Nelson Riis

[Banking, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who yesterday said “just watch us”. He was implying that he and his government may not approve the megabank merger. We in the New Democratic Party caucus believe that in the end the Minister of Finance and his government will cave in to the banks.

The minister is a risk taker. I am prepared to bet $100 that in the end he and his government will cave in. Will he accept the bet?

[Petitions, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on another matter. The petitioners are primarily from the communities of Logan Lake and Kamloops.

They point out their concerns in terms of the way the government is dealing with the pension system for Canadians and call upon the House of Commons to advance cautiously in terms of any changes to the retirement system of the country without very clear consultation with Canadians.

[Petitions, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the Kamloops constituency, primarily the community of Clearwater in the North Thompson valley.

They point out a number of reasons they feel the multilateral agreement on investment is not in the best interest of Canada and simply call upon Canada not to sign the MAI.

[Banking, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He is well aware that if the bank mergers are permitted to proceed we will see the loss of thousands of jobs in that sector. He will appreciate the reduction in competition in that vital sector. He knows that there are major implications in allowing foreign banks to come into Canada.

In light of those three aspects, would he agree with me that it would be appropriate, at least for the finance committee of the House, to do an in-depth analysis of the impacts of these bank mergers on the financial community of Canada and on Canadians generally?

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I have the opportunity to say a few words about the state of health care in our country.

I notice with interest that at the Liberal convention coming up in a few hours there are a number of resolutions pointing out the concern of delegates from across the country attending the Liberal convention regarding the state of health care in Canada. They are pointing out that in their judgment some cases are actually at a crisis level. I think the Minister of Health actually used that word in a couple of comments in the last little while.

Overall it is fair to say that the Liberal government does not take health care seriously. Canada is now 17th among the 28 industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in public spending on health care. Between 1986 and 1997 the public portion of Canada's health tab declined from 77% to 70%. By 1999 it is expected to drop to only 60%.

Today private spending in Canada's universal public system exceeds the total of federal health care dollars. I might add that only 20% of Canada's health care funding now comes from the federal government.

Since 1986 Ottawa has slashed a total of $36 billion from health care according to Dr. Fuller of the Health Sciences Association of British Columbia.

I also want to mention that medicare's complete privatization appears to be the goal of at least two provincial governments these days, the governments of Alberta and Ontario.

I read with interest just a few days ago how impressed the B.C. Reform member for North Vancouver was at the service he received in a Florida hospital while he was on vacation. He said “It really put to shame what happens in Canada. I do not think there is any harm in having some competition. I know it is widely supported in my riding and there should be some competition to get efficiency into the system”.

As a result of these fiscal and ideological pressures on our system, privatization is well under way across the country. In Manitoba people with means to do so are hiring their own nurses to care for them in hospital. The fact they have to do this is a reflection of the crisis in our health care system.

Last week apparently with the blessing of the Alberta government, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Alberta Medical Association reached an agreement that will see patients able to charge uninsured medical services on their credit cards or debit cards right at the doctor's office.

I could go on at some length. I think it is fair to say that if there was a poll conducted across the country, Canadians everywhere would consider that we are in a crisis.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that health care in Canada has become a $75 billion marketplace. United States based international corporations armed with free trade agreements threaten to dominate the provision of services shortly with the support of some provincial governments, most large employers and a large section of organized medicine.

For profit companies are benefiting from government participation in joint ventures, lucrative contracts with ministries of health, outsourcing arrangements with hospitals, generous tax breaks for venture capital investors, access to medicare payments and direct grant allocations.

One could go on and on. I can summarize by simply saying our health care system is in serious trouble. Medicare is being challenged from coast to coast. It is time that the federal government took this issue more seriously than it is at the moment.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is a rather extraordinary day as we wind down in anticipation of the convention being held nearby. Considering that we do have time, could I seek unanimous consent to allow the member to complete her presentation?

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

I can hardly take that, Mr. Speaker. I have never experienced this before in my life. I do not want to overdo it and change their minds very quickly. Thank you, that is more like it.

I am going to end my remarks in my presentation by simply saying that we believe the minister is not going far enough in subjecting our armed forces to an outside and independent review process.

This concerns New Democrats a great deal because we feel that the insular culture of the military was in fact in large part responsible for the cover-up that occurred in the Somalia affair.

The measures introduced by the minister in Bill C-25 may be a bit of a help, and I acknowledge that they may be a bit of help, but they really do not address the problem of a military beholden to itself.

The Somalia commission's principle recommendation, the establishment of a formal inspector general system to watch over the military's performance, has been rejected by this minister and his Liberal government. Instead, the minister will allow the military to continue to investigate itself in these matters.

I know that the minister is a very thoughtful individual but I find it hard to believe that he was attached to this because would anybody really believe that the military will continue to investigate itself in a clear fashion. It is a bit like asking the coyote to keep an eye on the chickens in the henhouse and make sure everything is peaceful there.

We point out what appears to be a glaring error in the draft of this legislation and perhaps we will have a chance to change it later.

The minister has also rejected a key recommendation of the Somalia inquiry aimed at protecting both those individuals who report wrongdoing in connection with the Somalia mission and those who may do so in the future. This might be called whistle blowing. Also rejected is the recommendation that military police be more independent of the defence department and report to the solicitor general instead.

The minister also has not accepted the commission's proposal that Parliament set the ground rules for future peacekeeping operations.

I believe this minister has perpetuated the notion that the old boy network in the military is alive and well and that when problems arise, they will be settled clearly within the family. Given the terrible shape of our military these days, I am afraid that is not in any way assuring Canadians.

Bill C-25 reminds us of the government's failure to get to the bottom of the Somalia affair and the government's failure to bring forth the key recommendations of the Somalia commission in this bill indicates to us in the New Democratic Party that there is more secrecy to come and there will still continue to be a great lack of accountability in Canada's military.

Bill C-25, the department of defence response to the need for change in the military justice system, fails to deal with the contentious issue of accountability and responsibility within the senior echelons of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we are not terribly enthusiastic about this legislation at this time.

To reiterate, I think it is fair to say that the two areas of serious concern are, first, the fact that there is no protection for whistle blowers, in other words those men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who see a serious wrongdoing, see something that simply should not take place, who do not feel free to inform others, including the public, of this problem. Until that happens there will always be this sort of cloudy pall hanging over the armed forces with people wondering if everything is going on above board. There is also the matter of accountability. The two are related but there is still the lack of accountability in terms of what is happening, particularly at the leadership level in our forces.

That is what we do not like about the bill but, like everything else, there are good points and there are some bad points. I have emphasized in my role as a critic today some of the more negative and downsides of Bill C-25. But there are positive aspects. I could list a few, but it just is not part of my personality in the House to list positive things. However, I will focus on one positive and that is the removal of the death penalty.

The minister is here in his place and I want to applaud him for his efforts.

Many countries around the world have eliminated the death penalty for their armed forces. The death penalty has been abolished in many western nations with which Canada has very strong ties. Among our NATO allies are countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Greece, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Spain. I could list a number of countries which have done away with the death penalty as a punishment for all civil and military offences. Countries outside the NATO sphere have also abolished the death penalty for civil and service offences. Our Commonwealth friends such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have also abolished the death penalty.

The odd state in the U.S. retains the death penalty. It is interesting that those states which have kept the death penalty are those states which have the highest amount of violent crime. There seems to be an inverse relationship to the death penalty when it comes to safety.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you as a learned individual know full well all of the reasons why we have abolished the death penalty in Canada. Now that the Minister of National Defence, through this legislation, has eliminated the death penalty for Canada's armed forces, we join those nations which are the most progressive in the world. I believe it is fair to say that the countries which are the most favourable in the world in which to live, almost inevitably, are those countries which have taken steps to abolish the death penalty. It is a clear signal of the values they place on human life.

I am loath to say that we will not support the bill at this stage. However, we hope that by sending out a clear message to our friend, the minister of defence, there will be a chance to amend it in committee. We will be working hard in committee to improve the legislation.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act, involving primarily military justice. The title of the bill does not state it all. I want to mention some of the highlights of this bill before I get into the discussion of its content.

Bill C-25 includes proposed amendments to the National Defence Act that attempt to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the military justice system's principal actors, including the Minister of National Defence and the judge advocate general. It also attempts to establish clear standards of institutional separation between the investigative, prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions. It establishes two independent oversight bodies external to the department and the Canadian forces, one a Canadian forces grievance board and the other a military police complaints commission.

The bill also abolishes the death penalty as a punishment and substitutes it with life in prison.

The bill requires the Canadian forces grievance board, the military police complaints commission and the judge advocate general to file annual reports that the minister must table in this House. These reports are in addition to the annual reports of the ombudsman, the chief of defence staff and the Canadian forces provost martial. It also requires the minister of defence to have the National Defence Act reviewed and the results of that review reported to Parliament within five years.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you stay awake late at night worrying about all of these different tablings and so on. I am sure that you will appreciate this process is appropriate within our parliamentary system.

It really is a joy for me to join the debate on Bill C-25, a bill which I have indicated changes and modernizes the National Defence Act and in particular the code of service discipline.

As most members of this House know, the main focus of Bill C-25 and a key focus of the National Defence Act is the military justice system, a distinct system of penal law applicable to members of the Canadian forces and other persons subject to Canadian military jurisdiction.

We all recognize that the military justice system in recent years has been under increasing scrutiny and pressure for change. A number of factors have contributed to the introduction of this bill.

One factor is undoubtedly the extended and unprecedented period of time since Canada was last involved in a major war and the perception that chances of such involvement are now very remote. This situation tends to lead people both inside and outside the military to be less tolerant of any perceived systematic unfairness in the system and its retention of punishments perceived as excessive or rather out of date.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that while we have been fortunate enough not to be involved in a major war for many, many years now and in fact for some decades, we do not forget the fact that many of those serving in our armed forces are serving in very troubled hot spots around the world. As we debate this change to Bill C-25, they are carrying on their best efforts as peacekeepers and peacemakers on behalf of Canada.

Another factor has been the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This constitutional change has brought the military justice system as well as the Canadian legal system generally under increased scrutiny as regards procedural safeguards for accused persons and principles of fairness and equality of treatment generally.

Particular attention has been drawn to aspects of the military justice system that reflect the disparity of treatment between soldiers and civilians or among military personnel. These include the lack of certain traditional criminal law safeguards at summary trials, the fact that only junior ranks, privates and corporals, and non-commissioned officers, master corporals and sergeants, can be summarily sentenced to detention or reduction in rank.

Also, commanding officers had considerable discretion in deciding to proceed or dismiss charges, including very serious criminal charges, the fact that persons exercising judicial fact functions, or what would be judicial functions in the civilian system, are often members of the chain of command who have no legal training and have other apparently conflicting responsibilities for administering the code of service discipline.

Let us be very clear. All of us in this House today know what is behind Bill C-25. In the last two years, such issues and concerns have been brought to the forefront by various high profile cases such as those relating to the misconduct by a handful of selected forces members in Somalia and Bosnia and the cases of Lieutenant Commander Marsaw and Corporal Purnelle.

The 1997 report on both the Somalia Inquiry and the Dickson report recommended a series of changes to the military justice system. There have also been a number of other internal and external studies dealing with possible reforms of the military system when it comes to justice.

New Democrats appreciate the efforts of the Minister of National Defence to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We are very concerned about the issue of accountability when it comes to the military justice system. Unfortunately, the efforts of the Minister of National Defence in this regard just do not go far enough. We regret that greatly. We were hoping for significant changes in the area of accountability, but unfortunately this has not happened with this particular piece of legislation.

We know that something went terribly wrong in Somalia. We sent Canadian troops to Somalia to help keep the peace. Some ended up killing the same people they were sent there to help. It is a horrible thing that happened. It would not be right to sweep this under the rug and pretend it never happened. Nor would it be right to simply deny it. It would not be right to deny why this happened. It is certainly not right that certain individuals involved in this terrible incident are not now held accountable.

All of this has happened. This is a fact. What is more shocking than the incident itself is the cover-up that happened and occurred after, a cover-up that included some of Canada's senior defence personnel.

Canadians first learned about the Somalia incident through some enterprising news reports. Some talented inquiring reporters broke the story. We learned more when Canadian soldiers with a conscience blew the whistle as well. However, during this time soldiers in the upper levels of the military were busy little beavers tampering with some documents, destroying some, distorting others and stonewalling at every opportunity.

Canadians, in spite of their efforts, could not get the full story no matter how hard they tried. In 1994 the Liberal government set up the Somalia Commission of Inquiry. In the beginning the Liberals appeared very keen to get to the truth. They were going to get to the bottom of things. I remember time after time various ministers and others speaking in this House saying it was important to get to the bottom of the Somalia issue.

When the commission started working, they too were stonewalled by military brass in their attempts to avoid having the truth come out. To say the least, this frustrated the commissioners. We all remember night after night on the news various commissioners in their own adroit way explaining the frustration that they experienced in terms of getting to the facts.

Nevertheless, the commission continued and the Liberal government got scared. They were now well into their term of office and preparing for an election call. I guess they did not want the defence department's dirty laundry being aired on the eve of an election. We all know what happened next.

Doug Young, the former minister of defence, shut the Somalia inquiry down. One of the commissioners called the shutdown the most brazen cover-up in denials of responsibility in the history of this country. He also said that the Liberal government's actions were a brazen cover-up and a denial of responsibility.

Because the government snuffed out the inquiry, Canadians will never know the truth about what happened in Somalia and Canadians will never know who was really responsible for all the cover-up.

I just grabbed a handful of newspaper clippings of that time from my file. I thought it would be appropriate to read some of the headlines into the record.

One of the panelists said of the commission that the Department of National Defence got away with it. Others went on to say some very questionable things. I do not think our rules would allow me to use some of the language in these presentations. I will set those aside.

One headline says “An inquiry insider slams the federal government's response”. A second says “Prime Minister acting in a most irresponsible fashion”. Another headline says “Canada's military remains not accountable”. Another says “The government kowtows to military brass”. Others say “The Somalia inquiry proves a major embarrassment to the armed forces and to the government of the day” and “Outside supervision of military ruled out”. The sub-headline says “Military remains responsible for their own: Inquiry exposes areas of incompetence”. It is depressing to read these headlines. One says “The defence stonewalled: Defence unable to obtain documents”.

It says—again this is the minister—“The minister has betrayed the Canadian armed forces, particularly their future”. Another one is “Panic in the armed forces”. Another one says “The Somalia inquiry a mess”. Still another says “Cutting off the inquiry will backfire in terms of political fall-out”. I am not sure if that happened but this was a prediction.

Another one says “Government calls the whole thing off before embarrassment” and another says “The deadline lets the brass off the hook: A previous Prime Minister shielded from reality”. It says “Minister of defence not told the truth: Grits shielded from military scrutiny”.

I could go on. This is just a handful. I am very reluctant to even mention these in my presentation because they are so distasteful. I guess we have to nevertheless do these things.

I must say that in spite of all the stonewalling and in spite of all the denials and cover-ups, despite being shut down mid-way through its work, the Somalia commission still issued recommendations.

Wouldn't you know it? The Liberal government has again responded with some arrogance, I am afraid to say. The Minister of National Defence called the inquiry's work an insult. The arrogance of this minister is unbelievable, how he would call the inquiry work an insult and not the fact that it was stonewalled and shut down prematurely.

I think we should tell the minister that this piece of legislation before the House today is an insult. This bill completely ignores—

[Racism, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as various white supremacist groups are now converging in the town of Oliver, British Columbia, the city hall has called for an expedited investigation of the problems regarding the regulating of Internet material, specifically racism and hate literature including such topics as neo-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-Semitic literature.

Internet providers should be responsible for hate material stored in their systems.

Will the Minister of Justice take steps immediately to modernize the law to define the legal responsibility of Internet providers, especially when it comes to hate and pornographic materials?

[Racism, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On March 21, United Nations international day for the elimination of racism, a white supremacist meeting in Oliver, British Columbia, will try to solicit support for an Internet provider who has become an electronic news-stand for publications fostering hate against aboriginals, new Canadians, francophones, the Jewish community and other groups.

Racist groups are flaunting the law by using the Internet. What is the government doing to ensure that Canada does not become an electronic safe haven for hate mongers?