Lynn Myers

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is both unfortunate and frustrating that the House is once again embroiled in a debate based on an outdated understanding of the employment insurance system.

There can be no debate that the progressive and equitable reforms to employment insurance introduced by this government are good reforms. They are good for Canadians out of work, good for the economy and good for the country.

Canadians inherently know this and certainly the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington know it and understand it, and this is in fact true.

With the new Employment Insurance Act this government is helping Canadians to find work. Instead of just doling out cheques, we now respond to the real employment needs of people who have fallen on hard times and we tailor strategies to help them succeed.

While our hon. colleagues on the opposite side of the Chamber seem stuck in a time warp, the so-called good old days when the system perpetuated dependency, we instead are moving forward, shifting the focus to one of dignity and self-sufficiency by creating meaningful opportunities for all Canadians.

The new employment insurance system both reflects and responds to today's labour market. Technological revolution and global trade are rapidly changing the world of work. Jobs are disappearing in some sectors, while new positions are being created in others which require different skills.

Intense international competition is also pushing Canada to produce higher educated and higher skilled workers. This new reality is very difficult for individuals who find themselves falling short of these requirements or who are already left behind. That is why we are investing in programs that are more targeted, more results oriented and proven to work for the people who need them.

The new employment insurance system is designed to help unemployed Canadians not only cope with but capitalize on the new economy. We are enabling individuals temporarily out of work to acquire the necessary skills to secure jobs in the new working world.

We are helping Canadians, especially those most at risk of exclusion, to adjust to the knowledge-based economy. We are empowering them to adapt to economic change so they can once again lead productive and satisfying lives.

Employment insurance reforms are fundamentally about finding a balance, about giving people the temporary support they need when they lose a job and providing people with the tools they need to get back to work.

We do not have to choose between economics and people. Success is a question of making the right choices in order to build a better society.

Societal development goes hand in hand with economic development. As our population becomes more productive, our country will be more productive.

An equally important benefit for all Canadians is that the new employment insurance system allows us to work more efficiently and less expensively, providing the public with the services they need and the services they can afford.

Long term affordability of the system is at the heart of the reserve in the employment insurance account. The government must pay employment insurance benefits in all circumstances, even when the account has a deficit, as it did during most of the 1980s and the early 1990s. The reserve means that the money is there when it is most needed, during an economic downturn, and ensures that we do not have to raise premiums at the worst possible time.

In modernizing the system we also make it fairer and more equitable. For the first time, every hour of work counts. Counting total hours instead of meeting a minimum number of weeks makes it easier for most people, particularly women, young people and seasonal workers, to satisfy entrance requirements. Whether we talk about the part time worker, the mother to be who will be able to collect maternity benefits, the construction worker laid off during the winter months or the student working as a department store clerk, employment insurance benefits have been restructured to strengthen the value of work. The system now recognizes that whether work is full time, part time or integrated from time to time, every Canadian's contribution counts.

Perhaps the most important improvements are enhanced active employment measures that are helping countless unemployed Canadians get back into the workforce. Wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and skills, loans and grants are giving many a real chance to start new careers.

I remind my hon. colleagues that we have broadened eligibility so that all Canadians who received employment insurance or unemployment insurance in the past three years can benefit from these measures. So too can people who collected maternity or parental benefits during the last five years and then withdrew from the labour force to care for their child. This means that up to 45% of provincial social assistance recipients are eligible for active employment measures to get the skills and the experience they need in order to re-enter the workforce.

Improved claimant assistance such as counselling and closer case management will also help unemployed people return to work as quickly as possible. That ultimately is what the changes are all about, helping Canadians to find and keep good jobs.

The labour market development agreements with the provinces, long sought after by the province of Quebec, ensure that active employment measures are tailored to local needs.

The Bloc fails to acknowledge that these new measures, $2.7 billion over the next five years in Quebec alone, are financed from savings the government is now achieving as a result of employment insurance reform. Without these savings the government would not have the necessary funds to pay for skills upgrading which is essential to becoming more employable.

Canadians do not want a handout, they want a hand up. They want the chance to acquire new skills and advance their education. They want to be able to provide a better standard of living and quality of life for their families. We must enable them to achieve their dreams.

We would do no one any favours if we adopted the regressive measures proposed by my hon. colleagues. They would have us return to the days of passive income support. They would deny individuals the opportunity to upgrade their skills and make themselves more employable.

I point to the government's impressive track record as proof that our approach is working. The unemployment rate is at its lowest level in almost eight years. Since the beginning of 1997 543,000 jobs have been created in Canada.

Equally interesting, there was a 6% decline in job losses during the first year of reform. So it is not surprising that the number of beneficiaries and the total employment insurance benefits paid out have decreased since March 1997. Clearly we are on the right track, so let us stay on it and let us make sure we carry it forward.

The federal government has worked unceasingly to keep the Canadian economy on a solid foundation.

The federal government will continue to provide programs which meet Canadians' expectations and needs.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

For all the sound and reasoned arguments put forward by myself and the members of my caucus today, I urge my fellow parliamentarians to set aside this unnecessary motion. Let us work together to create conditions conducive to job creation and economic growth. Let us work together to help Canadians get back to work.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member opposite and I want him to respond to the following. As he and all members know, under the EI legislation $2 billion is available to the provinces and territories for active re-employment measures and related labour market services.

These provisions provide unemployed Canadians, including youth and women, with improved skills and opportunities for employment. Employment insurance also helps women by increasing their earned income through a $50 minimum earnings exemption and by removing the artificial 15 hour ceiling on part time work and through employment benefits such as wage subsidies and earnings supplement.

What would the member have against those two moves? On the one hand we have money being given over to the provinces and the territories and on the other we have assistance for women. What exactly does he have against those two ideas?

[The Environment, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Given the criticisms levelled at the government this week by the commissioner of the environment for not meeting its international commitments and specifically those commitments made to reduce greenhouse gases at the Rio meetings in 1992, would he tell the House what steps are being taken by the government to ensure that Canadians and Canada meet the commitments made in Kyoto last December?

[Competition Act, May 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and Canadians all across Canada are very concerned about our environment and what we as a society and as a country are doing to our environment both good and bad.

People know and understand that we need to do everything possible to protect and preserve our environment. People know and understand that we must not make decisions which will have harmful effects on our environment. People also know and understand that we need to pass on a clean and safe environment to future generations of Canadians. We owe this to our children and to our children's children.

The disposal of nuclear waste is a concern which is important to all Canadians. There is more than 1.2 million bundles of spent fuel, nearly 30,000 tonnes, in temporary above-ground storage at nuclear facilities across Canada. A lot of work has gone on to find a solution regarding proper and safe disposal of this kind of material.

I remind the House that the Atomic Energy Board of Canada Ltd. supported by Ontario Hydro has spent a considerable amount of time and resources on research to prove that creating enormous vaults inside the granite of the Canadian Shield is the best and safest method of disposal of nuclear waste.

The Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. research showed that technology behind the proposed burial was safe. However Canadians remain sceptical and are not convinced that the solution was absolutely foolproof.

Accordingly a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel decided it could not endorse disposal of nuclear waste in this manner. The panel is quoted as saying “While the safety of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concept has been adequately demonstrated from a technical perspective, from a social perspective it has not”. In addition the panel said “the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concept in its current form for deep geologic disposal does not have broad public support and does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada's approach for managing nuclear fuel waste”.

As a federal government we need to make a decision on how to provide long term management of nuclear waste. It is important that we do so knowing that nuclear waste can remain harmful to the environment and health for up to 500 years and radioactive for as long as 10,000 years.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is straightforward. What does the government plan to do to dispose of nuclear waste in Canada?

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, all this from the party that wants to slash $1 billion from social services and literally gut the whole system. It would be absolutely outrageous in terms of what that party would propose and try to do.

In a non-partisan way we have tried to ensure that the criminal justice system is in place in a manner consistent with what Canadians want, deserve and need. It is something to hear members opposite speak in terms of what they want to do and the extent to which they want to drag the country down. I find that ludicrous. Canadians see through that and they will not stand for it. That is the long and short of it.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question.

We as a government have always moved forward in a non-partisan way hoping to do what is best for the interest of all Canadians and for the country. It is important we continue to do so.

I am amazed at the allegation made by the hon. member in terms of what we as a government are doing. It is clear through not only this debate but through question period and other times that the Reform Party repeatedly wants to take the position of negativity, of extremism, and all kinds of outrageous and outlandish positions when it comes to offenders, victims and everyone else in the criminal justice system. It is quite outrageous. Canadians see through that kind of nonsense and I am glad they do.

Every time we as a government have tried to take concrete steps to address the causes of crime, child poverty, educational opportunities and other issues related to these kinds of things, it would appear we were stymied by members opposite. It is outrageous and too bad. That party would slash over $1 billion from social services programs in Canada.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the hon. member opposite it is my understanding that it is Priscilla de Villiers and not Phyllis de Villiers.

As a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police I dealt extensively in that part of Ontario, in that part of Canada, with victims and the rights of victims. I see the government making enormous strides in terms of making sure that we have in place facilities and programs that assist victims in their time of need.

Every time the government presented options and opportunities for the opposition, in this case the Reform Party, it chose not to vote on bills dealing with victims rights, for example Bill C-41 which dealt with restitution and victims rights accordingly; Bill C-37, victims impact statements; and Bill C-45, stringent measures to be put in place for sex offenders.

It is unbelievable that rather than vote for concrete measures and get on with the job at hand, it seems intent to continue to fearmonger, continue to stir up negativity and continue to point out all kinds of extreme measures which are clearly and absolutely inappropriate for Canadians and society.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today in the House to provide hon. members with some information about the status of victims' rights in Canada and the progress that has been made in addressing the concerns of victims of crimes. The topic is obviously very timely. It certainly is of interest to the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and indeed to all Canadians.

I think it is also important to ensure that we present facts instead of distortions, myths and other incorrect information which we have heard today from members of the Reform Party and others.

Hon. members must surely be aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently examining the role of the victim in the criminal justice system. This review is under way due in part to a motion made by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford in April 1996 which called on the government to ask the standing committee to explore a federal bill of rights for victims.

The standing committee heard from several witnesses in April 1997 and concluded that a more detailed examination of this and other related issues was necessary.

Therefore, the standing committee will address a range of issues, including the need for additional services for victims, the information needs of victims, how such services can be funded and whether additional Criminal Code amendments are necessary.

The Minister of Justice has already discussed several options with provincial attorneys general, but has noted that further information will be gathered by the standing committee. Their consultation process will assist the minister in refining many of the options under consideration.

This government cannot be faulted for any lack of concern for victims. Quite the contrary. The Minister of Justice has identified this as one of her highest priorities, and rightfully so.

I would suggest that members opposite are exhibiting impatience rather than focusing on fully participating in the standing committee's review which they in fact encouraged and are now criticizing this government for a lack of concern. Would they bypass the committee process? I would certainly hope not. It is very important that that process take place.

The letter sent by the Minister of Justice to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights emphasizes the minister's eagerness to move forward with concrete proposals but defers to the advice of the committee in order to permit the full participation of all parties represented in this House.

I would also refer members to the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime which was adopted by provincial and territorial governments in 1988. That statement was intended to guide policy and legislative development and it has.

All provinces and territories have enacted victim legislation which generally includes a statement of purpose or principles echoing that Canadian statement. Some jurisdictions, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, also provide for a victim fine surcharge on provincial offences.

Provincial legislation already deals with the notion of victims rights in several different ways. For example there are provisions referred to as a declaration of principles or simply principles in the victims legislation in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. Ontario's Victim's Bill of Rights also includes a preamble.

The Northwest Territories Victims of Crime Act provides that the purpose of the victims assistance committee established by that act is to promote inter alia the courteous and compassionate treatment of victims.

The Yukon Victims Services Act sets out in section 2 the purpose of the victims services fund, for example to promote and provide services and to publish information about the needs of victims and available services.

Similarly Saskatchewan's Victims of Crime Act includes a statement of purpose in section 3, to establish a fund to be used to promote several principles including that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy, that their views should be taken into account and appropriate information and assistance should be provided to them throughout the criminal process where appropriate and consistent with criminal law and procedure. In addition wherever reasonably possible, victims should receive through formal and informal proceedings prompt and fair redress for harm suffered.

It is important to note that some provinces have used the term “rights”. For example British Columbia's Victims of Crime Act sets out several rights for victims of crime in sections 2 to 8. Nova Scotia's Victims Rights and Services Act also employs the term “right”. Section 3 sets out the victim's absolute rights and section 4 sets out the victim's limited rights. Quebec's act respecting assistance and compensation for victims of crime provides for victim's rights and obligations under title 1, sections 2 to 6. Manitoba recently introduced new victims rights legislation which addresses a victim's entitlement to services and information.

It should also be noted that despite the varying terminology used, all provincial victims statutes include provisions which clearly state that no cause of action lies based on the statute for anything done or omitted. In other words there is no remedy for the inability to provide for a right or fulfil a principle set out in the legislation.

It is important that the minister has noted also that when it comes to responding to the concerns of victims of crime the provinces, territories and the federal government have a role to play. It is an important role.

The provinces are responsible for investigating the majority of criminal offences, enforcing the law, prosecuting criminal offences and administering justice within the province. Given that responsibility, provincial legislation can appropriately address victims rights which relate to the provision of information about the investigation, the prosecution, for example the charges laid, bail decisions, trial scheduling, et cetera and available services. Provinces have done exactly that in their legislation.

Federal victims rights legislation to address matters of provincial jurisdiction would not be either possible or practical. That too is important to note.

When discussing the issue of victims rights, I fear we may be influenced by events south of the border and I would hope that is not so. Practically every state in the United States has a victims bill of rights and some even have amended their state constitutions. Canadians may think we must follow suit. However recent studies suggest that these rights are only paper promises. Although we should keep an open mind about the need for more rights, I am sure all members would agree that it is pointless to have symbolic victims rights which are not enforceable.

I look forward to the report of the standing committee that will greatly assist the government in addressing the victim's role in the criminal justice system, whether that be through legislation or through other initiatives.

It is important to review some of the background information on provincial victims legislation. I will highlight the legislation in four provinces to provide examples of the various approaches taken which are worthy to note.

The first relates to British Columbia. British Columbia's comprehensive legislation, the Victims of Crime Act, sets out a range of entitlements for victims and assigns a responsibility to justice system personnel or for example to the crown, commissioner of corrections, or attorney general. For example, section 2 provides that all justice system personnel must treat a victim with courtesy and respect and must not discriminate against a victim on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion and other similar grounds.

Section 4 directs that crown counsel must ensure that a victim is given a reasonable opportunity to have admissible evidence concerning the impact of the offence as perceived by the victim presented to the court before sentence is imposed for the offence.

Section 5 directs that justice system personnel must offer a victim certain information regarding the justice system, victim services, the victim legislation and privacy legislation.

Section 6 provides that certain information must be provided for victims such as the status of the investigation, the name of the accused, court dates and probation or parole conditions.

Section 7 addresses information that will be provided on request of the victim.

Finally, section 8 sets out several goals that the government must promote, including the development of victims services, prompt return of stolen property and protection from intimidation.

I want to highlight Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's Victims Bill of Rights and Services Act sets out a victim's absolute right in section 3, including the right to be treated with courtesy, compassion and dignity and the right to the prompt return of property.

The victim's limited rights are set out in section 4. They are subject to the availability of resources and any other limits reasonable in the circumstances. These limited rights include the right to information about the charge laid, progress of the prosecution and services or remedies available.

I would like now to highlight Ontario. Ontario's Victim's Bill of Rights, proclaimed in June 1996, sets out a range of principles in section 2 regarding the treatment of victims of crime, including that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy; that victims should have access to information about services, protection against intimidation, the progress of investigation and prosecution, court dates, the sentence imposed and release conditions. On request, victims should be notified of release from prison and in the case of persons found unfit or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of any dispositions made by the Criminal Code review board.

This legislation clarifies that these principles are subject to the availability of resources and information, what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case, what is consistent with the law and public interest, and what is necessary to ensure that the resolution of the criminal proceedings is not delayed.

The Ontario legislation has created a civil cause of action for victims of prescribed crime. The offender is liable in damages to the victim for emotional distress and bodily harm. The legislation creates a presumption that a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault or spousal assault suffers emotional distress.

The legislation also creates a provincial victims justice fund account which will include federal and provincial surcharge revenue, donations and appropriations from provincial general revenue. The fund is used for provincial victims services provided by the solicitor general and attorney general and for grants to community agencies.

I would like to highlight Alberta as well. The Alberta Victims of Crime Act, proclaimed August 1, 1997, consolidates the former victims programs assistance act and the criminal injuries compensation act and makes significant reforms to the compensation scheme.

Section 2 sets out the principles which apply to the treatment of victims, including that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, receive information about relevant services and their participation in criminal proceedings, scheduling and ultimate disposition and that their views and concerns should be considered where appropriate.

The act also empowers the minister to appoint a director to implement the act, to provide information to victims, to resolve the concerns of victims who believe they have not been treated in accordance with the principles of the act and to evaluate applications for benefits, financial and others, formerly referred to as criminal injuries compensation.

The act also imposes a surcharge on provincial offences and establishes the victims of crime fund into which both federal and provincial surcharge revenue is deposited. The fund may also receive other revenue, including appropriations from general revenue. The fund is used to provide grants with respect to programs benefiting victims of crime and for financial benefits to eligible victims of crime, for example specific victims.

The director is mandated to determine the eligibility and the amount of the financial benefit for the victim applicant. An appeal board is also established to adjudicate appeals of the director's decision. Eligibility criteria and the amount of the applicable financial benefits will be prescribed and are prescribed by regulations.

In addition, it is important in light of the motion presented today to review some of the recent Criminal Code initiatives which in fact do respond to the needs and concerns of victims of crime. These are Criminal Code responses which Canadians think are very important and clearly support. I would like to highlight some of those now.

In 1995 in response to victims concerns, the maximum penalty for leaving the scene of an accident was increased from two to five years to achieve consistency with the maximum penalty for impaired driving.

On September 3, 1996 amendments to the sentencing part of the Criminal Code included amendments to the restitution and victim impact statement provisions. The scope of restitution is expanded and courts are now required rather than permitted to consider a victim impact statement when one has been prepared. Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing, related to that.

In 1995 section 33 was added to the Criminal Code to clarify that intoxication is not a defence to any general intent crimes of violence, such as sexual assault and assault. Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal Code, self-induced intoxication, referred to that.

Other legislation provided for special warrants to be issued to collect bodily samples for DNA analysis in specified circumstances. These were outlined in Bill C-104, an act to amend the Criminal Code, DNA warrants.

In 1997 Bill C-17, the criminal law improvement bill, included amendments to benefit victims. The peace bond provisions were strengthened. Provisions regarding the use of blood sample evidence in impaired driving prosecutions were clarified and the mandatory prohibition from driving provisions were strengthened.

More specific amendments came into force in May 1997. These amendments include provisions to facilitate the testimony of young victims and witnesses by expanding the use of screens and closed circuit TV to include both complainants and witnesses under 18 years of age, an important move. It also included provisions designed to facilitate the giving of testimony. It will now include offences of prostitution, child pornography and assault, in addition to the sexual offences already listed. It also included amendments clarifying that the existing provisions which prohibit publication of the identity of sexual offence victims apply to current and historic sexual offences as well.

Section 715.1 which permits a young victim of a sexual offence to adopt video testimony at trial will now be available in the prosecution of other offences, including assault, prostitution and child pornography. This was outlined in Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code, child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.

Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, production of records in sexual offence proceedings, was passed and proclaimed into force on May 12, 1997 to protect sexual offence victims by restricting the production to the accused of irrelevant personal and private records.

These measures underscore the commitment of the government to make protection of the public a top priority. That is understood and that is clearly apparent.

It is important to note that while others talk we as a government have acted. It is important to maintain those kinds of actions and to ensure that these actions are consistent with what Canadians want and what Canadians expect the government to do.

In its vision of the future, the federal government attaches vital importance to the security of all Canadians. The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member opposite and his reference to the secrecy in terms of what the government and the military are doing. I could not believe I was actually hearing what he was saying. It is incredible to think he would make that kind of statement.

Surely my hon. colleague should know, and in fact I hope he does, that the defence committee has been listening very carefully to what the military has to say. In fact the committee has taken soundings in terms of what is being said at various places across Canada. Might I remind the hon. member that the committee has done so in Yellowknife, Vancouver, Comox, Edmonton, Cold Lake, Esquimalt, Valcartier, Bagotville, Kingston, Petawawa, North Bay, Trenton, Gagetown, Goose Bay and Halifax. In fact I do not think he realized that hearings were held in Moose Jaw as well.

I would remind the member that this is a government intent on listening very carefully and very closely to what the armed forces personnel and people in this area have to say. I think it is very important that we go on record to note that is in fact the case.

My question is really simple. Why would the hon. member downplay the tremendous hearings that are being held across Canada in order to get the kind of feedback, in order to open up the process that we need and think is appropriate? Why would he downplay that? I think that is really appalling.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address this motion on the government's leadership with respect to the Canadian forces. I believe the government has shown tremendous leadership in this area. I am pleased to report that the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington also believe the government has shown outstanding leadership in this area.

The examples of leadership this government has shown with respect to the Canadian forces are demonstrated day in and day out by the very pride we all have in this House, and all Canadians, for the dedication, skill and professionalism of Canada's soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen. That pride is demonstrated by people in my riding and all Canadians support our military.

Pride in the Canadian military has very deep roots. Today's Canadian forces draw inspiration from the courage, commitment and accomplishments of the hundreds of thousands of their countrymen who served before them in both war and peace. This government has proudly demonstrated the great honour of being the custodian of a distinguished military heritage, something we as Canadians can be proud of. The need to maintain Canada's pride therefore in military tradition is a responsibility we as government take very seriously, and rightfully so.

Canada has participated in virtually every peacekeeping mission every organized. That is a great feat and certainly reflects well on this country, with more that 100,000 men and women posted all over the world during the last half century.

If the Canadian forces are to meet the challenges of the 21st century and carry out the roles both in peace and in war provided by the government, roles that Canadians support, they must be flexible, well equipped and thoroughly trained and be able to fight if and when necessary. I reiterate the government's record in preparing the Canadian forces for the 21st century speaks for itself. The government has taken action. This is what leadership is all about.

I will highlight some of the actions the government has taken in this very important area. Immediately following coming into office, the government fulfilled its commitment to cancel the EH-101 helicopters ordered by the Conservative government. They were simply too expensive for what was needed. Also the government made a commitment to significantly enhance the role of parliament in stimulating informed public debate on defence issues. The parliamentary committees reviewing Canada's defence and foreign policies conducted extensive and unprecedented numbers of public consultations in 1994. The government has also held a number of parliamentary debates on major foreign policy and defence issues, including Canada's role in multilateral peace operations in Haiti and most recently in the Arabian gulf and the Balkans.

Canada's defence policy as introduced by this government charts a new course for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces. Priorities were set out and some tough decisions have been and will continue to be made in this regard. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces have fundamentally changed the way they do business. A program of extensive institutional renewal was introduced and is currently being implemented across the entire defence organization. That is important to note.

The process of reform is ongoing. In March 1997 the report of the Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister on the leadership and management of Canadian forces and the progress outlined in the commitment to change document released last October demonstrates that much has already been achieved in terms of improving training, education, morale and leadership.

The Minister of National Defence has established a monitoring committee on change to monitor change initiatives and their effectiveness. An independent ombudsman to enhance fairness within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces is in the process of being established.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces are committed to gender integration and the Canadian forces are world leaders in terms of the proportion of women in the military in the number of areas in which they can serve. That too is a source of pride for residents in my riding and across Canada.

The government remains committed to maintaining multipurpose combat capable forces to carry out a range operations both at home and abroad in the fulfilment of its commitment to multinational institutions such as the UN and NATO. Resources are focused on maintaining the core capabilities of the Canadian forces.

The government is also committed to ensuring that the Canadian forces have the tools they need to do their job. This is a priority, and rightfully so. Over the last year there has been significant progress on important capital acquisitions, including the purchase of 15 new search and rescue helicopters, four Upholder class diesel-electric submarines, armoured personnel carriers, maritime coastal defence vessels and the tactical command control and communications system. All these are important acquisitions that we need to have in place for the Canadian forces.

The government has introduced amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize and strengthen the military justice system and to more closely align it with Canadian values and legal standards. This is an important move and one that underscores the commitment of the government in terms of this important period.

The government is also committed to improving the quality of life of the members of the Canadian forces and their families.

The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs is currently examining the social and economic needs of Canadian forces personnel. The government looks forward to its report and recommendations. We will certainly await that report and the importance it will carry.

The government is committed to informing Canadians about the good news in the Canadian forces. Steps have been taken to improve communications both within the department and with the Canadian public. It seems we should always say thanks for the tremendous work the Canadian forces do on our behalf. It is important that we do so in order to show them our ongoing gratitude for the tremendous work they do on our behalf.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces have accomplished much over the last number of years. The government has provided the necessary leadership. It has made the right decisions and followed through on its commitments.

Through the government's leadership, the Canadian forces are prepared for today's challenges and especially for those of tomorrow. It is important to underscore and ensure that all Canadians understand we are preparing for the 21st century.

The government has shown outstanding leadership and commitment when it comes to the Canadian armed forces. It has demonstrated the leadership required and the ongoing commitment necessary to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces are considered to be one of the best in the world.