Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2000

Point Of Order

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, and with a view on enlightening the hon. members across the way, I would like to table an article published in the daily newspaper La Presse on January 26 on the advantages of Quebec's separation to Ontario. I seek unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is an excerpt from an article entitled “When Clarity Isn't”. It reads “Who do they think we are in Ottawa? Dunces who do not even know their French? To call a bill a clarity bill when nothing in it is clear, one must not have public information in mind”.

So, to clarify matters for certain people in this House, I would like to table this article published in La Voix de l'Est on December 31, 1999 and entitled, as I said, “When Clarity Isn't”.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, actually I would like to table a document, which I have here, published in Le Soleil on December 4, under the title—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. members wish to table as many documents as possible, but an hon. member may not speak twice on the same point of order. This will not be the rule today.

We will go to the daily routine of business.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you seek unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-20, which is unacceptable to Quebec? The best thing we could do is to withdraw it now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member seeks unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-20. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Order In Council Appointments

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were recently made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to ten petitions.

Committees Of The House

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to table today, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on a farm income safety net.

Your committee reviewed the issue of a farm income safety net, as it pertains to the agriculture and agri-food sector, as part of its order of reference dated October 28, 1999. The committee travelled across the four western provinces to meet with and listen to farmers and some groups and organizations representing or working with farmers. It came up with a number of recommendations which are contained in the report.

The committee is also requesting a comprehensive answer to the report from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members from all sides for their work, the committee staff and all the farmers who appeared before us to share their views and concerns.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, tabled on Wednesday December 1, 1999, be concurred in.

Thank you for giving me the time this morning to debate this motion which is, in my opinion, an extremely important one.

It is important, first of all, because the budget, on which we will be required to vote in about two weeks, will no doubt include billions of dollars for National Defence.

The last budgets of that department were in the order of $10 million or $11 million. That is a very large portion of the budget. It accounts for a large part of the revenue of the Government of Canada.

It is important to address this matter because the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has been looking at a number of aspects of military life over the past two years. The auditor general himself was interested in the way the army was spending the money allocated to it.

The committee has been looking at military life over the past two or three years. What sort of life do our military personnel have day to day? How do they feel when they are sent on missions abroad? How are they treated and with what sort of satisfaction do they enjoy daily on the bases, be they land, naval or air bases, where they are assigned, at home or abroad?

The committee was interested in this question because, for a number of years, especially since the government started its fight against the deficit, the army has been in large measure hit with budget restrictions. Our military personnel and our generals complained of it, and even NATO complained.

NATO, of which Canada is a member, criticized the fact that Canada was not investing enough in its share of the peacekeeping missions abroad, such as the ones in Kosovo, East Timor and Bosnia Herzegovina. According to NATO, Canada is one of the countries investing less, in terms of its gross domestic product, in the missions.

After doing studies and research, hearing dozens of witnesses, including experts—some from abroad, some from Canada—a number of members of the military, including soldiers, those most affected by the policies of the Government of Canada, on November 25, 1999, the committee tabled a motion on the revitalization and modernization of Canada's armed forces.

The 1994 white paper, mentioned in this resolution, was introduced six years ago.

The resolution read as follows:

Whereas the Government's White Paper on Defence from 1994 calls on the Canadian Forces to play a vital role in protecting Canadian sovereignty, maintaining collective defence through NATO and NORAD, providing support to United Nations peacekeeping operations, search and rescue, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance;

This resolution read further:

And whereas, the Department of National Defence budget has been reduced by 23 per cent against original projections since Budget '94;

And 23% is a sizeable proportion of a budget.

And whereas, in comparison to our principal allies, Canadian defence expenditures have fallen sharply from 1.7 per cent of GDP

I referred to it earlier.

in 1993-94 to 1.15 per cent of GDP in 1999-2000 with the NATO average being 2.1 per cent of GDP;

The difference between what Canada and other NATO countries invest in national defence and peacekeeping operations is almost 1%.

And whereas, our international commitments—in places like Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor—in support of peace and human security have increased to the point where we have one of the largest contingents of troops deployed abroad since the Korean War;

And whereas, the Canadian Forces continue to experience problems with respect to housing—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the member for Ottawa Centre has risen on a point of order.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my colleagues have confused the speeches today on first reading with second reading. My understanding is that when introducing private members' bills members have a few seconds to talk about what it is they are putting before the House, rather than giving long-winded speeches.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible for the hon. member to wind up his remarks so we can move on to the other items on the agenda.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It certainly would be if the hon. member for Joliette was introducing a private member's bill, but he is not. He is speaking to a motion.

I would mention that when members come into the House they should turn off their cellphones when they enter the Chamber. Cellphones are not to be used in the Chamber, which includes behind the curtains.

We are not dealing with private members' bills, we are debating a motion. The hon. member for Joliette has 20 minutes for debate and then there will be a 10 minute question and comment period. Then the opportunity for debate and response will go to the government side.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the beginning of Routine Proceedings today when the chairman of the agriculture committee tabled his majority report there were minority reports attached to it, including the report of the official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are in debate on a motion by the hon. member for Joliette. I do not know if the member for Selkirk—Interlake was standing at the time and I neglected to recognize him. If that is the case, as soon as we are finished with the member for Joliette, I will return to the member for Selkirk—Interlake. It may take a minute because we are going to go to a vote, but I will make sure that the member for Selkirk—Interlake has an opportunity.

The hon. member for Joliette has 11 minutes left on debate.