John O'Reilly

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and his interest.

I am pleased to speak today about rescue diving. Before I continue I certainly wish to state that it is unfortunate that the automobile accident in Richmond, British Columbia, resulted in a death on February 18. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the victim's family and friends.

Some members today may recall the announcement in 1995 which preceded the commencement of a two year rescue diving pilot project at the coast guard hovercraft station at Sea Island in British Columbia. The pilot project was to determine the effectiveness of rescue diving as a complement to Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue.

In 1997, after two years of operating the pilot project, the project was extended so that more information could be collected by the coast guard to determine the effectiveness of providing a rescue diving capability.

In November 2000, after reviewing available information, the coast guard, primarily out of concern for the safety of the divers, engaged in the very high risk operations inherent with these activities, suspended the pilot project.

An evaluation of the pilot project has indicated that the risks inherent in diving activities were high and that the risks inherent in rescue diving were even greater. The rescue diving operations were usually conducted in poor to bad visibility, rough weather and involved a high degree of uncertainty and the presence of wreckage in the water.

An analysis of the dives during the six years of the pilot project indicated that approximately 2,000 dives took place. Of these, only about three dozen were actual rescue dives. The remainder of the dives were to conduct underwater hull inspections and to work on marine navigational buoys. As a result of the rescue dives two individuals were rescued alive. Tragically, one of them died of his injuries.

To return to the recent accident on February 18, it is currently too early and perhaps impossible to determine whether the life of the individual involved in this accident could indeed have been saved had the coast guard deployed divers.

As members are probably aware, the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has announced that he has personally asked his deputy minister and the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard to review all the facts surrounding the response to the tragic accident that occurred on that Sunday in Richmond, British Columbia, as well as the rescue diving pilot project in Richmond.

The government's priority is to continue to work with its partners and with its own resources to provide efficient, safe maritime search and rescue services to Canadians.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am using the last half of my friend's time. I wanted to make sure that the debate included Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. If I combine my riding with the neighbouring riding of Hastings—Frontenac, they together comprise a third of the land in southern Ontario.

My riding is a rural riding in Ontario, with 24 Santa Claus parades, 18 cenotaph services and many other such things that happen in rural ridings. When visiting its 44 municipalities I realize that I am dealing with small groups of agriculture based people.

It is the same in your riding, Mr. Speaker, which is a big farm community. There was a rally in your riding the other day, and I thank you for attending it. Some farmers from my riding were there to make the point that there was a crisis in certain sectors of agriculture today. More than one sector of agriculture is affected because today's problems in one sector are tomorrow's problems in another.

There are 27 commodity groups in Ontario. I have been trying to encourage farm groups to get together as one voice and not as segregated groups trying to accomplish things for their own sectors.

I work with farm groups. I realize they are very proud people. They are not looking for a handout. They are looking to work on a level playing field, as the saying goes, and to be able to compete globally.

Canada has some of the most efficient farmers in the world. My riding has a lot of agricultural groups that work through the supply management system. There are over 400 working dairy farms in my riding. When I approach farmers with items of concern, when I bring some of the chief negotiators into the riding to work with them to find ways to be more productive, the meetings tend to be very big.

Before this debate I attended a meeting with the Minister of Finance. I wanted to make sure he knew exactly what the problems were, what the numbers were and what we were asking for. I wanted also to be assured he had those numbers when he went to cabinet along with the minister of agriculture, so that they knew exactly what it would take for the 60 days between now and planting season. After planting season, farm people must look at what they will get for their crops in the end.

This is not a quick fix to get the seed in the ground. It is required in order to get a good price for the product. That is the systemic problem in Ontario and other provinces at this time.

This afternoon we met with the members for Malpeque, Essex, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Leeds—Grenville, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Elgin—Middlesex—London and the member for Etobicoke North, who does not have any farms there. He is parliamentary secretary and we thought we should have him.

As we dealt with it, talked about it and laid out the numbers, we saw that it was a whole farm problem. It is not just one commodity group, although at this time grains and oilseeds are having problems and are at the forefront. Other sectors could be affected because Canada's food production is under attack from the world. If we allow ourselves to be taken over, if we allow the marketplace to be the only force that decides, we will not have family farms. We must deal with the issue.

I compliment some of the people in my riding: Ed Bragshaw, Bruce Webster, Joe Hickson and Bill Holland. They have held rallies. They have presented petitions. They have had phone campaigns. They are addressing the problem in a way that is very important to them and to me. They bring their voices forward to be heard.

I also compliment the member for Toronto—Danforth, who is a leader in promotion and a tremendous thinker when it comes to things like the farm aid show. There are no farms in his riding, but he is looking at being the voice for bringing farmers together. He is trying to make some type of promotional hook, and he knows today's problem with grains and oilseeds is tomorrow's problem for other sectors of agriculture.

A farm organization gets six cents worth of product in a box of cereal while a dollar on that box goes to a hockey player. I have nothing against hockey players. I know your son is in the NHL, Mr. Speaker. I am glad he is getting a dollar from a box of cereal. The point is that if a farmer gets six cents for the cereal while a golfer gets a dollar for his picture on the box, there is obviously something wrong with the way we do business in agriculture.

Our parties here tonight are close to short term solutions but the long term problems will still exist. An instant infusion of cash does not help the systemic problems. Another compounding issue is that on very successful farms the average age of a farmer is 57 or 58 years old. The younger generation is being discouraged from farming because of the problems in the marketplace.

In the short term I compliment the agricultural community for putting its voices together and bringing the problem to the forefront. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the debate to continue. I compliment the member for Brandon—Souris for bringing the problem to the House.

I ask the House to continue to debate our food system, not just grains and oilseeds but the whole farm problem, the whole food system, and the safety of our food which is uppermost in our minds. I think this problem is the tip of the iceberg for what is going on in agriculture today. We must address it very aggressively.

The House has to take a proactive stand to make sure farmers are protected and that they get a decent return for what they produce. The input costs have to be taken into consideration for the price of the end product.

I hope the House will continue to address the whole farm problem and not just the one segment before us tonight.

[National Defence, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a very important question.

There is no question that the military is facing a significant recruiting challenge. The Canadian forces are focusing on recruiting and retaining the qualified and skilled personnel needed for the job both now and in the future.

Efforts are already underway. They are streamlining the way we process results. They are building an advertising campaign so young Canadians know the Canadian military is an employer of choice that offers exciting careers. There is no life like it.

[Water Contamination, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, DND officials are aware of the contamination in the municipality. There remains a number of questions about the source and severity.

DND is very concerned about the health and welfare of the residents of Shannon and other communities near Valcartier. As a landowner, employer and community member, the department is working closely with provincial and local authorities to ensure the safety of area residents, many of whom are current or retired Canadian forces members and civilian employees of the Department of National Defence.

[Request For Emergency Debate, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This day is one of the greatest days in the history of the Conservative Party. I thought that perhaps the party had let it pass by. I did not want it to not be noticed that the Right. Hon. John Diefenbaker was born on September 18, 1895.

[100Th Birthday Greetings To The Queen Mother, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, having been born on August 4, the Queen Mother's birthday, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint John for such a rousing rendition of wishing me a happy birthday along with the Queen Mother.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from beautiful Brock township calling on parliament to act immediately to request the provision of Canada's annual abortion statistics.

[Business Of The House, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That this House endorse the initiative of the delegation of members of parliament, under the leadership of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and composed of a member of each party officially recognized in the House, to travel to France and to return to Canada with the remains of the unknown Canadian soldier who gave his life in defence of liberty during World War I.

[Tom Long, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of a telephone call some members are receiving. It goes something like this, “Hello, you all. I am calling you on behalf of my good buddy, Tom Long. Will you all help my good old buddy Tom to get them Canadian taxes down?”

I asked “Are you calling long distance?” He said “You all, it's a Tom Long call. Tom is one of the good guys and he will save you Canadians from your further misery. He is a really good organizer and he wants to move from the back room to the front room so he can see the porch. He wants you all to support him up there and down here. Charlton will thank you”.

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. When you start dealing with the member for Wentworth—Burlington you will be talking about Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Aldershot, so you will have to work on that.

There are a lot of things the House has to learn other than finding out where a member actually resides. Do not worry, the name of my riding will change shortly because Victoria has been changed to the City of the Kawartha Lakes. I will probably have to change that also because it does not exist. When I get around to running a survey in my next householder I will ask people what exactly they want the riding to be called.

Bill C-206 was introduced by my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington. As the member for Kings—Hants has noted, we sometimes disagree. Probably the only reason he does not heckle me is because I am on his side of the House.

Allowing private members' business, in general, to be debated in the House is something which I think the public does not quite understand. I think it should be pointed out that any debate or negotiating, or anything that is allowed in private members' business should be looked at very seriously. People should understand that private members do a great deal of research into what they feel is perhaps an injustice or perhaps is not. If something is being left out of legislation that affects the people on the street with whom we deal as backbench members of parliament, sometimes the only way to create debate is to bring a private member's bill forward. I compliment the member for Wentworth—Burlington for doing so.

First reading is an important stage because it introduces the bill to the House. That in itself allows members to read the bill and to discover the very thoughtful discussion that has gone into it, the commentary and the amendments that it would make to the act. After that it receives second reading and goes to committee. Then it comes back to the House for report stage and amendments, if necessary, and concurrence.

Many people do not realize that it takes a long time for that to happen. It takes a great deal of gumption on behalf of a member to follow it through and to try to deal with the various amendments from other members. Then third reading debate and a vote will send it on to the other place, or the Senate as it is known. That is the process.

We should keep in mind that there are, I think by design, 30 private member's bills on the order paper. The number is never less than that. As one is dealt with another is brought forward. I am not sure of the exact number that are actually waiting to get into that stream, but there are quite a few of them.

One of the subcommittees that I sit on is the one formed by the central Ontario caucus. We as group looked at ways to improve the way parliament works. That report is making its way through the system. It has some 24 recommendations. Some are doable. Some are not. Some will die from partisan politics, although we tried to make it extremely non-partisan. It deals entirely with backbench members of parliament.

One of the recommendations was Friday sittings. Some members have said that this is the only place that sits on Fridays in the world wherever there are parliaments, wherever there are democratic systems that work under the British model. If it is not in the government's interest to sit on Friday, I thought we could compromise and move Private Members' Business to Friday and make Friday a day when all Private Members' Business would be dealt with. Then members know exactly when it would be dealt with. We would not have to change the clock. This is the only place in the world where it is 6.05 p.m. and the Chair can declare that it is 6.10 p.m.

In any event certain things need some work around here and that may be one of them. A Friday sitting for Private Members' Business would highlight it and give it the precedence I believe it deserves in parliament. I would like to see us go ahead with that. We could allow for government bills to be introduced so that we would not lose a day and so on, but there would be no dilatory motions, no surprise votes, and private members would have a day of their own on Fridays.

That is one recommendation for improvement. When I come to the recommendations for improvement on Bill C-206 I notice that changing the act from the Access to Information Act to an act to allow for more open government would make perfect sense to the public and should make perfect sense to all of us. In fact the more open the government is, the more trustworthy it becomes.

We as politicians could actually move up the scale a little, which would be quite a change from some of the ways we are treated. In particular, we are in a more adversarial position with many members of parliament trying to find the party that they are in, some trying to find the party they are not in, and some working away at trying to carve out their niche. It is more confrontational. The agenda seems to move forward, whether it is the Bloc trying to bring its agenda forward by high profiling everything, whether it is the Canadian Alliance Party trying to bring its leadership debate to the front, or whether it is the Conservative Party trying to bring its leader to the front. There seems to be a spirit of less co-operation in this place.

This affects backbench members of parliament, no matter whether they are in the government or in the opposition, more than it affects members who sit on the frontbenches or those who hold positions in official opposition and have functions which give them things such as a parking spot. It would be nice to have some place to park our cars around here but this is not allowed. We would not have to bunk in with other people because we do not get enough money to cover our apartments. I do not know of a company in the world that would send some one to Ottawa and say that he or she has to bunk in with three or four people to afford to be here.

When we deal with an open government act, I believe the right to access to information is the right to democracy. I believe we as democratically elected politicians should allow the government to be more open. I see in the legislation a spirit of compromise. I see a spirit of change. I believe we all feel that this act needs to be changed.

This is the only time, as this is Private Members' Business, that I can speak against the government. If I were moved back any farther I would get into curtain burn. I cannot be moved back any farther so I am allowed to speak my mind on Private Members' Business.

The government does not support the bill for a couple of reasons, but it recognizes that the issues of access reform are controversial and complex. Those diversions of opinion are legitimate so Private Members' Business has been legitimized.

Mr. Speaker, either I have two minutes left or you are a Roman ordering five beer. I always try to inject a little humour into this place because sometimes it is very hard to find. Whenever I see a response that uses the word stakeholders, which I never learned until I came to Ottawa, and the phrase at the end of the day, I know the government is in trouble.

I know the bill has a good chance. I compliment the member for Wentworth—Burlington, soon to be Ancaster—Dundas—Flamboro—Aldershot, for his initiative in bringing it to our attention and highlighting the importance of Private Members' Business. It does move the agenda forward, although not necessarily on this particular day. However it will move the agenda forward and bring it to the forefront, which perhaps will cause the government to improve an act that needs improvement, as the member has so rightly pointed out.