David Price

[Revocation Of Mandate Of Inquiry Commission, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion today. However, it saddens me that we in this House have to stand here and debate a motion that seems so obvious. Unfortunately it does not seem obvious to this government. In fact, it is this government that has made it necessary to introduce this motion by behaving in an irresponsible manner.

I am speaking in particular of the Somalia commission inquiry. As members know, the Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons earlier this year which is what brings us here today.

Unfortunately closing down the Somalia inquiry proved that it is not incumbent on the government to do the right thing. In that instance the government did the wrong thing. I will speak about Somalia more in a moment.

First I want to tell this House that we do support this motion. We support this motion for the simple reason that public inquiries are not called on a whim. Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials in this House, it is incumbent on 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 an inquiry commission.

Of course there might be real reasons to cut short an inquiry. If I could I would like to outline some of the reasons why a government, maybe this government, might want to end a public inquiry. First, the inquiry might start revealing information the government does not want heard because it might prove embarrassing.

Second, one of the people being investigated by the commission might just be the brother-in-law of Canada's vice regal.

Third, there might just be an election looming and the government might just want to ignore the inquiry and get on with business or the business of getting re-election. These are very important reasons to shut down a public inquiry. I hope members will understand my point.

It is sad to say it was so easy for this government to shut down Somalia. This motion will ensure that there are real reasons to shut down a public inquiry. If I could I would like to quickly outline what was the cost in real terms of prematurely shutting down the Somalia commission.

Robert Fowler, then deputy minister of defence and now Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, says that on March 19 he told minister Kim Campbell and acting chief of staff Richard Clair that Somali teenager Shidane Arone had died three days earlier as a result of foul play at the hands of Canadians.

Richard Clair, then acting chief of staff to the minister of defence, Kim Campbell, says he did discuss the death with Fowler and vice-admiral Larry Murray, then vice-chief of defence staff, on March 19 but nobody mentioned foul play.

He said at the time that to him the death was still a mystery. The right hon. Kim Campbell, then minister of defence, says that she was aware that there was an investigation going on March 17. She knows this because she received a briefing note on that day.

In that briefing note the death of the Somali is listed as perplexing and that Canadian forces had acted appropriately. The right hon. Kim Campbell also knew from the same briefing book that Corporal Matchee had tried to kill himself because “he had roughed him up”, meaning Shidane Arone. The truth was he beat him to death.

It was not until March 30, 11 days later, that minister Kim Campbell learned that there was an investigation into the death. 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 have less faith in their public servants as Robert Fowler remains Canada's ambassador to the United Nations and Larry Murray has just been appointed ADM in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Still there is no resolution. The result is that Canadians do not know what the true story is, and still there is no resolution.

This is evidence enough that the government lost the right to unilaterally end a public inquiry. If it is not, I would like to refer to the words of one of Canada's most respected sons, Chief Justice Brian Dickson.

In a speech given just last month Chief Justice Dickson said: “Something is drastically wrong when the public feels that its military is incompetent and led by an inept, if not corrupt, hierarchy”. It was not fair to the dead Somalis whose death has not been fully understood.

Ending the Somalia inquiry early was not fair to the military, which needed a just resolution. And it was not fair to Canadians who deserve to have faith in their public institutions.

I want to close today by informing this House that the government is still scared, but of what I do not know. Less than two weeks ago I submitted a motion to the defence and veterans affairs committee.

I would like to read the motion: “That the committee invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before the committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”'. I am sad to say that this motion was voted down. What are they hiding?

When this motion is passed, the government will not be able to hide so easily. Again, we do support this motion.

[National Defence, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government believes that buying new helicopters is some sort of joke, but nobody is laughing. Charging Canadians over $500 million for nothing is no joke, it is an embarrassment. The Minister of National Defence said that he would make an announcement on a new search and rescue helicopter soon. That was 79 days ago. Will the government make an announcement on the new helicopters before Christmas or will the bidding process start all over again in January for a third time?

[National Defence, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government is refitting our aging, cracking, unreliable, 30-year old Sea King helicopters to last until the year 2005. These are the same helicopters that were grounded this past weekend.

This goes against the 1994 defence white paper and I have information that this will cost $970 million. Is this government going to spend $970 million on repairs and then spend billions on new helicopters? I do not think so.

Is it not true that this government has absolutely no intention of replacing our aging Sea Kings?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, just before we started question period I was talking about the totally unacceptable tax burden on small business.

Small business people are the real job creators in Canada. The tax burden for small business in Canada is higher than in most competing jurisdictions. Small business owners have to pay both employer and employee premiums. This makes it very difficult for Canadian businesses to survive in today's global economy, which means fewer jobs and fewer job opportunities for Canadians.

Study after study around the world have shown that high taxes kill jobs. Jurisdictions with low relative tax rates have high economic growth and strong job creation. Where the taxes are high, growth is low and there are fewer jobs. That is a Polaroid picture of Canada.

Within Canada our high payroll and corporate taxes form a barrier to jobs and growth by taxing businesses for every new job it creates. It is a job creation tax. That is unheard of. The real solution is to create the conditions under which job creation by the private sector is sustainable over the long term.

That is why it makes sense to cap increases to the Canada pension plan at 10.25%. If the government is serious when it states that changes made to Bill C-2 will prevent premiums from rising above 9.9%, there should be absolutely no problem with requiring parliament to review the changes if premiums ever approach 10.25%.

The CPP is a fundamental part of the Canadian social safety net, an obligation that the government must honour. Capping the CPP at 10.25% and reducing EI premiums are ways of returning the CPP to financial viability and protecting the investment Canadians have already made in the plan.

The Reform Party believes that the only way to deal with this challenge is to abandon our obligation to retiring Canadians and eliminate the CPP. This approach is without merit. The current government solution asks people to put even more of their paycheques into its hands every year. This approach is without merit. Canadians do not need a multibillion dollar tax hike.

Most experts agree that the best solution is to make the CPP fully self-financing. In other words, enough new money should be directed into the plan today to ensure that it can pay the benefits due to those who retire down the road.

It is possible to put more money into the fund and offset the cost by reducing EI premiums. This plan has merit and it makes sense. It would mean more money going into the plan without asking Canadians to pick up the tab and without creating more threats to job creation.

Small business is the engine of growth in the country. We should encourage this engine to grow and run smoothly instead of forcing it to run out of gas and stall. The House can and must make a difference.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are six years into what economists are calling a recovery but it seems to be a jobless recovery.

Too many Canadians are being left behind. The unemployment rate continues to hover around 10%. There are areas in regions of the country where high chronic unemployment has become the norm for second generation Canadians. This is unacceptable.

Canadian families are working harder than ever, many needing two or three incomes just to make ends meet. Working Canadians are falling further and further behind. Canadians have not experienced a real tax pay raise since the 1980s. A person's disposable income has actually fallen by almost 6 per cent since 1990. Canadians are paying more and more in taxes but getting less and less in return. For the first time ever a generation of Canadians are at risk of leaving their children a lower standard of living than that of their parents.

The tax burden on small business is unacceptable. I know. I have run a small business for 30 years and we are hurting. That is what I want to talk about today. Small business.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

I have one minute, so I would like to begin, Mr. Speaker.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

On debate, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will also be very brief. I have a couple of comments to make with respect to the speeches which have been made by hon. members today.

Jody Williams was mentioned several times. I attended a breakfast for her a couple of weeks ago, as did many hon. members. When she was questioned on what she would be doing for her next project, she was quite clear that she had nowhere near finished her project on land mines. She said that she would be continuing with that project.

Right now we have the opportunity to take this issue one step further, which is the type of thing she would like to do. The Asia-Pacific economic co-operation meeting is taking place in Vancouver. I understand that the APEC meeting will not address human rights concerns, that it will only address economies. That is not the right thing to do. I know that many Canadians and the minister feel that this is not the right thing to do.

The human rights records of our trading partners should be mentioned and not just in passing. Similarly, APEC provides an excellent opportunity to discuss security matters. The Pacific Rim is becoming more volatile as communist China grows stronger and North Korea becomes more and more unpredictable. In the future APEC will address international security concerns in the region. It will soon not be able to ignore the issue. It would be a wonderful start to set an important precedent if Canada led this initiative.

It is my suggestion that Canada bring up the issue of the land mines treaty fully and publicly and not just in bilateral meetings. If the government is really serious about ridding the world of land mines, the APEC summit would be a timely opportunity to challenge countries to join.

Again, I want to congratulate the government and particularly the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his efforts.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak today on the bill to ban land mines.

It is not often that I find a reason to congratulate the government, especially in the area of foreign affairs, but today I salute the minister's efforts. Canadians should be proud that it was Canada who played a leading role in the negotiation of the land mines treaty. It is in keeping with Canada's proud history of making the world a safer place.

This will be most widely felt in countries such as Cambodia and Angola and Mozambique, where it is civilians earning a living in the fields and children playing who suffer as a result of land mines.

My colleague from Kings-Hants recently travelled to Bosnia where he met farmers who could not plough their fields because they were fearful that they would blow themselves up with land mines. Others use mines to protect their crops.

This treaty addresses this problem, and I am sure that all members in this House and all Canadians are proud that this initiative was led by Canada. So again, I offer my warmest congratulations to the government.

I do have some concerns, however, and my concerns are both domestic and international in nature. It seems to me that there are companies in Canada that manufacture devices that could be found in land mines. I am told that these mines do not require complicated technology to work. There are a lot of pieces required, however.

My concern is the following: What will happen in the years and months ahead, when it is discovered that the triggering device or a spring or any part of a land mine being used somewhere else was in fact manufactured in Canada?

We have in this country many major electronics companies that manufacture all sorts of little odds and ends that make up components in computer, radios, televisions and telephones. It would prove most embarrassing if it turned out that a product from a major Canadian form was inadvertently used as a trigger in a land mine. Are there any measures to prevent this from happening?

My concerns that deal with international affairs are perhaps not as traightforward. My first concern has to do with the United States. It is my impression that the American gouvernement did what it could to be a part of this treaty but in the end, when international security considerations were discussed, the United States could not take part.

What I am about to say is very important and cannot be orverlooked. There is a big difference between land mines in a field in Angola, which prevent farmers from earning a living, and land mines. used to protect the rights and freedoms of South Koreans against their dangerous Communist neighbours to the North. While the land mines this treaty seeks to ban will harm people, the land mines laid by our friends and allies, the Americans, are there to protect people.

I cannot emphasize this enough, so I will say it again: This treaty is useful in that it is an effort to rid the world of land mines form wars gone by. When a conflict is over and soldiers have returned home, there has to be an opportunity to return to normalisation. Part of this process means that fields should be deared of mines so innocent men, women and children can work and play, build and prosper, without fear.

This is not the situation on the 38th parallel, the border between South Korea and North Korea. The situation is much different. This is not a case of war gone by. This is a clear case of a conflict that still exists. The 37,000 U.S. troops are there to protect our Pacific ally from invasion. The zone where American land mines have been laid is a zone of conflict. It is monitored by the South Koreans as well as by the Americans.

We must not forget that, on November 11, Canadians stop to pay Tribute to our veterans who served in World War I and World War II and also our veterans who fought for the freedom of South Korea during the Korean War.

That freedom is still in jeopardy because of the military threat of North Korea. This is not an area where farmers would otherwise be tilling the soil. This is not a playground for children. This is a military zone. The United States is Canada's close friend and ally. It has not signed this treaty. The American government studied the matter and concluded that to do so would jeopardize its position in Korea and thus jeapardize the lives of its 37,000 soldiers and the lives of South Koreans and the freedoms that exist there and that have been fought for.

On Friday, it was announced that in December North Korea will enter into peace talks with South Korea, that will include China and the United States. We will wait and see, hoping that real progress is made.

There are other things that should be widely known about the American effort as we approach the day when this treaty is signed. The United States is trying to find a replacement for the anti-personnel land mines currently being used in the Korean peninsula. The United States has said eager to help rid the world of land mines by the year 2010 and plans to contribute over $100 million to the global de-mining effort in the next year.

The list of countries that signed this treaty is long. It is, however, missing some very important players. Especially Russia, China, North Korea, South Korea, India and Pakistan.

I encourage the government to continue to put pressure on these countries.

In fact, two countries where land mines have been most harmful to civilians in recent years are Afghanistan and Cambodia. These mines are left over from the Communist regime.

I have been told that there are mines left over from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that were made deliberately to look like toys. It was a deliberate attempt to kill children and to terrorize the Afghans into submission.

It is important that Canada lead the way not only to rid the world of these lands mines, but to take every opportunity to tell Canadians that the countries I just mentioned did not sign this treaty for reasons that are quite different from the reasons for which Americans did not sign. When the world does become a safer place, American protection of our weaker allies will become less and less necessary.

My other concern that involves international consideration is APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting that is taking place in Vancouver as we speak. I understand that the APEC meeting wil not address human rights concerns, but only economic issues. That is not right, and I know that many Canadians feel the same way.

I suggest that Canada should bring up the issue of the land mines fully and publicly and not just at bilateral meetings. If the governement is really serious about ridding the world of land mines, the APEC summit would be a timely opportunity to challenge countries to join.

Also, I want to congratulate the government, and in particular, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his efforts. I sincerely hope that the government will take my comments seriously, and take them into consideration.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, we are really talking about Quebec. We are not talking about the other provinces. We are only speaking about section 93 and how it affects Quebec.

The member's party wrote the dissenting opinion. It really does not make any sense. We are protecting minority rights in Quebec. It is the only way we can do it. We cannot do it with section 93 in place. We cannot do it.