunity to exchange ideas about this on many occasions. I thank him for taking part in this debate and for supporting the motion.
This is an important debate because it has to do with the institutional architecture of our legal system and our democracy. I would just like to echo what Quebec's Chief Justice Michel Robert recently told the magazine Lawyers Weekly in an interview, saying that we would be wise to improve the transparency and credibility of the very secretive consultation process leading to the appointment of a Supreme Court judge.
In passing on what Chief Justice Robert said, I ask my colleagues to support this motion proposing that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
If a personality as eminent as Justice Robert feels this should be looked into, I believe it is our duty as parliamentarians to make the time to do so.
I am sure that the justice and human rights committee will address this serious issue enthusiastically, of course, but also methodically, diligently, and, most importantly, with the interests of society as a whole in mind.
My message to my colleagues is this: as parliamentarians, elected representatives of the people, let trust us each other enough to allow us to take the time to properly address this issue. I want the motion to be carried on Wednesday. I would like the vote to be unanimous. Let us keep that a secret just between us, Madam Speaker. I think that the exercise is worthwhile.
This motion was introduced in a wholly non-partisan spirit. I believe that not only would all parties represented in this House be very well served by the work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but so would the people of Quebec and of Canada.
In closing, I wish a happy new year, Shana Tova, to all our Jewish friends and neighbours.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at the end of government orders.
It being 1:33 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:33 p.m.)