Reed Elley

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, May 18th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence.

Let me go on record today on behalf of the Canadian Alliance that we will be supporting Bill S-24. However I have a number of concerns that I wish to address both today and as this bill moves through the committee stage.

The Mohawks of Kanesatake have been faced with a unique situation. For those that are not familiar with the Kanesatake Mohawk land claim, let me just take a moment to summarize. Departmental officials have described it as “perhaps the most difficult Indian claim which the Canadian government inherited from pre-Confederation administrations”.

The history of this unique situation goes all the way back to the year 1717 and the French crown. More recently, in 1945 the government attempted to resolve the land claim through a series of land purchases. The lands purchased resulted in a patchwork quilt effect of Mohawk and non-Mohawk lands scattered across the Oka area. This chequerboard approach continued with land purchases in the 1960s and the 1980s. Past attempts to deal with the land claim through court actions have also been unsuccessful.

While I contend that the Indian Act is an archaic and discriminatory piece of legislation that should be eliminated over time, until now the Kanesatake Mohawks have not even had the few benefits of this legislation, as their lands have not fallen under the bylaw provisions of the act. Nor have they ever been recognized under subsection 91(24) of the 1867 Constitution Act.

It is my understanding that this agreement will provide similar powers as subsection 91(24) of the 1867 Constitution, but not as a reserve as defined under the Indian Act.

I have several questions regarding some of the nuts and bolts of the agreement. Some of the details concerning bylaw harmonization between the municipality of Oka and the Kanesatake Mohawks, environmental issues, the issue of willing buyer willing seller on lands in the area and the voting process are just a few of the issues that are far more appropriate to deal with at the standing committee rather than during second reading in the House of Commons.

There is a larger issue also at stake here today that I want to bring to the House. That is the due process that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has used to bring the bill before the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister has mused publicly about parliamentary reform in the broadest terms possible. He has been chided by his own colleagues and a past Liberal prime minister to let the MPs have a voice in this Chamber. The government has been under pressure to bring parliamentary reform into effect into the House of Commons, and the actions surrounding this bill exemplify why it needs to take place.

The Canadian Alliance has suggested a number of efforts to make this Chamber more accountable to all the people of our constituencies, not just those who voted for us. We have suggested such revolutionary things as free votes, an ethics counsellor who reports to parliament not just the Prime Minister, secret ballots for the selection of committee chairs, improvements to House of Commons debates and empowering MPs to vote freely on behalf of their constituents.

Underlining all of these issues is the willingness of the government to adhere and participate in an open and transparent manner through the entire legislative process. Without that willingness for change on the part of the government, all the talk by the government amounts to so much empty rhetoric.

Unfortunately, over the years we have seen far too much empty rhetoric from this government. The willingness to create change must acknowledge that the status quo is not acceptable. It must acknowledge that the old way of doing things cannot continue if improvements and positive steps forward can be made.

Let me go a step further in this. Changes by the minister of Indian affairs will affect the lives of many native people. I believe that native people in this country need and deserve change. The status quo is not working for our native people. Yet without the creation of these changes in an open and transparent manner, those involved will always have a suspicion that there was a hidden agenda. Trust is earned, it is not legislated.

For these reasons we must ensure that all of the right steps are taken as we proceed through the bill. We must ensure that those who are in favour of it fully understand it. We must ensure that those who are opposed to it have the opportunity to voice their concerns. We must ensure that those who are affected by the changes in this bill, both native and non-native alike, are fully apprised of it.

To some it would seem that these words are an attempt to slow this legislation down. That really is not the case. However in this case the minister has his procedural process backward.

We should all note that the bill introduced here today has already been through the other place. The chamber of so-called sober second thought has already called its witnesses and debated the matter. The very nature of this process upsets me. How can the other place have a sober second thought when the bill has been through there first?

I believe the minister does not understand the correct process of bringing legislation through the House. I note his comments in the other place on April 25 when he said:

Without being too derogatory to my own colleagues in the House, maybe things will go better if I send them here first. Perhaps that is a good trend to continue. We will test it for a while. We have other pieces of legislation that will be coming your way in the next year that we may have some discussions about and consider, with the approval of the House leadership.

Imagine, that is what he said that in the other place. I do not think there was any consultation with our House leader on this. It certainly did not receive the approval of the Canadian Alliance to start in the Senate.

I am not upset over the work that the other place did on the legislation. Indeed senators spent far more time in committee than we will be allowed in the House. However to my knowledge they did not call for the legislation to come to them first. It was taken to them by the minister. I believe that was wrong.

What kind of hidden agenda did the minister have to start the life of the legislation in the other place rather than the House of Commons? Was it a make work project to keep our colleagues there busy because the government's legislative agenda this session is so thin that the wind could blow through it? It was simply rehashed legislation from the last parliament, brought to a halt when the Prime Minister called that unnecessary election which cost the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars and settled very little.

The government also attempted to proceed through all three readings of the bill today without even taking it to the Indian affairs and northern development standing committee. This is an insult to the role of the House of Commons and its duly elected members. The minister should be ashamed of himself for instituting this process.

I have to wonder aloud if this is the same level of transparency and accountability that the minister is planning to employ throughout the process of the first nations governance act he is proposing. I agree there needs to be greater accountability on the part of chiefs and councils to band members and that the Indian Act needs to be dramatically altered and eventually eliminated. I agree with a grassroots consultation process. We are certainly the party in the House that exemplifies the grassroots democracy of this country. We know all about this. It is not easy to be grassroots, but it is democracy.

I believe there is a strong correlation between the pace at which the minister is attempting to approve and implement Bill S-24 and his proposed first nations governance act. Native Canadians are not fooled by the minister's actions. They believe, and I share their suspicions, that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is already well on its way to drafting the text of the bill prior to the consultation process even beginning.

However, today there are thousands of native Canadians who are refusing to participate in the consultation process the minister has proposed. The minister has proposed to do in mere months what in all likelihood will take years to fully consult, draft, debate and legislate, and so it should.

The minister has gone on record in his own riding that I, as a member of parliament, fail to understand the consultation process and that more than just the Internet will be used for feedback for grassroots band members. I understand what I think he fails to understand. While he may be talking about a meeting with native leaders perhaps over the Internet, and yes they certainly need to be consulted, I have been meeting and talking with the people who are potentially affected by the bill that he proposes, the native governance act.

The grassroots people who I have talked to are not sure how they will pay their next telephone bill, let alone have access to a computer and the knowledge of how to use e-mail or chat rooms. Where are the priorities of the minister and the department?

We are talking about thousands of people who do not have access to potable drinking water. We are talking about people who do not have adequate housing for many months of the year. We are talking about people who cannot receive adequate health care.

There are many good examples across Canada. There are band chiefs and councils who have their members' best interests at heart and act upon them. However the House must wake up to the harsh reality that thousands of native Canadians face daily. Yes, they do want self-government but what does that really mean? If we talk to 10 different people we will get 10 different answers. They want to fulfil their right to self-determination. They want decent education and health care for their families. They want to control their own facilities. Why should they not? The rest of us do.

If the minister were truly listening to the cries of band members he would hear something else. He would hear that many band members are scared of taking control of these services before they are ready. Many band members wonder aloud how people with a poor education can be in charge of their bands' education authorities. They wonder how some of their leaders can lead them into the 21st century when trust and accountability is lacking today.

I have been talking with native Canadians from seven provinces who are facing serious issues, such as third party management, health care funding mismanagement, electoral and voting discrepancies and education funding allocations. These are the issues that band members, including elders, truly want addressed. Rhetoric about consultation means little when children do not have quality health care and houses have no running water.

Let us get our priorities straight for those who cannot comprehend an end to the relentless barriers placed upon them.

I return to the specifics of Bill S-24. I have had the opportunity to meet with grand chief James Gabriel and discuss what the legislation means to Kanesatake Mohawks. I understand why it is important to him and to many of his people. I have assured him that the official opposition will not needlessly oppose the bill.

However, and I am sure he understands, we need to ensure there is not only due process but the appearance of due process. All voices must be heard, both pro and con. At the end of the process even opponents who do not agree with the outcome must feel they have had an opportunity to express their opinion. The end result of the process must be seen as a progressive move forward by the majority who will be affected by the legislation.

I trust that the minister will seriously reconsider his words in the other place and attempt to follow what I believe to be the correct procedure. Perhaps the minister is wary of open and honest debate in the House. He should not be. He should want to ensure that all legislation that impacts on the lives of native Canadians is viewed in the full light of this place by all hon. members. We look forward in the coming days to discussing the bill in committee.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is true that in my former life I did have a great deal to do with people who were addicted to non-medical drugs. It is a very involved process. It means coming alongside people in critical situations and providing them with real reasons for, first of all, why they ought to live. In many cases people just simply do not want to live. We have to provide them with a reason for living.

That goes not only to the physical, but to the spiritual, to the emotional, to the whole person. I was very involved in helping people work those things through so that they did not have to become dependent upon a chemical substance to try to find the reason for living.

Also, as foster parents of aboriginal children, we are very well aware of the results, for instance, of fetal alcohol abuse and what happens in little lives when the mother drinks heavily during gestation. That little life, who never asked for that, is scarred by it forever.

Somehow we have to do something to help change the attitudes of people at a primary level so that they know life is worth living. Many times, I think, that is why people enter into this kind of thing.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a distinction has to be made in our society, particularly when we are engaged in any kind of drug education with our young people.

Personally I do not believe that the recreational use of marijuana should be a legal activity in Canada. Studies show that the continued use of marijuana, particularly in a very heavy way, does lead to all kinds of physical consequences, such as a lack of concentration and brain damage of some kind that eventually leads to the person becoming a far less effective person.

However we also have to be able to say, and this is a basic philosophy, that all things created do have a good intention because that is the way the Creator meant it to be. We need to see the benefits of marijuana for medicinal purposes. We must also make it very clear to our young people that the continual recreational use of marijuana is very harmful to them.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to today's supply motion. I will begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford for bringing this important matter before the House.

The motion before us today is very serious and addresses a very real problem in society. One of the greatest problems facing our young people today is the non-medical use of drugs. Over the past number of years the prevalence and availability of non-medical drugs have been overwhelming. Today's youth face enormous pressures in the world. Our young people face constant forms of peer pressure, one of which is to conform to the usage of drugs.

There are entire industries based upon the non-medical use of drugs. Internationally or nationally we can all point to situations where this is true. My home province of British Columbia is well known within the drug world for so-called home grown marijuana, as well as other non-medical drugs.

My hon. colleagues have already mentioned several different statistics concerning non-medical drug use. As the aboriginal affairs critic for the Canadian Alliance I am particularly concerned with the problem of substance abuse among our native people. I would like to take a few minutes to review some of the statistics because they have not yet been entered into the debate.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in its 1999 profile tells us that indigenous Canadians are at particular risk for substance abuse. The majority of aboriginal youth are at two to six times greater risk for alcohol problems than other Canadians. Indigenous Canadians have relatively high rates of illicit drug use.

I would like members to consider some of the following rates. According to the Canadian Journal of Public Health over 73% of natives use marijuana, 37% sniff glue, 6% use solvents, 5.5% use heroin, almost 10% use speed, 14% use LSD, almost 5% use cocaine and 8% use crack. Most disturbing about all these statistics is that the usage rates are higher than in the non-native population in some cases by as much as four times. This is completely unacceptable.

Our native people are among the most susceptible to non-medical drug use and the statistics seem to bear it out. I have been involved with native people as a counsellor and my wife and I have been foster parents for over 25 years. I have seen the results of many of these problems, and they are heartbreaking.

To see individuals, families and in some cases entire communities devastated by the use and abuse of alcohol and non-medical drugs is startling. The results of these actions should not exist but sadly they do. As parliamentarians and as a nation it is time that we take real action against this problem.

As I mentioned earlier, my home province is well known in the drug world for illegal drugs. Unfortunately along with the beauty and the splendour of a craggy remote coastline come thousands of miles of secluded coves and places to import illegal drugs from offshore.

Along with hydroponic growth operations, the remoteness of the gulf isles and many parts of the B.C. interior provide ideal locations for marijuana fields. The RCMP searches and finds some, but with its limited resources, the overwhelming scope of the territory and the sophistication of the growers only a small percentage of the drugs are actually found and destroyed.

Nanaimo is the largest city in my riding. Many tourists call it the hub city. However it has also become known as the heroin capital of Canada. What a sad title to bestow on such a beautiful city.

My colleagues have referred to the drug problems of Vancouver's downtown east side and they were absolutely right to do so. There are very serious problems there. I remind the House that there are serious and equally devastating problems not only in a city like Nanaimo but throughout a thousand other cities and towns across the country.

We all know what the problem is. It is important that we start doing something about it. Our past actions have not been wrong. They were all well intentioned but for some reason do not seem to be working. We have had an escalation, a growing epidemic of illicit drug use across the country.

There are many other consequences beyond simply the non-medical drugs. Drugs are not free and profit is the motive for the drug dealers, be they at the local level or the major international players in the drug game. Another consequence involves both petty and major crimes and prostitution, including the exceedingly young. My heart breaks when I see young people 13 and 14 years of age trapped on the street. These are children. They are our future and their lives are being squandered and wasted in a life of drug abuse.

In 1996 the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse estimated that the economic cost of illegal drugs was $1.37 billion or $48 per capita. The largest cost, approximately $823 million, was as a result of lost productivity due to illness and premature death. A substantial portion of the costs, $400 million, was for law enforcement. Direct health costs due to illicit drugs were estimated at $88 million. There was also the social cost of lost families whether through death, illness or retreat from society as a whole.

How many potentially great minds in the nation have been lost to the illegal use of non-medical drugs? Can we afford, financially or otherwise, to continue down this sordid path of human sorrow? Can we in all good conscience stand idly by and allow these problems to continue? I suggest not.

I believe George Eliot said it correctly when she said:

Failure after long perseverance is much grander than never to have a striving good enough to be called a failure.

Let us not fail for a lack of trying.

One of the issues arising out of today's debate is the medical use of marijuana. We all recognize that this is a contentious issue. When we refer to marijuana we often relate it to the criminal element and the role it often plays in leading to other drugs. I personally do not dispute this but I do believe there is room in the debate for the medical use and research of marijuana, particularly in a non-smokable form, such as pills and inhalers. In turn, it should be treated like any other drug that is approved and regulated in Canada. The body of medical research appears to be showing that the medical use of marijuana can be most helpful for some diseases.

We should differentiate between the medical and the recreational or street use of marijuana. If there is a possibility of bona fide medically proven results then we should not close the door to this kind of help.

Earlier I mentioned that the motivating factor of profits is the drug world. From a personal perspective, I think we need to rethink how we approach the drug problem. The criminal element in our society is interested in only one thing and that is profits, not just small profits but obscene profits that have no regard for the waste of human lives and ongoing suffering. In simplistic terms, if we can remove the profit element we can reduce or ideally even eliminate many forms of non-medical drug use.

How do we do that? How do we remove the profits from the sales? I do not have the answer and that is why we need this kind of committee. It may be able to come up with some kind of innovative way to take the profit motive out of the drug scandal.

I am pleased to be part of the debate today. I hope the motion receives non-partisan support from right across the House, and that it will eventually lead to something being done about the most pressing problem among our young people today, which is the use of illicit drugs.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that answer tells me quite clearly that the minister does not know a darn thing about what is going on in his department. I will tell him why these natives are so unhappy.

In speaking with them, they are unhappy with the social conditions on reserves, where inadequate housing, soaring unemployment rates, a lack of proper health care and terrible financial mismanagement are making their lives simply miserable.

What will the minister of Indian affairs do to solve these problems and help the native people of Canada have some kind of future in the country?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, already this week three Indian band offices have been occupied by grassroots natives in western Canada. The Sagkeeng in Manitoba, the Tsuu T'ina in Alberta and the Penticton of B.C. have all been occupied by frustrated band members.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us why these kinds of events are happening under his watch?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of Health and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to sit down with some of these former employees and they will hear the real story.

While many past employees of the Virginia Fontaine treatment centre wanted to treat substance abusers, the truth is that there was a lack of trained staff and helpful programs in place to do anything about the problem.

The past employees with whom I spoke on the weekend compared it to a babysitting service. Why did Health Canada officials fail to recognize these problems long ago and take action to make sure those who needed the help really received it?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, having met over the weekend in Manitoba with former employees of the Sagkeeng Reserve Virginia Fontaine treatment centre, I am appalled over the lack of accountability of the facility by Health Canada officials and the inability to treat the substance abuse of patients.

Now we have learned that Health Canada officials are refusing to turn over vital documents to the RCMP in order to complete the pending forensic audit.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and North Development can talk all he wants about accountability, but how can Canadians believe the government when they see this kind of thing happening?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was really something. I am glad to see the hon. member continue his passion inside the House of Commons as he certainly does outside the House.

I find the member's comments very strange. I agree with him that this is the highest court of the land. However, he has been a member of a government that has been in power since 1993 and, over that period of time, the measures that his government has or has not taken in the House has led to a continual decline in the power of parliament to be the lawmakers of the land. How many times have we seen this government fail to take a stand on an issue that concerns the Canadian public and, instead of bringing in legislation, it sends it to the courts? The courts have now become the highest law of the land. That is an absolute disgrace. It denigrates the kind of influence that we as members of parliament have in this place.

This government has been responsible for that decline and it is only the Canadian Alliance, along with other opposition parties, that have brought some power back into parliament in order to take action against this kind of government.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by my party today, although it is not a pleasure to speak about its content. We need to set the record straight. We were forced into this debate by the actions of the Liberals and the Prime Minister.

That is unfortunate because the personal ethics of most people would have ensured that the issue was answered in an open and transparent manner two years ago. The official opposition has been following the issue for two years. Many are appalled by that delay and the cover-up it has produced. I say appalled because the issue could have been a simple acknowledgement and resolution by the Prime Minister when it first became public knowledge.

Members on the other side of the House have gone on at great length today to argue that this is nothing but a smoke and mirrors show. They say that there is nothing of substance involved and that the Prime Minister's reputation has been needlessly sullied. I agree that it is a smoke and mirrors show, with a little fog thrown in for good measure. Unfortunately the smoke, mirrors and fog have all emanated from the seats opposite.

Government members have cried out that a non-issue has hijacked the business of the House of Commons. What utter nonsense. If there is no business in the House the government must bear full responsibility. Indeed, when there is business in the House it is often hard to get the Liberals to attend. Witness the fiasco of last Thursday.

It is indeed a sad day when the House of Commons must debate an issue that calls into question not only the person of the Prime Minister but the reputation of the office itself.

I and many Canadians from all walks of life, all regions of this great country and all political stripes, question the ability of the government and the Prime Minister to govern in an open and accountable manner. The truth must be found and it must be spoken. It has been lacking in this matter for some time.

Members opposite can bluster all they want. They can cite old polls and make widespread pronouncements, but the facts are undeniable. According to the latest Compas poll 85% of Canadians feel it is important to get to the bottom of the issue. Sixty-three per cent of those polled believe the Prime Minister's conduct was wrong when he sought money for a business in Shawinigan in which he is accused of having a financial interest.

Canadians are an intelligent and reasoned electorate. They know the issues and they want clarity. Perhaps most telling are the 91% of people who feel it is important for the Prime Minister to behave in ways that appear fair. Therein lies the nub of the problem. There is not the appearance of fairness. There is in fact the appearance of unfairness.

The facts clearly indicate that there is at least the appearance of a serious conflict of interest and that in all likelihood the House has been misled.

These allegations must be cleared before the government regains the moral right to govern the people. Based on the actions of junior and senior ministers in the past weeks and months, I believe I have the right to say this in the House today. When deliberate misrepresentations are made in the House and remain unpunished by the Prime Minister, I am reminded of the adage that leaders must lead by example. Canadians and members of parliament are being offered an unfortunate example of leadership.

All the foregoing has happened today because of certain factors: a complete lack of accountability on the part of the government; the unprecedented use of closure; the dictatorial running of the House and its members by the Prime Minister and his unelected, unaccountable advisers; and the untenable centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office that began over 30 years ago under Prime Minister Trudeau when the current Prime Minister was cutting his teeth in federal politics.

There has been talk of parliamentary reform. Frankly talk is cheap. It is time for all members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, to reclaim their government. The government of this great country should not be controlled by a handful of people who surround the Prime Minister. That is not what the Fathers of Confederation intended the government of the country to be.

Reform of the House of Commons must begin, and it must begin with us. We desperately need an ethics counsellor who is a true watchdog and not a lapdog for the Prime Minister. What person in his or her right and free thinking mind would accept that a person who is appointed by and reports to the Prime Minister would be able to give a full and complete disclosure of the Prime Minister's actions? Members here can reclaim the integrity of the House, but only if they shake off their leashes and muzzles and relearn the ability to think for themselves.

Reform of the House must also extend to the committee level where MPs are supposed to be masters of their own destiny. Instead we regularly see the chair and the parliamentary secretary act on behalf of the minister's office. Why? Simply put, there is an insatiable desire for power and control at every level. The Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to absorb every last control lever into the Prime Minister's Office.

The end result of this exorbitant power grab is a government that acts as if it is above the rules, regulations and laws of the country. What an appalling disgrace. We have seen a pattern develop over the years. We have seen the flimsy excuses used in the Human Resources Development Canada debacle. We have found that HRDC had secret slush funds used by and for ministerial special requests. Canadians are greatly concerned about the government's lack of forthrightness and clarity.

I have a recommendation for government members. They should stop paying lip service to parliamentary reform and make it a reality before it is too late for the country. They should start today.

My colleagues in the House and Canadians across the country want only to know the truth behind Shawinigate. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide or be ashamed of then let us set the record straight. If there is substance behind the facts then corrective actions must be taken. We simply want to know the truth.

Ethics and accountability must start somewhere. Frankly it must start at the top. We as a nation need accountability in our government and Prime Minister. Sadly, at this time millions of Canadians do not see accountability at our highest levels.

When the Prime Minister is under a shroud of discrepancy and double talk, what are we as parliamentarians and Canadians to expect from those around us?

The big questions remain: Where do we go from here? How do we get there? I think all hon. members of the House would agree that we need to put an end to the issue. No one, including opposition members, wants to carry this further than necessary. However the issue is before us and we must find a plan to bring closure to it.

In so doing we must put the office of the Prime Minister ahead of the man who currently occupies it. The office has been here longer than any of us and will continue longer than any of us. The reputation of the office has been sullied and we must collectively renew it. It goes far beyond partisan values and attacks. The office depends on the goodwill of the public for its preservation.

We come to today's motion calling for an independent judicial inquiry. Sadly the question is not only before the House but on the minds of the majority of Canadians. In order to fully answer the question of impropriety we must have someone in charge who is viewed by all Canadians as honourable, above reproach and impartial.

Sixty per cent of Canadians believe parliament should create an independent judicial inquiry to get to the facts behind Shawinigate. To deny today's motion would raise further questions about the Prime Minister's dealings.

If there is nothing to hide, why have the past two years continued to bring additional facts forward? Why has the Prime Minister not been able to provide clear and concise evidence to clear his reputation? If the government and Prime Minister have nothing to hide they will not object to a public inquiry.

Actions must be taken that will resolve the issue once and for all. If the Prime Minister is innocent of wrongdoing then I call upon him to endorse today's motion. If there is independence among government backbenchers then I call upon them to move beyond partisanship and deal with the bigger question of the integrity of the Prime Minister's Office.

I call upon all members of parliament to seek an answer to the question: What is in the best interests of Canadians?

If members believe like I do that it is in the best interests of Canadians to find a clear and concise end to the issue then I urge them to vote in favour of today's motion. Let us get this thing cleared up. Let us have an independent judicial inquiry.