Rex Barnes

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, when I sit in the House as I did yesterday and listen to speaker after speaker, it is sometimes amazing to hear what members say.

I noticed that 104 amendments were submitted on Bill C-7. Probably a half or a little more than half of them will be accepted. It is like the transportation committee, with 175 or 180 amendments. If there are that many amendments to a bill submitted, the bill should basically be scrapped and started over. Basically this bill loses its whole intent, its purpose of trying to bring in good legislation for our first nations. With so many amendments, how can we trust the government to make sure that the intent of the bill is what the bill will do? When we have so many amendments and when we have it being rushed through, we on this side of the House know that the bill is not going to be for the good intentions of first nations.

As for the reasons for this, the real problems of first nations have to do with many things. Of course we hear from day to day in the media that the first nations peoples are struggling with poverty, their suicide levels are higher than the Canadian average, and they struggle with discrimination, illness and despair. These are the things that the government and we as parliamentarians should be making priorities for the first nations groups.

Instead, all the government wants to do is to control them. I do not think anyone wants to be controlled. We see throughout the country, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and other provinces, that provinces are fed up with the interference of the federal government in the provinces being able to run their own affairs, and all this bill is doing is interfering in the rights of first nations people to govern themselves.

How could the government expect any less from the first nations than it would from any people? The first nations are their own people. They have the right to make decisions, good, bad or indifferent, and they have the right to build their own nations to their own liking and for their own people, because they are the ones who understand their people. They know what is best for their people.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre is one of the members in the House who is most experienced in dealing with first nations concerns. He has been there. He understands. When the right hon. member stands up and says there is something wrong with Bill C-7, I think we need to take a serious look at it and say that there really must be something wrong, because the right hon. gentleman would not say things if they were not true, or maybe they are intended for the wrong reason, and I apologize if I am saying that there are falsehoods, Madam Speaker, but the thing about it is that first nations people have a right to govern themselves for their people and of course this bill does not do that for them.

First, with any government trying to have self-government for its people, no matter if it is a province, a band council or what it is, what we will find is that there are going to be growing pains. There will be problems and people will sometimes do things that they should not, but we do not just decide to say that we are going in to take them over. They have to learn from their mistakes.

We have to be with them to help them go through the challenges they face and be there for support, but we should not be there as the Government of Canada to impose things on them for the sake of imposing them. That then becomes a controlling of power, and as parliamentarians we should not stand for that. It is important to let the first nations people grow themselves so they will become superior in their own right, so they can govern themselves for their people.

Second, Bill C-7 will not work. Constitutional experts say many of the provisions of the bill will be thrown out, and if they are not, they are going to require the cooperation of the first nations people themselves and we know the first nations oppose this fiercely. They will not cooperate. There is a reason, I feel, why they will not cooperate. Why would they cooperate when they know that Ottawa is meddling in their affairs? It goes back to letting them govern themselves for the right reasons and for their own people, because they know their own people.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Conne River Indian Band Council has self-governance and does a tremendous job of taking care of its people's needs. The government assists them with money. The band has its own council and power of governance for its own people. It is working out extremely well with no interference from government. If members have a problem they work it out through cooperation. They sit down like any government would do and work out their own problems for their own people, and we should be doing the same thing here.

In my riding there are two area band councils. They have put a lot into society. They keep their heritage alive, but they do it in their own way without interference. That result shows us that there should be no government interference. As I said before, we should be there to assist them to move forward so they can direct their own problems in their own way and in a professional manner.

Third, this bill pretends to give the first nations more power. The government seems to think that by doing certain things they can have their own say for their own people, but instead it is all about power for Ottawa. Everything is to be centrally located, with a power base in Ontario, all in the main hub of the country.

But as we know, first nations people do not have the power to take care of their own needs and Ottawa should stop meddling. Ottawa should give them the right to deliver their own programs. There should be assistance from Canada, but it should let them do their own thing for their own people so that first nations people can have pride in what they are doing.

One of the government amendments gives the government the power to interfere in band affairs without evidence. All the minister needs is a reason to believe something is wrong. The bill gives the minister the power to force band councils to change. There is no judge and there is no jury, just raw power from Ottawa. That is not democracy. Where are we living? We are living in a democratic society where people make decisions and choices and, as a result, they move forward from the decisions they make, good, bad or indifferent, but they have the power to make their own decisions. For government to jump in on a minute's notice because it feels there is a problem is wrong. Let the people decide themselves. If something is happening, let them decide.

Fourth, the bill was steamrollered through the committee, which was shameful. The government, once it gets something in its claw, seems to just move forward. The overwhelming majority of first nations witnesses strongly opposed it, as was said earlier by the hon. member, and there was no time given to prepare amendments. It seems like we can go to committee and present true facts, figures and statements, but no one is listening. I do not know why.

We are elected to serve the people and elected to serve the people in a manner that is right for the people. People come to us as members and tell us their problems, but for some reason or another members do not listen. I do not know why members on the other side are not listening. Sometimes a person has to use his head instead of going with the norm and sometimes a person has to say, “There is something wrong with this and we have to change it”. Instead, those members will just vote in the normal way and as a result we will have chaos in the first nations communities.

There is an old saying back home: if you meddle too much in the kitchen with your finger, eventually something is going to happen to your finger. I guarantee members this. The first nations people have made it quite clear that the bill is unacceptable, and if the country wants demonstration after demonstration, the first nations people are not going to put up with what the government is doing, and they are going to rally the people behind them to protest like we have never seen before in the country. We have seen it happen to fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen it happen with fishermen in New Brunswick. I can guarantee right now that the first nations people will not stand idly by and let the government do things to their councils that will have a major effect on their people.

We need to have cooperation. The only way to have cooperation is to let the first nations people do things their way because they know best. If we interfere, then of course we are just as bad as any other government, because we would be imposing our will on a minority group of people for no reason at all.

Let the first nations people do the things they like their way. When they do it their way, the people they represent will come to respect them and will have pride in what they do. If they do not have pride, then of course when it comes to election time they will get rid of that group of people and put in people who are going to work for their people, and they will know that they have the best representation of all.

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when a job becomes vacant it is open to everyone. It is very important that we look at people of different races and different cultures. It depends on what they are hired for. If they are hired for different sectors of the country, then it makes sense.

When people are hired to work up north, it is important that they relate to the people's needs. People should be hired from the area where the needs are the greatest and where people are looking to be hired. It does not make any difference if the person is male or female, Japanese or some other culture. It is important to hire from the culture when a person of that culture is required but it is also important to get the best qualified person for the job.

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting some days to come into the House, to sit and listen to some of the debate and to see from where people are coming.

The public service sector really does not care if they swear allegiance to the Queen, themselves, their mothers or their fathers. What they care about is ensuring that government leaves it up to the people to be hired in the proper form, in the proper manner and that friends, neighbours and political interference is gone so the public service can do the job they are required to do, and that is to serve the people of this country and make it is easier for them to get the job done. For one reason or another, we forget about that and we worry about to whom we will swear allegiance.

As parliamentarians we swear to the Queen because that is our job and we do it. The public service should swear to the people for whom they will do the work, and that is the taxpayers. Who cares if they swear an allegiance to other people.

I was not going to say that but I thought it was interesting to hear the debate.

By the government's own admission, over the past few decades the public service has remained structurally and functionally a top-down organization. It is somewhat stiff in its functioning, a lumbering giant that actually requires a department to go through a maze of several months of paperwork and meetings to hire an ordinary person.

If we were to get rid of the red tape, if we were to make it easier to get people into vacant jobs, we would not hear the outcry from the general public. People say that they cannot get any answers, or they cannot get a job done or there are delays. Every time there is a delay in the public service of getting an answer or getting the job done, it costs business people and ordinary citizens money.

Bill C-25 would provide for more flexibility in staffing and in managing people. Managers with certain limits would have more power over hiring and who they hire, just like in the real world. Applicants who felt they had been short-changed in the staff process would be given access to redress at a public service staffing tribunal.

The key should be that employers get the best qualified people to do the job, regardless of where they come from geographically. The key is we must get people in the public service who can do the job. If we limit it to certain areas and friends or friends of friends, it normally does not work. Any businessman or businesswoman will tell us that hiring friends or friends of friends normally does not work. If we had hired people because of their qualifications, we would not have had half the problems we now have.

The bill also stresses the need for a cooperative approach to labour management relations. The intent is to make employees part and parcel of the process of running the workplace. Nobody really knows how to do the job like those who do it every day. If the intent of the bill follows through, we should have a happier federal workplace.

When employees are happy campers, they do better jobs. If they come to work every day and are under pressure, they will not perform to full expectations, and the only people who lose are the employers. If staff members and employees are involved in decision making, we will have a happier staff.

The bill provides for an overhaul and consolidation of the staff training and development process of the federal public service.

Many of the changes are long overdue with regard to improvements to the nation's public service. If carried out properly, they could lead to a much happier, less strike prone and more productive public service.

I can just reflect back to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now we have two airport strikes on the go. If these airports had employees under the federal government's control, I would suggest there may not be strikes today. We got rid of some of our public servants because we got rid of our airports. If the airports had come under the umbrella of the federal government employees, I firmly believe there could have been an easier settlement, and we would not have the travelling public held at ransom because of these strikes.

If we are going to allow individuals and special interest groups to take over our airports then we should make sure we keep our employee base intact so they can provide the services the general public requires rather than contracting the services out to a new group. That could result in one strike after another and it could last a long period of time. It would be like what we are seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador right now. I am glad to hear that things may be working out but it has taken a long time.

Many public servants are about to retire. We have been told that 7,000 new people are needed every year just to keep pace with retirements. The hiring process can lumber on for months and we often see the best and brightest applicants being scooped up by the private sector. As I stated earlier, we must make the hiring process easier and get rid of the red tape so we do not lose some of our brightest to the private sector. People have a great future with the federal and provincial governments. We have to make it easier on the federal scene to make sure that application access and individual rights are easily looked at so the best possible person is hired regardless of geographics.

It is also important that managers have a greater say in the hiring process, after all, the people being hired are people they will have to work with every day. One of the things I would add to that is the importance of their justifying why they hired a person so that the fear and threat that they will hire a friend will be eliminated. Hiring has to be done on qualifications. If it is done on qualifications, then I firmly believe production in the workplace will be greater.

This extra power on the part of managers has been met with a strong grievance procedure. Managers must be required to account for their hiring decisions. Hiring people because of political pressure is forbidden. Hiring friends who do not meet the basic qualifications is not allowed. This is where we get ourselves in trouble. This is where we do not get the best bang for our buck. This is where we run into major problems later on down the road when we find out that the best qualified person was not the one hired or the person hired was not qualified in the first place.

The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester has done a tremendous job asking questions and bringing up many concerns regarding the federal public service, the job situation and the hiring practices. Every time he raises the issue it seems like some people take it as a joke. It is a very serious thing when a line is drawn in the geographics of Canada where people can only apply for jobs in certain areas. As far as I am concerned this is discriminatory. This is Canada, and it should not be like that. If someone lives in Nova Scotia, it is discrimination if they cannot apply for a job in Quebec, Alberta, Newfoundland or the reverse. As long as someone fulfills the maximum qualifications for a job they should be the person with the utmost opportunity to get the job. If people are hired with minimum qualifications, they are getting in through the back door. If we are looking for a high standard we should stay with a high standard so people who are the most qualified will be hired.

I am sure the minister is aware that people in Atlantic Canada are faced with federal job advertisements that require applicants to be from certain geographical areas. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, a job opening in St. John's might be restricted to applicants from the Avalon Peninsula. People living in Gander or Labrador City could not apply. Many jobs in central Canada are only offered to applicants within restrictive geographical areas.

Shortly after being elected I had a phone call from a lady friend who said that she had applied for a job within the federal government but that she was outside the geographical area. She could not understand that and I told her that I could not understand it either. I thought that when someone lived in Canada they could apply anywhere in Canada if a job came up with the federal government. If they are the most qualified person then they should get the job. However it did not happen. Like everything else, we learn by some of these hidden rules.

In the January 30, 2001 Speech from the Throne, the government committed to needed reforms in the Public Service of Canada to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians into the 21st century. It is now 2003, two years after that statement was made in the throne speech. What happened to the commitment over the last two years? Why, all of a sudden, is it being done now? It should have been done by now. A lot of opportunities have been missed for our young people. We have missed an opportunity to have great service, an even better service for Canada. I do not know what happened, but unfortunately the commitment to modernize the public service took a holiday as did the commitment to end child poverty.

In February the President of the Treasury Board said that the bill ensures the capacity of the public service to provide the best service to Canadians today and into the future. This is where the government has it wrong again. Bills do not ensure top quality service; people do; hard workers do; people who are proud to serve their country in any capacity.

Bills tabled in Parliament with the accompanying fanfare do not ensure anything. It is the people we hire who do. It all goes back to the employees. It all goes back to whom we hire and how they fit into the system. The only way they can fit into the system is if we hire the people who are qualified for the job.

Canadians will get top-notch service from the public service once the government does the same. Treating Canadians with respect and truly serving them begins with the government, not with a bill. Once the government gets its act in place, the public service will follow suit.

There are a lot of public servants in the federal government who provide an amazing service way beyond the call of duty, but the problem on a lot of occasions is the bureaucracy. When I speak to people all across the country, they tell me the only problem they have is trying to get the bureaucrats to understand the way things should be done. Employees do the work in a certain way because they have been instructed that is the way it is done.

As I said a few minutes ago, if we are to do the job right for the federal public servants, we have to make sure that we hire the right people. If we are serious about modernizing the act, let us modernize it for the future. We should get rid of all the red tape. We should open it up to all of Canada. We should forget to whom people will swear allegiance.

We should be making sure that confidentiality is important. We should make sure that people's business is not known out in the street. It is also important that if public servants find out about problems in the government, they have the right to tell politicians, so that we can make it a better place for everyone. If there are things going on that should not be going on, it adds stress to the federal government's purse.

It also adds stress for MPs because we get calls on certain things and we know there are problems, but we cannot fix them because people are afraid to come forward. When people are afraid to come forward, it is total craziness in the workplace and people get stressed out. Then people go on sick leave. They are not content because they sometimes know there are things going on that should not be going on.

Time is short and there is a lot that could be said, but I just wanted to stress some things I have observed while listening to the debate.

[The Environment, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of the town of Gander presented me with a 15,000 name petition, which will be presented in the House next week, with relationship to the downsizing of the weather forecasting station in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are very concerned about this move by the federal government.

Will the Minister of the Environment listen to the voices of the people and do what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada by maintaining a public and marine forecasting service in Gander?

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, river guardians in Newfoundland and Labrador have been further reduced by one week this year. I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans understands that if we are going to protect our rivers we must have enough manpower to do the job.

I ask the minister, will he put more financial help into the protection of our rivers by allowing river guardians to have longer periods of employment so that they can do the job that is required?

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is a very complex issue. What we have heard in the House time and again is that Canada seems to depend on another country to defend us. We have talked about cutbacks in defence and that our military is not strong enough because we are not putting the tools in place to make sure we can defend our own country.

Many questions need to be asked about the missile defence system. It appears again that the government really does not know where it is going and, as the hon. member just stated, the minister is not sure where the government is headed.

We need an open forum across the country to get input from Canadians of all political stripes and from people who know whether it is good or bad. We need to listen to the groups. It is not for the Liberal government to bring it in and say that this is what it will be. If we are going to be involved we need to be involved on the ground floor. If we are not going to be involved the government should say so and then we can get on with the business of the country and of the world.

I will throw out some questions to show the things about which people have concerns. Will there actually be weapons in space? No one seems to know. What type of weapons will be determined? Who will manufacture these weapons? Are there plans to have nuclear weapons? No one seems to know. We have to move forward to try to get all these questions answered so that we are well-informed and we understand because it is, as I said before, a very complex issue.

In August 2001 the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada convened a policy round table to hear from experts and to discuss the merits of the missile defence system. I do not know if people remember that but it was done. Before I get into some comments I will just read some of the items.

If Canada becomes involved, Norad is expected to play a significant role in command and control. If Canada does not become involved, Norad may be marginalized as the U.S. gives the role to northern command. We have had ministers say that Canada remains firmly opposed to placing weapons in space. That was in the Globe and Mail on May 2, 2003.

The U.S. has been co-operating with the U.K. and Denmark in upgrading radar sites for the program. Australia has also been very supportive. Both Japan and Israel have their own joint missile defence programs. That was May 8, 2003.

I want to mention a few other items, such as the Prime Minister not knowing where the system will go. We have prime minster wannabes and leaders of parties taking the stand that they do not agree with a missile defence system. The Prime Minister has said that it will be debated in cabinet and that cabinet will make the decision, which it should. However we should be fully aware of what is being discussed so that we are not kept in the dark.

This is a very serious matter and if politicians of all political stripes are not totally involved in making a firm, realistic and an informed decision, then we will fail Canadians and we will fail the world.

During the policy round table in August 2001 some people argued that the deployment of a limited national missile defence system was merely a responsible response to a strategic environment of the post-cold war era. Others believed such a move would bring about another arms race, dragging in other countries.

We must be careful because we do not want to start a major war again. However, with the way wars are being fought today people are afraid that troops will no longer be able to fight a war the way they used to. It may be nuclear weapons.

The ballistic missile defence system falls into two main categories: the TMD, which is the theatre missile defence, and NMD, which is the national missile defence. The first one is designed to intercept short range missiles, while the latter is geared to the interception of long range missiles. Both systems have similar technologies: satellite based in-flare centres that detect and track missile launches; radar that follows incoming threats and guides interceptors to them; and the interceptor missiles themselves. In the future both may be a part of what we call the new era of technology in space.

I will go through some of the comments made during the round table discussions held on August 7 in Ottawa. Many people were afraid of the technology because no one really knew what people were talking about. There seemed to be very little middle ground between the opposing sides of the debate. Proponents dismissed opponents who were afraid of the technology, while the latter dismissed their adversaries as those who had not recovered from the cold war.

We need to make sure we fully understand what is happening. I believe many of us in the House do not understand what will be expected of Canada as a country in the world or what Canada is even thinking.

The overall debate basically was confusing because people were often talking about different things. Three aspects need to be kept distinct: the theatre missile defence is geared to local threats; the national missile defence is designed to defend the U.S.; and the SDI-2 is a worldwide protection system and one that the U.S. could offer to its allies and others.

Therefore we need to be part of a system as a united front for not only Canada but for the world. If we are going to be involved we need to say so and then get in there with the Americans and other countries for the protection of the whole country and democracy.

I am taking some excerpts from the conference. One of the primary concerns for the Americans was their national interest. Another possible driving force of course was identified by the defence research industry. Americans are very patriotic. They protect their own, no matter what the cost. We heard the Prime Minister taking a smack at the president. If we are to defend our country and defend it in the right manner we sometimes have to spend money.

Sometimes we can sit around and say that it is good to have a balanced budget, that it is good to slash and slash but there is a price to pay if we do not defend our country and there is a price to pay for protecting our country. The United States is very patriotic about that. As a result of that I think it is time for Canada to become more patriotic and do what is right for Canadians and what is right for the protection of our country.

Finally, in one section of the debate there were questions concerning what this would mean for Canada. What would be the implications of Canada's refusal to participate? What would be our role in Norad if we refused to participate? Would the U.S. quietly retaliate in areas such as trade? If we agree, how extensive would the benefits be?

We have seen the pain it has cost our country because we did not support the Americans, our closest neighbour and on whom we depend so much for trade, in the war with Iraq. We have seen the pain it has cost our business people and consumers. We have seen the consequences and we will probably feel the consequences for many years to come.

Again I say that if we are to be involved we need to have all the facts and the information so we can make an informed decision on what is in the best interests of Canada.

If we join with the United States and other countries, we should join at the ground level rather than wait until it is too late. We saw that during the Iraqi war. We waited until the last minute to make a decision and then it was too late.

From what I heard at the conference, the U.S. is motivated by three basic factors, which is probably what Canada should be looking at. First, there is a historic reluctance on the part of the Americans to take on a global role. They have always been in the forefront. It is time for someone else to play that role. It is probably time for Canada to come up to the bat. The Americans have been striking home runs for many years, so it is time for Canada to move on.

Second, the U.S. is fascinated with technology and will continue to do so.

Finally, there is a desire to keep military losses to a minimum.

Those three factors together will shape the Americans' approach to the national missile defence system and other arms control negotiations, and this is what it is all about. If we take some lessons from the Americans we probably will be better off as a country. There are some things where the Americans can take lessons from Canada and they will probably be better off. However as a unit we will work together.

What would we call an appropriate Canadian response? That question came up at the conference. People argued that if Canada is to have a say on the national missile defence issue, then we cannot simply stay on the sidelines. We should engage the Americans and find some appropriate way to participate. As I said earlier, we should not jump in when it is almost over. We need to get in on the ground floor so we can have a say on where it is going.

It was also suggested that it was very important for Canada to use its good offices to move the Americans toward adopting a multilateral approach. Canadians did not have much interest in engaging in debate. They were already being inundated with too much information that they could not analyze. The need is there for our political leaders to get the facts straight and make the right decisions.

It is also very important for us to meet with groups across the country and ask their opinions. It would be good for the defence committee to ask experts to give the pros and cons of it all. We must listen to both sides of the issue. To just listen to the side that is very important for one side of the House or the other side, then we do an injustice to Canada and to the citizens we represent because they depend on us to make the right decisions for the betterment of the country.

It is time for us to get the facts and to get as much information as we can so that we know where we are going.

As I said earlier, I am sure many members in the House do not have a clue as to what this is all about. I am also sure some people are well informed about this whole situation. It is a learning process. We, as parliamentarians, have to depend on the people who are for it and who are against it to put the facts, the figures and the information before us so we can have a clear understanding of where we are going or not going.

We should not get involved because the U.S. says that we should get involved. We get involved because it is the right thing for the country. If it is not the right thing for Canada and its people, then we do not get involved and we state why. However we do not hang back as we did during the Iraqi war. We do not put out the hook and as it gets closer to making a decision we haul in the line and all of a sudden the fish comes off as we did with the war in Iraq.

If we are going to make a decision we need to have all the facts and figures and all the pros and cons on the issue so we all have a general understanding of what it is all about.

We all know that Canada does not have a military constituency as it does in the U.S. Canada has no pro-military constituency, which is the biggest problem. We depend on someone else to do our work. If we are going to defend our country as the U.S. takes care of its people, then we have a decision to make. Are we a country of peace or are we a country that will defend our nation from any type of threat? If we are going to protect our country we have to spend money. If we are not going to protect our country and depend on the United States to do it, then let us say so and get on with it.

Also it was noted that the Americans will not wait for us to make up our minds. We need to give them a sign if we are going to be involved or we are not. It is no good to go to the United States, sit around the table and negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. The key is that Canada needs to say either we are in or we are out. In any type of negotiation, as people in this House know, if people are going to negotiate, people are going to negotiate. There are things people are going to like and things people are not going to like, but if we are going to be in this, we should say so. Right now no one in the House knows if we are going to be in or out, because the Prime Minister has even said that he does not know where it is going.

We will know soon enough, but sometimes it is too late when we do know. The problem is that the government makes a decision, we are the last to know, and then all of a sudden we are fighting with the government and telling it what it did wrong. Let us all get involved together. This is so important.

It also was stated as well that “it is important for us to determine whether or not [national missile defence] will in fact bring more stability than we now have”. We also need “to determine whether we can better accomplish our goals through multilateral diplomacy”. It was also concluded that “we already know that on major international issues we have no real influence. It is therefore time for Canada to speak in terms of a national interest” and be firm about what we are going to do.

There can be little doubt that the debate over national missile defence will be with us for some time. This reality will prove an expensive one for all participants. Whether we use the new-found technologies and capabilities for positive or negative purposes will depend in large part on the debate we have in the House of Commons, the debate we have across Canada and the decisions we make for our country and nation.

I will go back to questions that people are very concerned about, but before I do I want to talk about an article in the Star-Phoenix on April 29 about a person who is looking to be prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party and who stated, “To support this Star Wars scenario runs counter to everything the Liberal party has ever stood for”.

Then of course the Prime Minister said, like always, “We don't know exactly what will be the requirement. Perhaps the wise thing to do is to try to find out what they are asking of us--if they ask anything. Let's wait to know if they are asking something, or nothing”. That was in the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal on April 30.

That is the problem we have as well: We are waiting for them to come to us. It is time for Canada to say to the United States either “we are in and give us some information” or “we are out”. It is very simple: in or out. It is no big deal. But if we are going to make the decision to jump in, let us jump in on the ground floor.

I will end by saying that all sides of the House do not have all the information. We do not know from one day to the next what the government is going to do. I do not understand the situation clearly. I have managed to get some information together today and I can say that it is really interesting. I am hoping to get more information so that when I have to make an decision I will make an informed decision on the facts, on the pros and cons, and I will make a decision in this House based on what I believe is best for Canada and best for the protection of our country.

[River Guardians, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, protection of our rivers across the country, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador, is one of many important issues facing our country today. River guardians are the conservation officers who are contracted out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to assist full time DFO officers in the protection of our rivers.

When are we going to learn from our mistakes? Are we prepared to make the same mistakes we made with our cod stocks and other species? When are we going to stop cutting back in the areas that directly affect our most precious resources? River guardians protect our rivers from poachers who have no desire to abide by the law and in turn destroy our fish stocks.

This year river guardians will be further reduced by one week. DFO should not be cutting back in this area. These cutbacks are unacceptable and should not be tolerated. More guardians are needed on the rivers for longer periods to ensure that our rivers are protected from poachers. This will result in better management of our fish resource.

[Petitions, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today which calls upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Forest Industry, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled as to why the minister responsible for ACOA approved funding in the amount of $94,000 for a pilot project that would study the feasibility of using snowmobiles to harvest timber in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador when only last fall he pulled the plug on a pilot project of heli-logging, which is considered to be cost efficient and environmentally friendly.

Will the minister tell the House on what grounds he cancelled the worthwhile project of heli-logging?

[Chief Actuary Act, May 15th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to create an independent chief actuary of Canada who would report directly to the House of Commons. Bill C-421, brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill, is a commendable bill and worthy of attention, support and passage.

As previously stated, the bill would provide that the chief actuary of Canada become an independent officer of Parliament, and report directly to the House of Commons and Senate when directed to do so, and when directed by statute.

Absolutely nothing about having an important financial officer reporting to Parliament could or would produce adverse effects. In fact, it is when officers do not report to Parliament that problems arise and issues of transparency and accountability are rightly questioned. These questions that need answers are not just asked by parliamentarians, but by many Canadians and rightly so. Many high ranking officers report to Parliament. These include: the Chief Electoral Officer, Official Languages Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner, Information Commissioner, and Auditor General.

In the name of a well balanced, functioning, transparent and accountable democracy, it is extremely important that these people report to Parliament and to no one else but Parliament. Because they are independent and report to Parliament, let us look at all the good work these officers have done in the past. There have been no black marks, scandals or cover-ups. They are just hard working officers doing their best at what they do.

No one is suggesting the Auditor General's Office suffers from a taint or is influenced by the PMO. Neither does anyone suggest that the Privacy Commissioner is anyone's lapdog, but I do not know if, at times, we can say the same regarding the ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor does his job exactly the way the Prime Minister tells him to do it. It is laughable and shameful, and is all rolled into one big mess.

It is what happens when high ranking officers and public officials are placed in the hind pocket of the Prime Minister. Scandals erupt, corruption abounds, questions are asked, transparency becomes a foreign concept, and accountability is non-existent and trust erodes.

Canadians are losing faith in the trustworthiness of their elected officials and bureaucrats because of the never ending shower of scandal. True reports of corruption and cover ups have plagued the government for many years.

Everyone and his or her dog, except the Prime Minister and his lapdog ethics counsellor, thinks that the ethics counsellor should report to Parliament. Two people, maybe three if we include the former finance minister, think the position should be enshrouded in secrecy.

Most others in the House, and most across the country, would agree that the ethics counsellor should report to Parliament. It is time for the secrecy to end. Nothing adverse or bad could come about by having the ethics counsellor report to Parliament. In the same vein, nothing untoward or adverse would come about by having the chief actuary of Canada report directly to Parliament instead of having him or her report to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

The integrity and honesty of the government has stooped to unforeseen depths when it comes to ethics, corruption, conflict of interest allegations and cover-ups. This would not happen nearly as often if the ethics counsellor were to report to Parliament.

Having the chief actuary of Canada an officer of Parliament would be a step in the right direction. The chief actuary contends with some very important financial matters, especially matters dealing with pensions. Having the chief actuary report to Parliament would ensure that important issues such as pensions would be out in the open and it would ensure that the best interests of pensioners and others would be looked after.

I believe all members would agree that having high ranking officers of various portfolios report to Parliament would be a good thing. It is not only the ethics counsellor who has come under fire during the government's tenure, but the chief actuary's office has also been subject to political interference. It is exactly for this reason that the chief actuary should report to Parliament and not be another civil servant who in turn reports to the Minister of Finance.

In the fall of 2002 the chief actuary, who had an impeccable and unblemished personal and professional record, was fired just three weeks before he was to report on the status of the Canada pension plan.

Why was he fired? He was fired because he just about to report unfavourably on how the former minister of finance was running the CPP and how he mismanaged it. He was looking out for Canadians and would not lie to the public about a file that was botched. He was fired for his integrity and honesty before he was allowed to report his findings to the Canadian public.

Every party in the House, except the governing party, held the former finance minister to account, but how can there be accountability when everything is done behind closed doors?

Every party asked questions about the firing but the former finance minister, true to form, answered in half-truths.

No one ever had to account for that wrongful firing other than charging the taxpayers for his cash settlement for wrongful dismal, and no one will ever have to account for it. Why? It is because the office of the chief actuary is about as independent as a newborn baby. Anything the chief actuary does that the Minister of Finance does not like, he gets fired or he gets reprimanded like an infant.

This is unacceptable when it comes to a position of the man or woman who is dealing with these very important pension numbers that concern all Canadians, especially elderly Canadians. I guess the former finance minister was more worried about his job security than the retirement income of elderly Canadians, and that is shameful.

If there is something wrong with the way CPP is being administered then Canadians have a right to know. If there had been an independent chief actuary in Canada that unfortunate situation would never have arisen.

It is high time that the office of the chief actuary of Canada joined the office of the Auditor General, among others, to become an independent, objective institution reporting to Parliament. For the safety of the pensions of all Canadians, the chief actuary has to be in the same category as the Auditor General.

I thank the hon. member for bringing this important bill forward. I urge members from both sides of the House to support this long overdue bill.