Debates of March 19th, 1998

Canadian Parks Agency Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

National Defence Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of National Defence]

moved that Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The legislation will strengthen the statutory framework governing the operations of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces, in particular the administration of military justice. It ensures an effective and fair military justice system, one that is capable of operating in conflict or peace in Canada or abroad.

There are four key components to Bill C-25 as it relates to military justice. First, these changes will enhance transparency and provide greater structure to the exercise of individual discretion in the investigation and the charging process.

Second, the amendments will modernize the powers and procedures of service tribunals, including the elimination of the death penalty under military law.

Third, the amendments will strengthen oversight and review the administration of military justice.

Fourth, the amendments will clarify, for the first time in the act, the roles and responsibility of the key figures in the military justice system and set clear standards of institutional separation for the investigative and prosecutorial defence and judicial functions.

I am especially pleased to speak in support of the changes on behalf of the minister, clarifying the roles of these key figures in military justice.

If we picture the manner in which the Canadian system of criminal justice functions in our cities and towns, there are four sets of key figures: the investigators, the prosecutors, the defence counsel and the judges. Each set of figures performs a discrete function in the criminal justice system. It is the interaction of these independent figures, each with a determined role, that produces fair outcomes in individual cases.

Each of these figures can be found in the military justice system. However, until recently their functions were largely carried out under the umbrella of the chain of command. Furthermore, the institutional separation between them was not as pronounced as in civilian criminal law.

A further complicating feature of military justice in Canada is that the Minister of National Defence has been assigned a variety of quasi-judicial duties under the act. This has meant that he played an active role in the administration of individual cases.

The roles, responsibilities and duties of the key figures are not precisely set out in the National Defence Act as it is presently laid out. This lack of precision has led to confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding about the respective functions and relationships in delivering justice.

To ensure that these roles are clearly separated and to provide objective guarantees that cases will be administered impartially, Bill C-25 establishes the duties and institutional relationships among the prosecution, defence and judicial functions.

To this end there are five important features of the bill. It will remove the minister from the day to day administration of individual cases. It will set out the qualifications and role of the judge advocate general as legal adviser in relation to military law. It will fully separate the prosecution function at courts martial from the military chain of command by establishing the position of director of military prosecutions. The director will be appointed by the minister and responsible under the general supervision of the judge advocate general for the conducting of all prosecutions at courts martial.

It will provide for the appointment of a director of defence counsel services whose sole responsibility will be the provision of legal services to accused persons in proceedings under the code of service discipline.

Finally, it will provide explicitly for independent military judges to be appointed by the governor in council for a fixed term. Military judges are not responsible to the chain of command in the performance of their judicial duties.

Let us look at the minister's role. The National Defence Act assigns the minister with the management and direction of the Canadian forces and all matters relating to national defence. This includes responsibility for administration of military justice. The act also gives the minister a variety of powers and responsibilities relating to the day to day administration of the code of service discipline.

The report of the special advisory group on military justice and military police investigation services, chaired by the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, recommended the elimination of the vast majority of the minister's duties and responsibilities for the administration of individual cases under the code of service discipline.

Bill C-25 implements that recommendation. This approach will avoid perceptions of interference or conflict of interest in the administration of individual cases and will enable the minister to devote more time to his or her normal political and policy role.

I would now like to address the responsibility of the judge advocate general. The JAG, as he is known in the armed forces, has advised the department and the Canadian forces on military history and law since 1911. However, the National Defence Act does not set out his duties and this has contributed to uncertainty about his roles.

Both the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission of inquiry recommended that the roles of the JAG be clarified through amendments to the act. Bill C-25 clearly sets out the JAG's duties and functions as legal adviser to the governor general, the Minister of National Defence, the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian forces in matters of military law.

In addition, the judge advocate general will superintend the administration of military justice in the Canadian forces. In fulfilling this mandate the JAG will be required to conduct regular reviews and file an annual report to the minister, a report which the minister must table in parliament.

These changes, in addition to clarifying the JAG's duties, will improve the oversight and review of the administration of military justice.

The National Defence Act is currently silent on the important role of the prosecutor at courts martial. In this regard both the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission recommended the establishment of a military prosecutor, independent of the chain of command, to deal with serious disciplinary and criminal charges and to be responsible for the conduct of all cases before courts martial.

Prosecutorial independence is a basic element in our criminal justice system. A clear separation between the prosecution function at courts martial and the chain of command provides greater assurance that prosecution decisions will be free from external influences and conflicts of interest.

Bill C-25 will achieve this objective through the establishment of the position of director of military prosecutions. In order to reinforce the director's independence from the chain of command, the director will be appointed for a fixed term of four years and will report to and act under the general supervision of the judge advocate general. In order to ensure ministerial accountability for military justice, the JAG's directions to the director will be required in writing and the minister will be informed.

Subject to certain limitations designed to protect the administration of justice in individual cases, the director will also have the duty to ensure that these directions are available to the public.

The Dickson advisory group also recommended that the judge advocate general's duties in respect of his or her separate defence and prosecution functions be set out in the National Defence Act.

Bill C-25 establishes a clear institutional structure for the defence function. It establishes a director of defence counsel services whose sole function will be to provide and co-ordinate the provision of prescribed services to persons subject to the code of service discipline.

These services include legal assistance to persons detained or arrested acting as defence counsel at courts martial and certain appeals and providing legal advice to individuals making an election to be tried by courts martial or summary trial. The judge advocate general will supervise the overall provision of these services. To protect the solicitor-client privilege of accused persons, the judge advocate general will not be allowed to give specific directions in individual cases.

These institutional arrangements will enhance the separation between military defence counsel and other figures in the system. They will provide greater assurance of independent legal advice for those who need it.

With respect to the judicial function, whereas the minister currently appoints officers to perform judicial duties, Bill C-25 will provide a statutory basis for the independence of these military judges. It will do this by authorizing the governor in council to appoint military judges to a fixed five year term.

These amendments have a positive impact on how the military justice system is organized and conducted. The amendments secure a statutory basis for the authority exercised by key figures in the military justice system. The result is a modernized national defence act which for the first time explicitly defines the independent roles and functions discharged by each actor.

When viewed in their totality, these amendments will strengthen the Canadian forces as a vital national institution by promoting discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice among the men and women of the forces. I urge all members to support Bill C-25.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the defence act.

Today I will talk about the stated purpose of the bill. Then by focusing on three different areas I will talk about what I think in reality is in this piece of legislation. The first area I will focus on is the reform to the military police. Second will be the reform to the office of the judge advocate general. Third will be something that is completely missing from this legislation, which is an implementation of an independent inspector general. I will focus on these three areas as I give the opposition reaction to this legislation.

I will close by talking about a component that is completely missing from the legislation and in fact from government when it comes to our military. The component which is completely missing is a true commitment to the military.

Bill C-25 amends the Department of National Defence Act. The government says that this bill is presented to make substantial changes to the military justice system in the Canadian Armed Forces. It goes on to say that Bill C-25 does that by clarifying the role and responsibilities of various players. Also it separates on an institutional basis the system's investigative, prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions. It is intended to complete summary trial reform. It will reform sentencing regulations. These are the things the government says this legislation will do.

The legislation will establish two independent oversight bodies external to the Canadian forces. The first is the Canadian forces grievance board and the second is the military police complaints commission. It will require both of these boards and the judge advocate general to file annual reports to the minister which will be tabled before Parliament.

The legislation will require the Minister of National Defence to have the National Defence Act reviewed and reported back to Parliament in five years.

The legislation will also abolish the death penalty as a punishment and will substitute it with life imprisonment for crimes committed in the military.

To be fair, there are some positive changes in this bill. I will focus on three areas. First I want to say that these changes while positive, absolutely do not go far enough. For that reason, Reform cannot support the bill at second reading.

Substantial amendments to the bill are needed. We will be presenting amendments at committee and at report stage. If substantial amendments are accepted then possibly we could support this bill, but we feel that substantial amendments are needed. To demonstrate this I am going to focus on three areas.

A critical area is that of implementing the position of an independent inspector general. This is something Reform has been proposing for some time and it was actually recommended recently in the report on the Somalia inquiry. Unfortunately it is not included anywhere in the legislation.

There currently is an inspector general. It is important to clarify this. The inspector general in the forces right now is not independent in any way from the military rank system. The powers are very narrow. The way it has been described to me is that the inspector general is there now more to inspect that the uniforms are right, that people are wearing them properly, that type of thing.

Clearly that is not the role we see for the independent inspector general. We see a very substantive role. We feel it is a role which is critical to fixing the military so that it is an organization which functions well to protect Canadians. That is the purpose of the military.

The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of an independent inspector general. The government again has completely ignored that key recommendation of the Somalia inquiry in this legislation. This is despite the fact that the minister in the press release announcing this legislation said that part of the reason for this legislation was to respond to the recommendations of the inquiry. He has completely missed this critical aspect of the Somalia inquiry.

The minister has shown very clearly that he does not want an independent inspector general in the Canadian military. He said they did not need some outsider looking over their shoulders. That attitude is upsetting. We expect in Canada that we will have an outsider looking over the shoulders of those who run the military. Those outsiders are the Canadian public represented in the Parliament of Canada.

I would also suggest that the independent inspector general could do a lot to head off some of the key problems before they become big news stories. These have plagued the military and have done a lot of damage to morale over the past several years. The independent inspector general is not just to dig out dirt on what goes on inside the military, far from it. The real key purpose is to find these concerns, to listen to men and women inside the forces and to act before there is another smudge on the military through some big story in the media.

Quite frankly the only media stories we need regarding the military are positive stories which right now are completely missed. There are many positive stories that should be told about the military. We have excellent men and women serving in the military. We have some excellent people in command positions in the military.

We also have an awful lot of very serious problems particularly in those command positions and other problems regarding the men and women which have driven morale to an unprecedented low. We certainly saw this as we travelled with the defence committee.

We do need someone looking over the military's shoulder and not just Parliament, although we certainly need more of that, but we also need an independent inspector general. I do not think there is any doubt from events in the past and the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry and some of the things that came out that this position is needed.

The government's response to this position was the minister announced the creation of the position of ombudsman in the fall of 1997. He agreed to create that post following the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. That was another separate position that was recommended in the Somalia inquiry.

The minister still has not followed through on that commitment. Bill C-25 would seem to be a logical piece of legislation to implement the minister's version of the ombudsman, which by the way is much different from the version of the ombudsman that was recommended by the Somalia inquiry.

These changes we are debating here today do not mention the position of ombudsman at all. Not only has the independent inspector general been left out, but also the ombudsman has been completely left out in spite of the fact that the minister has called for this position to be created.

When we look at the minister's own briefing notes on his idea of the ombudsman, which is much different from the idea of the ombudsman that was presented in the Somalia inquiry, he made it very clear that the position would have very little power and would not really affect the changes that are needed.

Just to quote the minister, he says that the ombudsman has no formal authority, does not conduct formal investigations, makes no formal recommendations and publishes no report of findings. The ombudsman is a member of the organization but not a part of its management structure. Rectification of problems continues to remain within the chain of command. As pointed out and recommended by the minister, that is the reality of what the ombudsman would do.

Not only do we not have the independent inspector general in this legislation, but there is no mention at all of the ombudsman in spite of the fact that the minister has actually said that he would institute an ombudsman. Those are the two glaring holes we see in this legislation.

The second area I am going to focus on is the office of the judge advocate general. I question whether there is a need for a change to the office of the judge advocate general. If we are making changes, we had better know there is a need for them. It has been demonstrated pretty well that there is a need for major reform to the office of the judge advocate general. The unfortunate thing about this is that the changes proposed in this legislation do not solve the basic problems which I will talk about in a minute.

First to answer the question of whether there is a need for change, clearly there is. In the Somalia debacle, the lower ranks were blamed for the actions of the higher ranks. Documents were destroyed and officers lied on the stand. This clearly points out the need for reform of the office of the judge advocate general.

The Dean Marsaw case, which was a well publicized case, points that out. There have been various individual courts martial that really show the need for reform in this office.

The Bakovici hospital case in Bosnia and the way that was handled shows a clear need for reform in the office of the judge advocate general.

Most recently, in the Simone Olofson case that I brought before this House last week, a letter was written from the judge advocate general to this lady who made a presentation to the standing committee in Cold Lake.

She presented after the minister and the chief of defence staff said “We encourage members of the forces to present. They can be assured that there will only be positives that will come from this”. “We want to hear from people”, they said. “Come, bare your souls. Be witnesses before this committee and we will listen carefully. We will take the information we get and try to make things better”. That is what they said.

What did they do? They sent a threatening letter to Simone Olofson. They criticized her in the strongest terms for presenting before the committee. There was a threat that really was not veiled that if she speaks out again she is going to be in trouble.

This woman works on the base in Cold Lake on a contract basis. She is not a member of the forces. Her father works on the base along with her father-in-law and her mother-in-law. They can go through the list. There are a lot of people in her family who depend on work at the base.

The judge advocate general, or perhaps it was the deputy judge advocate whose name was on the letter, actually pushed this thing forward.

This could have come from the minister. We do not know. It could have come from any rank higher than this person. The way the military works, these people will write the letter they are told to write. I do not want to lay the blame just on that individual, although clearly the letter was wrong.

The minister said he apologized for it. I did not really see much of an apology but at least he did acknowledge that it was wrong, that it never should have happened. That letter shows clearly the need for some major reform in the office of the judge advocate general.

What Reform has said on this is that this office needs to be independent. Currently the JAG is appointed by the privy council office on advice from the chief of defence staff and reports to the chief of defence staff.

Members can tell from that that really there is no freedom, that there is not the kind of independence that is needed in this office. It was recommended again in the Somalia report.

It needs to be recognized that conflict of interest between the judicial, the prosecutorial and the defence roles no longer exist. We have been calling for that to be clearly separated.

In this legislation, if members were to read it and listen to the words that have been spoken about it, that happens. In reality there really is not the independence and they all still answer to the chain of command.

That independence just is not there. What is in this legislation is not as it is being presented by the government side. That is pretty clear. We have some great concerns about this office of the judge advocate general.

The minister again says that the changes have been recommended in order to further strengthen the independence of the JAG. It is clearly not there. His words just do not match up with what is in the legislation. Prior to these amendments, the National Defence Act did not list the requirements for the JAG to be a military officer.

What I want to do with this next minute or so is point out the changes that have been made in this legislation which actually make this appointment even less independent.

I will go through that step by step. Prior to this legislation, the amendments to the National Defence Act did not require that the JAG be a military officer.

As the National Defence Act states, the JAG will be an officer, a barrister or advocate with at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province. That is what is stated partly in this legislation.

The pool of individuals who would qualify for this position of judge advocate general, which was previously not limited by rank, has now been limited to a pool of very few people. Some say there are as few as four people in the military who would qualify under the guidelines which are laid out in the legislation.

Instead of making things better, it is pretty clear that this legislation makes things worse. It narrows the pool even more.

There is a problem with these changes, other than just the narrowing of the pool. The JAG will still be within the chain of command. He will have three levels of officers above him. He will be outranked by approximately 25 individuals. What we called for is more independence. We suggested that the JAG be taken out of the normal chain of command.

If that does not happen, he will be outranked by 25 people. We know what that means in the military. It means that when one of those 25 people give an order the JAG will listen.

The rank system still allows for influence to be held over the JAG. In fact, these changes will allow that to become law.

The present minister has already recognized the problem inherent in these amendments. In making the most recent appointment last week, the minister went outside of the current list of serving candidates to recall a retired lieutenant-colonel to fill the position of JAG. Lieutenant-Colonel Pitzul was promoted two rungs to become brigadier general, which is the required rank under this legislation.

This rank jumping negates the entire military hierarchical system which will make a mockery of the position. That is a fundamental problem with what has been done with the office of the JAG by this legislation.

The best person for the job may not be able to fill the position. If he is a civilian he will not be able to do that unless he has the proper background.

These changes, when we really look at them, will not increase the independence, as promised, but in fact will only make the system even more closed than before. Clearly, the office of the judge advocate general has not been reformed in this legislation as it should have been.

The third area is that of the military police. I will not talk much about it, but I want to give a very brief outline of what has happened in that area.

The military police should have been taken completely out of the chain of command and given more independence. It is a very similar problem to that of the office of the judge advocate general.

The military police should report to the attorney general in matters relating to the investigation of major disciplinary offences and criminal misconduct, particularly when the infractions occur in Canada.

Judge Warren was commissioned to report on the military police. He recommended they not have the power in Canada to conduct criminal investigations, and yet this recommendation was completely ignored in Bill C-25. It is another glaring gap in this legislation.

I have talked about some of the specific problems with this legislation. What I want to do now is talk about a missing component of this legislation and other legislation which may come forward. That missing component is the commitment of government to the military. That commitment must appear in three ways. It must appear in words. The government must reinforce, again and again, that the military is important to Canadians. We need our military. We need the kind of security which comes with a well trained and well equipped military.

The second thing needed is commitment in terms of dollars, and I will talk a little about that. The third is a commitment in terms of the change in the structure of the military.

In terms of the commitment in words, it might be thought words would be the easiest way a government could show commitment to the military. I want to ask the following of any of the government members. When is the last time a Liberal prime minister showed real commitment to the Canadian military? When is the last time a Liberal prime minister said we really need the military of this country? When is the last time a Liberal prime minister said the men and women in the military were doing a good job or that the reason the military maybe is not functioning as well as it should is because of the basic structure of the military? I challenge the members to find the last time the Prime Minister said things like that.

In fact, one would have to look back a long way. My guess would be about 30 years. Clearly the commitment to the military has not been there in words in any way. We have heard the defence minister on occasion show some support for the military. I think that is one of the jobs of the defence minister, but for the Prime Minister it has been an awful long time.

Give some credit to the Conservatives. Certainly the Conservative government and former Prime Minister Mulroney did show a lot more respect for the military, did show more commitment to the military and did express our need for the military. They did it not only in words, they did it in terms of dollars and in terms of change. Those are the things I will talk about when I rise to complete my presentation after question period.

Arctic Winter Games

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday marked the beginning of the Arctic winter games in Yellowknife. More than 1,500 athletes and staff participated for one week of competitions, cultural exchanges and shared new experiences.

Since 1970 these games are held every two years and include participants from all regions of the circumpolar world. This year there were contingents from Russia, Greenland and Alaska joining the NWT, Yukon and Northern Alberta to compete in 18 different sports ranging from hockey to traditional Arctic sports. A number of cultural presentations from the different regions were also present.

These were the last games for the NWT as one territory. In the next games to be held in the year 2000, Nunavut athletes will represent a new territory for the first time and will have full participation in the event. This will give Nunavut residents the opportunity to express their distinct culture and share their experiences with other participants. The Arctic winter games provide—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary East.

Racial Discrimination

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I take great pride in the fact that Canada in 1989 became the first country in the world to have a national March 21 campaign.

Unfortunately racism continues to be a problem in countries around the world, including Canada. Yesterday evening I had the honour to attend the finals in Toronto of the stop racism national video competition.

Students from across Canada produced brief segments of the problems of racism in Canadian society. These young Canadians showed an awareness to a problem we should all be addressing. Racism divides people and weakens society.

The Reform Party is committed to fighting racism. Therefore we pledge to work with all Canadians in order to ensure that discrimination is eradicated in Canada.

Journée Internationale De La Francophonie

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 20, Canada and every country where French is spoken will celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

As we know, the international francophone community is an integral part of Canada's foreign policy and all Canadians benefit from this window on the world, as a result of the cordial relationships we have established with French-speaking countries on all continents.

As one of the most active members of this multinational community, Canada will continue to uphold the fundamental values we all share, values such as democracy, human rights and, above all, the rights of women and children.

I would like all members of this House to join me in wishing all francophones in Canada and around the world a great Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

Racial Discrimination

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind all hon. members that March 21 marks the 10th anniversary of the celebration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was crafted by a Canadian, John Peters Humphrey.

We live in a Canada that enjoys a worldwide reputation as a model society that values social justice and democracy above all else. In reality, racism and social discrimination continue to act as barriers to the realization of our full potential as a socially responsible, progressive and prosperous nation.

Let us resolve anew to build upon our determination to craft a society in which every citizen feels a proud sense of belonging, a society in which social justice is a reality and not just a dream.

Newfoundland And Labrador

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address a number of issues which are important to the people in my riding.

I have said it in this House before and I will say it again. Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be the place to be in the brand new century, in the brand new millennium ahead. I want to share with my colleagues the enthusiasm I have for my riding of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte. We are hosting the National Triathlon Championships and heading into the world qualifying matches. The world will be joining my riding, here with us, colleagues included. Mr. Speaker, you are invited as well.

We will start off the brand new 1999 with Soirée '99. It is Newfoundland and Labrador's 50th anniversary as part of Confederation when Canada also joined Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, you are invited to that as well. We are also celebrating the 1999 Canada Winter Games. Members of this House, including the Speaker, are invited to that event.

To cap it all off, the brand new millennium will be first hailed in in L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. We are ahead of our time, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

That is the best offer I have had today. The hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin.

British Columbia Economy

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Toronto Dominion Bank announced that the British Columbia economy is essentially in recession. It is not hard to understand why. For example, a Swedish company, Bolidon Limited, purchased Gibraltar Mines near Williams Lake less than three months ago. Last week it announced that it is permanently closing this mine with a 12-year ore reserve still in the ground. What it really wanted were the Chilean mines in the deal.

Two hundred and seventy-eight people will lose their jobs. The economic spin-off of this closure will only add to the economic devastation felt by the community as a result. The actions of both the provincial and federal governments have had an enormous detrimental impact on my riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin and on the entire province of British Columbia. While the national unemployment rate is falling, it rose by almost .5% last month to 9.7% which is higher than it was when this Liberal government began its economic reforms in 1994.

British Columbians are suffering. What does this government care? British Columbians demand changes—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

Parliamentary Immunity

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to point out a disgraceful act. I want to make you aware that members of this House are making allegations all the time, hiding behind parliamentary immunity. They have made accusations of bribery. However, they refuse to make these same statements outside of this House while they know full well they would be sued for their untrue allegations.

The Prime Minister of Canada is considered to be a man of integrity. He is one of the most highly respected politicians in Canada and in the world. Like many other Canadians, I am proud that this good Canadian is my leader. If the Reform Party leader would follow the Prime Minister's example, he too might carry some respect in Canada.

It is this simple. The Canadian people want Reformers to apologize or make their statements outside of this House. The leader and the deputy leader of the Reform Party quite simply and knowingly have lied, yes lied, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

Those words are not permitted in the House of Commons. I would like you to withdraw those last words.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

If they would withdraw their comments, Mr. Speaker.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I want you to withdraw your words. These words are not parliamentary. I would ask you specifically to withdraw those words.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker.

Leader Of The Opposition

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past two weeks the leader of the Reform Party has been abusing the parliamentary traditions of this House.

The leader of the Reform Party has been making false allegations, allegations that he is not strong enough to repeat outside the Chamber. Shame on the leader of the Reform Party.

We hope that the leader of the Reform Party is inspired by the higher goals of honesty and integrity.

Conseil Du Statut De La Femme

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a former minister responsible for the status of women, I attended the ceremony commemorating the 25th anniversary of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme.

In the National Assembly's red room, the council's current chairwoman, Diane Lemieux, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Quebec's minister of employment and minister responsible for the status of women, Louise Harel, the opposition leader and the premier took turns at the microphone to pay tribute to the council and its successive chairwomen. In the evening, more than 400 women gathered to celebrate, reminisce and plan for the future.

In Quebec, the Conseil du statut de la femme is an important institution. In addition to providing assistance to women and women's groups in those regions where it is represented, the council conducts research, publishes information and makes policy recommendations.

Unlike the federal government, which abolished the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Government of Quebec not only supports but—