David Price

[Apec Summit, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In order to enter Canada, Suharto's soldiers first had to obtain the minister's permission. They had her blessing.

Will the minister continue to state in the House that there was no abuse of power, when it was she who, under the Prime Minister's authority, gave known criminals a licence to kill on Canadian soil? What is the truth?

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion because I will have the chance to reveal some truths about both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party, which put forward this motion.

While the Liberal Party has no interest in seeing parliament's having a real role in the most crucial national decisions, those involving sending young Canadians into danger, the Reform Party by wording the motion the way it has chosen to demonstrates once again it has absolutely no concept of foreign affairs or the way the real world works.

I want to read the motion so the House is clear on what I am speaking to:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority support, through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

The sentiment behind this motion is good and I applaud the Reform Party for that. Twice since this parliamentary session began in September the House has met to debate the government's decision to send Canadian troops abroad. The first instance was in February of this year. I remember it well. Let me share with the House the reasons why I remember it so clearly.

As tensions in the Persian Gulf grew because Saddam Hussein refused to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to do their job, United States and Britain continued to build up their power in the region. The situation looked very serious. It looked like there might be another war.

The Sunday before this House resumed sitting after the winter break the leader of my party called the Prime Minister and told him we were going to request an emergency debate. The Prime Minister and this House refused my party's request for an emergency debate. It was not until the following week after President Bill Clinton requested Canada's help did the Prime Minister concede that debate was needed.

He told this House that he had told the president that he could not give him an answer until it was debated publicly in the House. He told Canadians he would not give the President of the United States an okay that Canada's troops could be used until he checked with this House. That was not accurate.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went on U.S. television and told the world that President Clinton had Canada's support. That was on the Sunday morning, February 8. The Prime Minister did not tell the Canadian public that he had even spoken to the president until Sunday afternoon.

The same debate the Prime Minister said was necessary before he made a commitment to the Americans was not until Monday evening, February 9. By that chronology either the U.S. secretary of state said she had Canada's support before she really did or the Prime Minister gave the U.S. Canada's support before there was a debate. Under the latter scenario the Prime Minister fooled Canadians into thinking the debate had actual meaning. That is disgraceful.

The second time this House met to debate sending troops abroad was on April 28 of this year. That debate concerned Canadian participation in Bosnia, now under the NATO banner, beyond the current June 20 deadline.

The motion put forward that night by the government was that this House take note of an intention of the Government of Canada to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization force.

Take note of the government's intentions; that is all that was accomplished on that evening. The ministers concerned in such a decision, a decision to keep young Canadians in a dangerous military zone, had the right under House rules to speak for 20 minutes. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence split their time that evening. Keeping Canadian forces in Bosnia was not important enough for this government's ministers to take all the time available to them. That is rather disgraceful. It is disheartening to Canadians and to members of the Canadian forces who serve Canadians.

Let there be no mistake, when this government enters into a debate of crucial importance it is not because the Prime Minister is interested in the opinions of other parties. It has everything to do with optics, the show, the media.

I made the point that it should not have been a take note debate. I said that if this government had the courage it would not have been a take note debate but a votable motion. This government has no courage.

But just because this government has no courage, the Reform Party seems to think there has never been a Canadian government to show courage or that there will ever be a government that will show courage.

I am in favour of the sentiment behind this motion. Unfortunately the Reform Party as usual did not get it right. The phrase “significant contingent of Canadian military personnel” is not clear. The hon. member for Red Deer said it was to give the government more leeway. If we give it an inch it will take a mile, just as it does now. That is no change at all. I suppose I should give the member for Red Deer credit. I am sure he was under pressure from Reform leadership to include in his motion a referendum. Is that not what the Reform Party would like, a referendum to send a significant number of troops out of Canada? Would the party of referendum not support that idea?

The Reform Party has no faith in Canada's institutions, including the institution of the prime minister. To be fair, this Liberal government does not provide much reason to have faith. However, my party believes that the prime minister must have the ability to act decisively in times of crisis. That means sending troops at short notice when they are needed. Only a fool would pretend to know what sort of emergencies a prime minister will face. To say that there will never be a time when national security depends on the prime minister's acting decisively and immediately would not be prudent. I support the intentions of the this motion and I am eager to discuss it further with the member for Red Deer.

In my view one of the problems is that parliamentarians do not have the information the prime minister and cabinet have needed to make such a decisive decision. Most parliamentarians and, as is sometimes evident with this government, some ministers get their information from press and once in a while limited departmental briefing. In my opinion that is the root of the problem.

Earlier today we debated Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act. During this debate and at other times I referred to a report from the commissioner of the defunct Somalia inquiry called “The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”. Its recommendations included having a real staff of experts that answered directly to the defence committee. This would inform parliamentarians, keep parliament vigilant and improve democracy.

Although this government does not have respect for this place, as was demonstrated earlier this week by not having members in this Chamber, I am eager to discuss this with the member for Red Deer and any other members in this House who are eager to make this place more democratic.

[National Defence Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party for sharing their time.

I am happy to speak to this bill today. The government has decided to address the issue of justice in the Canadian forces and it is about time. Like everything this government does, no matter how noble it appears to be, all we have to do is scratch the surface and we will always find an ulterior motive. Those motives generally are to look good rather than to do good. Today is one of those days.

Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both important and urgent. My party understands that if we are going to do something, it is worth doing it right. Unfortunately while there are some interesting points in this bill, it leaves far too much out and does not address the real problems the Canadian forces face today.

There are several questions we have to ask ourselves today. First, what events brought us to this point to have this bill reach Canada's House of Commons? Second, did this government act in the appropriate way and does this bill address the need for change? Third, if passed, will this bill work in a practical way when it is applied? While all of these questions are certainly connected, it would serve us well to take time to ensure that they are answered to Canadians' satisfaction.

The first question is perhaps the most important and the key to this. What events brought us to this point? All members of this House are aware of the events that transpired as a result of other events in Somalia. However they are worth repeating and repeating. The Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons last year. That brings us here today.

Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials to this House, it is incumbent upon all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me that if there is a good enough reason to begin an inquiry commission, then there is probably a real reason to complete that inquiry commission.

Because the Somalia inquiry was cut short, this has never been resolved. The result is that Canada's fine military has been dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The result is that Canadians do not know what the true story is and still there is no resolution. It is not because this government suddenly cares about military justice. The government shut down a public inquiry and there was no resolution.

Last month Maclean's magazine revealed that there was ongoing sexual abuse and sexual assault taking place in the military. Women do not feel comfortable doing their job. This is unacceptable.

Although my friends in the Reform Party seem to think that women should not be in the military at all, most members in this House and I believe the minister of defence agrees that this behaviour toward women is unacceptable. Saying it is unacceptable and doing something about it are two different things.

What we have now is an atmosphere of distrust with the Canadian forces members who have been wronged. They feel safer and feel as if more will be accomplished if they go to Maclean's magazine than if they report the crime to the appropriate personnel.

There is something wrong with that and this bill does not fix the problem.

The Minister of National Defence introduced a new ombudsman yesterday. In this House, I congratulated that new ombudsman and wished him well on his new job. When asked, this new ombudsman said that he has not been told what his budget will be, how much staff he will have and has not been given virtually any guidelines. That is certainly not acceptable.

That brings me to the second point I outlined earlier. Did this government act in the appropriate way? Does this bill address the need for change?

I just told this House that I disagree with the way this bill arrived here. However, there is much in this bill that my party agrees with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to cover something up, rather than address the real issues as this government so often does, the result is very often inadequate.

Similarly, because this government is introducing this bill for the wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the real problems.

Indeed the government missed an excellent opportunity to instil new confidence in our military. The government could have taken measures that would truly make a difference, measures the Canadian public could point to and say “my government listened, I now have faith in the way the military operates”.

But the government did not listen. Instead it shut down an inquiry and stifled debate. Now the Canadian public will feel cheated, and justly so.

There are ongoing investigations into sexual abuse. Does that make the Canadian public feel good about the people who wear Canada's uniform? I do not think so.

This government feels proud when it says it is fulfilling 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two points about this not so great accomplishment.

First, the Somalia commission was cut short and so we do not know what the full recommendations would have been. Second, while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my party's answer to that is quality is much more important than quantity.

The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that the judge advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored that recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that an office of inspector general be created. The government ignored that recommendation.

My party proposed in our election platform last year and we maintain today that creating the office of inspector general would be the best way to make the military accountable and increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its armed forces.

The Minister of National Defence said that the Canadian forces do not need someone looking over their shoulder. Then he goes on to say that the role of inspector general is being fulfilled in other ways. He mentions the grievance board made up of eminent Canadians. He mentions the new ombudsman. Could it be that the grievance board and the ombudsman do not do what an inspector general could do?

The way this bill would have it these bodies have absolutely no teeth. They can make recommendations and the CDS can ignore them. The Canadian public has little reason to believe that the recommendations will not be ignored.

The witnesses who came forward to speak to us on this bill were very knowledgeable. Professor Doug Bland of Queen's University recommended that the committee look at chapter 44 of the Somalia report.

It might be most effective if I read his words directly: “With respect, I would direct your attention to the final section of the report of the inquiry, the Somalia inquiry, `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament', which comes back to my original point. I believe that the defence of Canada, the operation of the armed forces, the delegation of responsibility, every act, every aspect of national defence policy in this country is the responsibility of members of parliament”.

That was on May 12, 1998. I would like to read a motion I put forward on November 29, 1997 at SCONDVA: “That the committee invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before this committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”'.

I presented this motion five months before Professor Bland and others appeared before the committee to discuss this very bill. I am sad to say the motion was turned down.

This government does not want a vigilant parliament because if parliament were too vigilant, this government might not get away with all its schemes.

As the events of the last few days have demonstrated, when there is not one government member in the Chamber, this Liberal government has absolutely no respect for parliament and no respect for democracy. This government's members do not listen. They do what the Prime Minister's office tells them to, no questions asked. After the hepatitis C compensation vote all Canadians know this, but it is true in other instances also.

I want to review some of the amendments that I know this government in its arrogance would not even consider. For example, if I had any faith that this government would actually listen and consider, I would have introduced a motion to establish an independent body of the office of inspector general including the powers to evaluate systematic problems in the military justice; conduct investigations into officer misconduct such as failure to take corrective action, personal misconduct, waste and abuse and possible injustice to individuals; protect those who report wrongdoing from reprisals; protect individuals from abuse of authority and improper personal actions including racial harassment and sexual harassment; and most important, report directly to parliament.

We know that the government would not even listen. The Minister of National Defence is not listening now. But the government did turn down the inspector general with solid reasons that my party could not accept.

Another recommendation we could have made is make the recommendations of the grievance board mandatory and binding and introduce a six month time limit within which the complaints must be examined.

But this government does not listen. It does not hear. It does not want an office with teeth and with real authority.

My party wholeheartedly agrees with the need to change the military justice system. This bill needs to go further to create real change. We want the public to know that the military serves it and not itself. This bill fails to do that and the government has failed to do its job.

[National Defence, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence introduced a new ombudsman today. I congratulate the new ombudsman and wish him well on his new job.

Unfortunately the minister did not go far enough. Even with the latest allegations of sexual abuse in the military, this minister refuses to act to create an office of the inspector general. He refuses to create an atmosphere that will lead to a more vigilant parliament.

When asked, this new ombudsman said he has not been told what his budget will be, how many staff he will have and has been given virtually no guidelines. Not a very auspicious beginning.

The minister can be assured that we will watch closely to see if he and his department will allow this new ombudsman to do his job. The complaints are piling up and there is a lot of work to be done.

[Foreign Affairs, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government deludes itself that Canada did not help India and Pakistan make nuclear bombs. The facts clearly indicate that Canadian technology did and continues to help make nuclear bombs for India, Pakistan and China.

Will the government continue to pretend that Canada played no part in last month's nuclear tests or will it haul our technicians out of that region immediately?

[Foreign Affairs, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week my party asked the government whether Canadian foreign policy was for sale.

According to media reports, Canadian nuclear technicians were still at work in India and Pakistan. This is clear proof that Canadian foreign policy is indeed up for sale.

When will these technicians be called back home to lessen the tensions?

[Reform Party Of Canada, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has finally come out of the closet. It wants Quebec out of Canada.

Canadians knew that Reform's leader could never be Prime Minister of a Canada that included Quebec. He does not have the support. Now by working with the separatists he has made it clear. Becoming Prime Minister of a rump Canada that has no Quebec is more important to Reform's leader than taking measures to keep Canada whole.

To be sure, Reform's leader has the approval of none other than Lucien Bouchard who called Reform's plans one of the most positive proposals in years. When Bouchard says an idea is positive, we know what he means: a step closer to an independent Quebec.

When Reform has allies like Bouchard, it is clear they are working together to break up Canada.

[Canada Customs, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister does not seem to understand is that the other ones are federal wharves. This is not a federal wharf. It is a municipal wharf. In the meantime, the municipality is now charging other people to use the wharf.

Canada Customs is now using the wharf also, parking trailers on the wharf, using all kinds of services and not paying a cent for them. That is not fair.

Maybe the minister could try to explain how he can get away with this.

[Canada Customs, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the Minister of Health is like talking to a brick wall, so I will go in another direction.

The Cedarville wharf on Lake Mephremagog is an official Canada-U.S. border crossing site for boaters and snowmobilers. However, Canada Customs has decided to download the cost of maintaining the wharf to the municipality of Ogden. Now Ogden has requested assistance from the government to help maintain the wharf, since it is a border crossing, and the request has been flatly denied.

Will the Minister of National Revenue explain the government's policy regarding offloading costs to municipalities and tell this House why Ogden's request was denied?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I quite enjoyed it. There is only one thing that bothers me a bit. It is probably the same situation as the situation I expressed to the member for Oak Ridges.

It is this thing of the militia. The member said that the government has made steps by increasing the numbers of militia. The member talked about Meaford and other training centres across the country and about improving training. At the same time the bean counter somewhere along the line has said it is fine that the numbers have been increased but now the expenses have to be cut down. So they have dropped the training to 32 days a year which is not enough time to give somebody good training and to get them used to it. The member has seen how the militia works. A normal training year used to be in the 60 day range. Now we are talking half of that time. By expanding the numbers but cutting the hours we are dropping behind.

I would like to see both the hours increased and our soldiers well trained, particularly our militia. Part of the problem is that we seem to be comfortable with the fire power they have. Unfortunately they are lacking a lot of other things.

The militia has access to clothing, but they do not seem to have access to other things such as equipment. Our soldiers find themselves in the opposite situation. They do not seem to have access to clothing. Something seems to be missing.

Perhaps the member would care to comment on that.