Bill Matthews

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadian fishermen and fish plant workers are unemployed because they have no fish to catch or process. Can the minister confirm for the House that the foreign nations of Japan, Russia, France, Cuba and the Faroe Islands presently have fish quotas inside of our 200 mile limit given by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

[Privilege, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding media reports which I have already sent to you. This refers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is quoted in Canadian Press reports which have been published in several papers referring to possible recommendations from the fisheries and oceans committee. The minister said he would look at them first to see if they are intellectually coherent and not just simply for headline purposes.

As a member of the fisheries and oceans committee, naturally I take issue with the minister's prejudgment of the work of the committee. More importantly I suggest that they constitute an attempt to intimidate the members of the committee, particularly the Liberal members of the committee who form a majority.

The fisheries and oceans committee has just finished a tour of Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec, having had 15 meetings out and about the country and having seen about 4,000 people. I take exception to what the minister said.

Although these statements were made outside of this House, the authorities are clear that any action outside the House which attempts to molest or intimidate members can constitute a contempt of the House even though the events complained about occurred outside this House. There is a longstanding assertion of the privileges of the House against conduct which tends to obstruct members in the execution of their parliamentary duties.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to the 22nd edition of Erskine May, page 127, which clearly states that analogous to molestation of members on account of their behaviour in Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as members. As a matter of fact, as far back as February 26, 1702 the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish libels reflecting upon any member of the House for or relating to his service therein was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House and the member.

So, Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that the minister of fisheries—

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their consent. It must be Friday.

It is a great pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. I would like to add my congratulations and gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to bring this project to fruition.

On behalf of my colleague from Chicoutimi, I would especially like to congratulate all the stakeholders in the vast region affected by the establishment of this marine park, including the municipalities that have promoted the idea of the marine park. Congratulations on making the park a success.

This process involved in the establishment of the Saguenay St. Lawrence Marine Park will be a model for the development of other marine conservation areas for years to come. This marks the first time two governments acting within their respective jurisdictions jointly established a park.

It is probably the park that underwent the largest consultation process ever held in this country. The process led to increasing the proposed boundaries of the park by approximately 40%. This consultative process also allowed the people who will be affected by the park to share their views, concerns and ideas.

Throughout the debate we have heard about maintaining the ecological integrity of our ecosystems. This party believes that the project goes a long in doing just that. The Progressive Conservative Party has always played a leading role in the protection of our environment and the development of both terrestrial and marine parks. I am happy to state that we will continue to do that.

This marine park is an excellent illustration of Canadians becoming stewards of their marine heritage and working together toward the common goal of maintaining the area's ecological integrity and ensuring its long term sustainability.

When we were in government, we recognized the importance of conserving our national marine areas. Many members will know that there are four natural regions for national marine conservation, the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes.

This is also the first marine conservation area on the east coast and I look forward to the development of the remaining nine marine parks in the Atlantic region.

Too often people think that conservation means no development, or in the case of fisheries, no fishing. Conservation and development should not be seen as being working at cross purposes, but working together hand in hand. National marine conservation areas are meant to, and I quote: “represent the diversity of our nation's marine ecosystems, facilitate and encourage marine research and ecological monitoring, protect depleted of endangered species and populations and preserve habitats considered critical to the survival of these species, protect and maintain areas critical to the life cycles of the economically important species and provide interpretation of marine areas for the purposes of conservation, education and tourism”.

In closing, I once again want to thank members for their unanimous consent to allow me to speak and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of our colleague from Chicoutimi who has worked tirelessly over the last 12 years to make this park a reality.

[Marine Atlantic, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the parliamentary secretary must realize that the only purpose for Marine Atlantic now is to provide a very important and essential service to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no other operations for Marine Atlantic.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, has Mr. Morrison of Marine Atlantic been instructed to locate Marine Atlantic headquarters in Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, the centre of Marine Atlantic operations in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Marine Atlantic, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic is presently phasing out its headquarters operation in Moncton, New Brunswick.

I would like to ask the government what guidelines or instructions it has given Mr. Morrison of Marine Atlantic in carrying out the relocation process and if indeed he has been instructed to relocate Marine Atlantic headquarters in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-12. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus and I support the legislation because it expands the scope of pension benefits for many courageous Canadians who presently serve or who have served as peacekeepers throughout the world.

Specifically Bill C-12 would provide peacekeepers who are members of the RCMP with the same pension entitlement in the event of illness, injury or death as peacekeepers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If Bill C-12 is adopted, provisions of the RCMP superannuation act would correspond with the provisions of the Pension Act regarding coverage and benefits for injuries, illnesses or deaths incurred while on peacekeeping missions. RCMP peacekeepers would therefore be on a level playing field with their Canadian forces counterparts.

Our position in the global community is unique, since for the past 40 years Canada has built a proud tradition as peacekeepers throughout the world. There are many countries in which Canadian men and women have put their lives on the line to help preserve peace.

Indeed, Canada has been at the forefront of developing and implementing modern peacekeeping operations in the world. This is due in no small part to the active involvement of thousands of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Following the first 30 years of participating in peacekeeping operations throughout the world, the nature of Canada's peacekeepers has changed. In 1989, RCMP officers were deployed to Namibia in the former southwest Africa as it made its transition from a South African protectorate to an independent democratic nation. No longer would peacekeeping remain the sole domain of the Canadian forces. These brave men and women would henceforth have support from their civilian colleagues in the RCMP.

Since 1989 more than 600 members of the RCMP have participated in United Nations missions to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.

The RCMP has successfully complemented the Canadian Armed Forces involvement in peacekeeping. By expanding upon the earlier success of the Canadian forces in many of the world's trouble spots, RCMP members have met a demand for peacebuilders in developing countries.

What does peacebuilding mean? It is more than just a buzzword. Peacebuilding means providing developing countries with the tools to support a stable democratic government, namely an effective security force which is respectful of law and human rights.

RCMP members avail themselves to provide skill training in areas such as investigation, first aid and case management. They also provide mentoring for individual officers and monitor their development as civilian police officers.

Finally peacebuilding includes maintaining a safe and secure environment in which the developing police force can operate without fear of reprisal.

That last element of peacebuilding is probably the most dangerous for our RCMP personnel. Like their Canadian forces colleagues in traditional peacekeeping settings, RCMP peacebuilders often face violent opposition to their presence.

While the United Nations and this bill define peacekeeping locations as special duty areas, the everyday reality is much more precise. These are deeply troubled areas in which Canadians are putting themselves at grave risk of injury, illness or death for the cause of peace.

For these reasons the intent of the legislation to put Canadian forces and RCMP personnel on equal footing with respect to Pension Act benefits is a positive one which I feel should receive priority attention by the House and Senate.

I should note this imbalance between Canadian forces peacekeeping benefits and RCMP peacekeeping benefits was neither planned nor deliberate. It occurred under the evolution of Canada's international military and security role during this century.

At the beginning of the 20th century there was no such thing as peacekeeping. Soldiers were soldiers and peace was enforced merely by the absence of full-scale war. Such a war became a reality with the first world war in which Canada paid dearly with a generation of its young. In the wake of the the first world war's carnage, the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden introduced the Pension Act, which provided compensation for disability and death related to service in the Canadian forces. The Pension Act maintained a fundamental distinction in the eligibility for benefits between wartime or peacetime military service. That distinction remains almost 80 years later.

Put simply, if an injury, illness or death was attributable to or incurred during the first or second world war, a pension shall be awarded under section 21(1). This is around the clock coverage. Peacetime service would result in the same benefits as wartime service only if it is established that the injury, illness or death was sustained on duty and was attributable to service. The difference was clear. If there existed a state of war, 24-hour coverage was provided. Anything less and the restrictions were much tighter.

After the second world war Canada continued to be involved in international military operations during peacetime, such as in Korea and the Persian Gulf. Canada also introduced and executed the innovative notion of peacekeeping, which nonetheless placed Canadian forces personnel in hazardous conditions not normally associated with peacekeeping service.

In response to this evolution, the federal government introduced the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964. This bill allowed cabinet through order in council to designate special duty areas outside Canada in which members of the Canadian forces would be eligible for the same pension benefits as under section 21(1) of the Pension Act; in other words, 24-hour coverage for Canadian forces personnel in special duty areas whether they be military operations such as in Korea or the Persian Gulf or peacekeeping activities such as the Middle East or the former Yugoslavia.

Various governments have issued more than two dozen such designations. Our Canadian forces personnel have therefore been eligible for pension benefits in the event of illness, injury or death incurred in these special duty areas.

The RCMP has been eligible for the same pension benefits as those listed under section 21(2) of the Pension Act. In other words, the illness, injury or death provision occurred through peacetime military service was deemed to be equivalent to illness, injury or death entitlements for members of the RCMP. The principle was confirmed under the RCMP Act in 1948 and confirmed in the first RCMP Superannuation Act in 1959. This was a logical provision for domestic RCMP service. In an area such as Canada where peace is the rule, it makes perfectly good sense to link this type of pension eligibility to duty rather than to service.

In special duty areas peace is the exception, not the rule. That is why the federal government changed the pension eligibility rules 30 years for our Canadian forces personnel. That is why the federal government must now change the pension eligibility rules for RCMP personnel who are now an integral part of Canada's international commitment to peacekeeping. That is the purpose of Bill C-12 and that is why I support the legislation.

As has been referenced by earlier speakers, this legislation was introduced in the previous Parliament in June 1996 as Bill C-52. First reading occurred and then nothing happened. Nothing happened in the fall of 1996 session and nothing in the spring of the 1997 session. It died on the Order Paper.

It is nearly a year and a half since the bill was first introduced and it has gone nowhere, thanks to the neglect of the government. This bill would affect the entitlements of hundreds of men and women who have put their lives on the line in representing Canada abroad. The Liberal government of the day did not have the respect for those brave Canadians to pass this legislation.

One must ask why the current government placed such a low priority on Bill C-52. Hopefully the solicitor general, as minister responsible for the men and women in the RCMP, has the answer to that very important question. There is, after all, a first time for everything. Perhaps the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who quietly allowed the Prime Minister to assign Canadians to Rwanda based on a newscast whim, would like to explain the inexcusable delay in extending those benefits to the RCMP.

What has caused the reason for delay? By dragging its heals for a year and half did the government save huge amount of money? Why did the government delay this rather straightforward legislation? I hope someone from the government stands up and answers these questions.

The RCMP personnel who are presently putting their lives on the line in such areas as Bosnia and Haiti deserve an answer. I would like to commend those who spoke before.

[Search And Rescue, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue a line of questioning started this morning by the member for Fundy Royal and answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

The parliamentary secretary very clearly stated to the House that the EH-101 helicopter would not have the range capability to search for the people fighting for their lives right now in the North Atlantic and those who have already died.

Will the Minister of National Defence admit and confirm for the House that if we did indeed have EH-101 helicopters they could have at least gone to the Hibernia platform to refuel and those people who have already died may still be alive—

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to do this, but if something has been put on the record of this House that is incorrect and untrue, then certainly the member who was referred to should have a chance to stand and correct the record. If that is not a point of order I do not know what a point of order is.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to rise on a point of order, but I feel compelled to do so. I wish to say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that unknowingly he referred to me on six occasions as a former minister of fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on the record and I want to correct it and inform the minister, speaking on a need for money for—

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

What are you talking about? Let what dry?