John Richardson

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence has previously stated in this House, the Department of National Defence has an obligation to meet budget reduction targets.

The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence must deliver the missions defined by the government in the defence policy in the most cost effective way possible within the constraints of the budget available.

Achieving cost savings in support activities is something that can be done with the alternative service delivery program. At the same time, however, the government has an obligation and a desire to make sure that employees are treated fairly. We have demonstrated that with the way we have gone about the downsizing of the public service. We will demonstrate it again in the terms of how we treat employees affected by the alternative service delivery program.

Among the options being considered are various alternative service delivery mechanisms such as competition, which may at times include in-house bids, or employee takeover leading to contractual arrangements and partnering and collaborations between government and private sector and privatization.

However, the Minister of National Defence directed the department to ensure that the six sites recently selected for an alternative service delivery review have the opportunity to demonstrate whether sufficient savings can be achieved through internal redesign of the work before a decision is made to pursue the competitive process.

The review of alternative service delivery initiatives provides for fair consultation and involvement of all interested parties including management, employees, unions, industry, local communities and other government departments.

In cases where there may be personnel cuts resulting from these initiatives, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces work with the union leadership and affected personnel to discuss the possible impact of anticipated reductions. In these cases arrangements can be made to secure employment with the new employer and remaining—

[Canadian Forces Reserves, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute dedicated Canadians who serve with the Canadian Forces Reserves.

Reservists are the lifeblood of such illustrious units as the Rocky Mountain Rangers in Kamloops, the Fort Garry Horse in Winnipeg, the Queen's Own Rifles in Toronto, HMCS Montcalm in Quebec and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

Reservists have served on peacekeeping missions around the world and were instrumental in the disaster relief operations in Manitoba and during the ice storm.

Cadet instructors work year-round with young people and the rangers provide an essential military presence in the Canadian north and in isolated communities.

Today reservists can wear their uniforms to work to display the pride they have in serving their country and to allow their employers a chance to show their support for reservist employees.

On behalf of all members of parliament, I want to thank all reservists who don their uniform and serve Canada with dedication and pride.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to discuss the role the Canadian forces have played in the former Yugoslavia.

As Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and a member of the national defence committee I have had the opportunity to visit the war torn Balkans on two previous occasions. I have seen firsthand the excellent work of our troops.

Everyone in this Chamber knows of the former Yugoslavia, a country torn apart by war, families broken up, human rights violated on a massive scale.

They know about the Canadian forces, a military organization with an international reputation of excellence. I have no doubt the international respect for the Canadian forces has increased as a result of their operations in the former Yugoslavia.

Since 1991 Canadian forces have done their best to assist the international community in dealing with the conflict in the Balkans. Indeed they have been at the forefront in that regard.

Canadian military personnel have helped prevent the fighting from spreading to other parts of the region and becoming even more brutal. They have also accepted to save countless lives in assisting in the delivery of humanitarian supplies and preventing more massive assaults on civilian populations.

Our military contribution has included a broad range of capabilities, at sea and in the air. As the mandate of the UN and NATO forces evolved over the course of the conflict, so too did the task performed by Canadian personnel. Duties ranged from traditional peacekeeping functions such as monitoring ceasefires to more challenging roles that test the skills and training of our troops.

In June 1992 when the mandate of the UN protection force, UNPROFOR, was expanded a Canadian battalion performed the dangerous task of opening the Sarajevo airport. That was the beginning of operation airbridge, the largest humanitarian airlift ever. The air force made some 1,900 flights into Sarajevo between 1992 and 1996 with almost 30 million kilograms of food, medical supplies as well as 1,100 medical evacuations, all under difficult and frequently dangerous circumstances.

Canadians were also the first troops to be deployed to the former Yugoslavia and the republic of Macedonia. In the spring of 1993 Canadians were sent to the tiny enclave of Srebrenica in Bosnia, the first attempt at creating a UN safe area. In the Medak pocket in September 1993 Canadian soldiers became caught in a fire fight when they attempted to establish a buffer zone between the opposing forces.

Operations in the former Yugoslavia have presented our military leaders with many new and difficult challenges but they have responded in magnificent fashion. Four of our soldiers served as deputy force commanders in UNPROFOR and one, Major-General Lewis Mackenzie, served as the force commander's chief of staff. They have all received praise from the international community for their courage and commitment.

I have talked most about our ground forces, but the air force and the navy have also played a part in the instrumental role in the former Yugoslavia.

From 1992 to 1995 as part of the UN's operation deny flight, the Canadian forces provided air crew for surveillance aircraft monitoring the UN embargo over Bosnia and Hercegovina. Today our air personnel play an important role in NATO's aerial surveillance missions. As part of the ongoing operation bison, they assist in the control of tactical intra-theatre airlift for the NATO stabilization force.

Last year six of our CF-18s flew an air umbrella over Bosnia and Hercegovina enforcing the no-fly zone and prepared to support the troops on the ground if necessary. I understand that Canadian soldiers found great comfort in knowing that there were Canadian fighter aircraft patrolling up above.

The Canadian navy has also done yeoman service. Between 1992 and 1996, 11 Canadian warships and four Aurora maritime air patrol craft patrolled the Adriatic Sea enforcing the military embargo and economic sanctions imposed by the UN. That is a significant commitment of Canadian sea power maritime capability.

The success of the Canadian operations in the former Yugoslavia has not gone unnoticed by the international community. When the implementation was first established in 1995, the Canadian forces were called upon to establish a brigade headquarters in the British sector, a clear indication of the respect they have earned among our NATO allies. Their British commander later said he had nothing but praise for the efficient, professional approach adopted consistently by Canadians.

Civil officials with the UN have also had high praise for the men and women in the Canadian forces. In a letter to the Globe and Mail last July, the former leader of the World Health Organization's humanitarian mission to Yugoslavia wrote that the conduct of the Canadian army was highly professional and at all times combined discipline with humanity, tact and—is it necessary to say—courage in an extremely exacting situation.

We currently have 1,200 personnel in Bosnia and Hercegovina as part of the NATO led stabilization force, or SFOR. Their mission is twofold: to ensure compliance with the military aspects of the Dayton accord and to help preserve the secure environment necessary for the consolidation of peace.

Their operational responsibilities include providing local security of vital points, deploying forces on both sides of the ceasefire line and identifying the dominating potential flashpoints. This is difficult, dangerous work but they carry it out with a professionalism that has traditionally been the earmark of the Canadian forces.

I would be remiss if I did not make reference to the humanitarianism of the men and women of the Canadian forces serving in the former Yugoslavia. During their time there, they have participated in a wide range of activities including repairing schools, hospitals and roads and providing medical care. Let me mention one specific example.

In the summer of 1994 the crew of the frigate HMCS Halifax provided much needed aid to a refugee camp in Slovenia. Sailors donated 50 bags of toys and clothing for the camp residents. Eight sailors conducted general maintenance around the camp including plumbing, carpentry, roofing and painting.

What most Canadians do not realize is that much of the humanitarian work done by the members of the Canadian forces, including that done by the sailors of the HMCS Halifax , is done during their off duty time. They do not have to do it. They choose to do it. They choose to help out. That is the measure of their compassion and dedication.

Canada's military personnel have faced difficult tests in the former Yugoslavia including bad weather, relentless sniper and artillery fire and have been taken hostage. Thirteen have made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives in the cause of peace. They have persevered and in many cases have gone beyond the call of duty to perform acts of bravery.

In July 1992 Sergeant J.S. Forest of the Royal 22nd Regiment rescued two seriously wounded women while under heavy sniper fire. As Captain Joseph Bélisle took aim at the snipers, Sergeant Forest crawled up beside the two victims and carried them to safety. While still under heavy fire, the two soldiers helped the women into a military vehicle. Both men were awarded the Medal of Bravery.

Then there is Sergeant Thomas Hoppe. Sergeant Hoppe received the Meritorious Service Cross for his command under fire of a key observation post located between Serb and Muslim forces in Bosnia in July 1994.

A month later Sergeant Hoppe performed another act of extreme bravery. When he realized that snipers were firing on three young children playing in a cemetery in Sarajevo, Hoppe dashed out from behind cover to rescue the boys and hustle them into a waiting armoured personnel carrier. For this action he received the Medal of Bravery. Sergeant Hoppe is the only Canadian forces member since the second world war to have won both these medals.

Canada has earned a well-deserved reputation for being there when it counts. If Canada is to continue to play an effective role on the world stage, it is critical that we maintain that reputation. That means contributing to international efforts aimed at enhancing global security efforts like SFOR.

The Canadian forces have done a lot of good in the former Yugoslavia since they first went there in 1991. They have made a real difference. In Bosnia and Hercegovina they continue to make a difference. Although much has been accomplished, the situation is not yet stable. Let us do the wise thing and keep the Canadian forces there as part of SFOR until it is stable.

[Anthrax Vaccine, April 24th, 1998]

Certainly not by the Reform Party.

For this reason they have been vaccinated against anthrax and this approach is adopted by our allies and is supported by many members in this House.

[Anthrax Vaccine, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our approach is to ensure that Canadian forces personnel are protected. For their own safety and for the safety of the mission, the anthrax vaccine we have given to our troops has been proven to be safe.

[Anthrax Vaccine, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the medical staff has assured me that the vaccine administered to Canadian forces was safe.

I understand that the U.S. military has hired an independent contractor to oversee the quality and safety testings of its entire stockpile of anthrax vaccine to ensure its safety.

Several million doses have already been cleared as safe. A batch of anthrax vaccine administered to Canadian forces personnel was among those retested and considered safe.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour all our Canadian military personnel helping keep the peace in distant corners of the world.

Today when Canadians think of peacekeeping they think of Bosnia, Haiti, the Persian Gulf. These missions are Canada's most visible peacekeeping efforts, but are by no means our only contributions.

Today I wish to salute the efforts of military personnel in some of those unsung United Nations' missions around the world. I salute the following Canadians: the three people serving to maintain peace in Cyprus; the 28 people in the Sinai Desert enforcing the 1979 peace accord between Egypt and Israel; the 187 supervising the ceasefire between Israel and Syria; and the seven military engineers helping the people of Cambodia rid themselves of antipersonnel land mines.

I am sure that I speak for all of us in the House of Commons when I say we are proud of them all.

[Division No. 121, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I missed getting up. I wanted to vote and I would like to place my vote against.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The legislation will strengthen the statutory framework governing the operations of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces, in particular the administration of military justice. It ensures an effective and fair military justice system, one that is capable of operating in conflict or peace in Canada or abroad.

There are four key components to Bill C-25 as it relates to military justice. First, these changes will enhance transparency and provide greater structure to the exercise of individual discretion in the investigation and the charging process.

Second, the amendments will modernize the powers and procedures of service tribunals, including the elimination of the death penalty under military law.

Third, the amendments will strengthen oversight and review the administration of military justice.

Fourth, the amendments will clarify, for the first time in the act, the roles and responsibility of the key figures in the military justice system and set clear standards of institutional separation for the investigative and prosecutorial defence and judicial functions.

I am especially pleased to speak in support of the changes on behalf of the minister, clarifying the roles of these key figures in military justice.

If we picture the manner in which the Canadian system of criminal justice functions in our cities and towns, there are four sets of key figures: the investigators, the prosecutors, the defence counsel and the judges. Each set of figures performs a discrete function in the criminal justice system. It is the interaction of these independent figures, each with a determined role, that produces fair outcomes in individual cases.

Each of these figures can be found in the military justice system. However, until recently their functions were largely carried out under the umbrella of the chain of command. Furthermore, the institutional separation between them was not as pronounced as in civilian criminal law.

A further complicating feature of military justice in Canada is that the Minister of National Defence has been assigned a variety of quasi-judicial duties under the act. This has meant that he played an active role in the administration of individual cases.

The roles, responsibilities and duties of the key figures are not precisely set out in the National Defence Act as it is presently laid out. This lack of precision has led to confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding about the respective functions and relationships in delivering justice.

To ensure that these roles are clearly separated and to provide objective guarantees that cases will be administered impartially, Bill C-25 establishes the duties and institutional relationships among the prosecution, defence and judicial functions.

To this end there are five important features of the bill. It will remove the minister from the day to day administration of individual cases. It will set out the qualifications and role of the judge advocate general as legal adviser in relation to military law. It will fully separate the prosecution function at courts martial from the military chain of command by establishing the position of director of military prosecutions. The director will be appointed by the minister and responsible under the general supervision of the judge advocate general for the conducting of all prosecutions at courts martial.

It will provide for the appointment of a director of defence counsel services whose sole responsibility will be the provision of legal services to accused persons in proceedings under the code of service discipline.

Finally, it will provide explicitly for independent military judges to be appointed by the governor in council for a fixed term. Military judges are not responsible to the chain of command in the performance of their judicial duties.

Let us look at the minister's role. The National Defence Act assigns the minister with the management and direction of the Canadian forces and all matters relating to national defence. This includes responsibility for administration of military justice. The act also gives the minister a variety of powers and responsibilities relating to the day to day administration of the code of service discipline.

The report of the special advisory group on military justice and military police investigation services, chaired by the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, recommended the elimination of the vast majority of the minister's duties and responsibilities for the administration of individual cases under the code of service discipline.

Bill C-25 implements that recommendation. This approach will avoid perceptions of interference or conflict of interest in the administration of individual cases and will enable the minister to devote more time to his or her normal political and policy role.

I would now like to address the responsibility of the judge advocate general. The JAG, as he is known in the armed forces, has advised the department and the Canadian forces on military history and law since 1911. However, the National Defence Act does not set out his duties and this has contributed to uncertainty about his roles.

Both the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission of inquiry recommended that the roles of the JAG be clarified through amendments to the act. Bill C-25 clearly sets out the JAG's duties and functions as legal adviser to the governor general, the Minister of National Defence, the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian forces in matters of military law.

In addition, the judge advocate general will superintend the administration of military justice in the Canadian forces. In fulfilling this mandate the JAG will be required to conduct regular reviews and file an annual report to the minister, a report which the minister must table in parliament.

These changes, in addition to clarifying the JAG's duties, will improve the oversight and review of the administration of military justice.

The National Defence Act is currently silent on the important role of the prosecutor at courts martial. In this regard both the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission recommended the establishment of a military prosecutor, independent of the chain of command, to deal with serious disciplinary and criminal charges and to be responsible for the conduct of all cases before courts martial.

Prosecutorial independence is a basic element in our criminal justice system. A clear separation between the prosecution function at courts martial and the chain of command provides greater assurance that prosecution decisions will be free from external influences and conflicts of interest.

Bill C-25 will achieve this objective through the establishment of the position of director of military prosecutions. In order to reinforce the director's independence from the chain of command, the director will be appointed for a fixed term of four years and will report to and act under the general supervision of the judge advocate general. In order to ensure ministerial accountability for military justice, the JAG's directions to the director will be required in writing and the minister will be informed.

Subject to certain limitations designed to protect the administration of justice in individual cases, the director will also have the duty to ensure that these directions are available to the public.

The Dickson advisory group also recommended that the judge advocate general's duties in respect of his or her separate defence and prosecution functions be set out in the National Defence Act.

Bill C-25 establishes a clear institutional structure for the defence function. It establishes a director of defence counsel services whose sole function will be to provide and co-ordinate the provision of prescribed services to persons subject to the code of service discipline.

These services include legal assistance to persons detained or arrested acting as defence counsel at courts martial and certain appeals and providing legal advice to individuals making an election to be tried by courts martial or summary trial. The judge advocate general will supervise the overall provision of these services. To protect the solicitor-client privilege of accused persons, the judge advocate general will not be allowed to give specific directions in individual cases.

These institutional arrangements will enhance the separation between military defence counsel and other figures in the system. They will provide greater assurance of independent legal advice for those who need it.

With respect to the judicial function, whereas the minister currently appoints officers to perform judicial duties, Bill C-25 will provide a statutory basis for the independence of these military judges. It will do this by authorizing the governor in council to appoint military judges to a fixed five year term.

These amendments have a positive impact on how the military justice system is organized and conducted. The amendments secure a statutory basis for the authority exercised by key figures in the military justice system. The result is a modernized national defence act which for the first time explicitly defines the independent roles and functions discharged by each actor.

When viewed in their totality, these amendments will strengthen the Canadian forces as a vital national institution by promoting discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice among the men and women of the forces. I urge all members to support Bill C-25.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is also responsible for emergency preparedness and the disaster financial assistance arrangements. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence I am pleased to speak to the motion before us today and I welcome the hon. member's suggestions.

I would like to take members a few weeks and remind them of our most recent disaster, the ice storm of 1998. Although this storm had a devastating effect on so many people in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick it also showed us Canadians at their very best, banding together in times of trouble to assist their friends and neighbours. This was a national crisis requiring a national effort. People worked together to overcome adversity. I am proud and I know Canadians are proud of their efforts and the high level co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, local authorities, community groups and scores of individual Canadians.

I also want to mention the role played by Emergency Preparedness Canada. This Department of National Defence agency worked closely with other federal departments and provincial governments to ensure that the emergency response was there when it was needed. A federal emergency operations and co-ordination group worked basically around the clock to locate, buy and transport emergency materials in response to provincial requests for assistance.

Emergency Preparedness Canada also co-ordinated public information across all federal departments and agencies participating in the relief efforts. But we were not only reminded of Emergency Preparedness Canada's value during the recent ice storm, it was also there during the disasters in Saguenay and Manitoba, Peace River and Athabasca.

While provincial authorities were in the lead during these emergencies, the federal government was there for support where and when needed. When the federal government was taking steps to ensure that we can provide support for future disasters, and in response to disasters in recent years, the President of the Treasury Board asked the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Industry to undertake a review of federal financial assistance to provinces and territories following natural disasters.

This review is under way and has been carried out by an interdepartmental working group with representatives from Emergency Preparedness Canada, Industry Canada, Western Economic Diversification and the Economic Development Agency of Canada. For the regions of Quebec the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the privy council and Treasury Board secretariat are also involved in this.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be among the other key federal departments consulted. They will also consider the findings of the working group that presents the recommendations to Treasury Board.

Provincial and territorial governments will have the opportunity to comment on the working group's findings. They will also be able to make their own recommendations on any changes to the disaster assistance arrangements before a final version is adopted by the federal government.

As part of its review the working group will examine the disaster financial assistance arrangements as well as eligibility criteria for disaster relief to farmers.

I want to assure the hon. member proposing the motion and all members in the House that the economic recovery of the agriculture sector after a major disaster will continue to be a major concern of this government. The financial assistance provided by the federal government in response to the January ice storm is a recent example of how the government helps the provinces, their citizens, including farmers, to recover from natural disasters.

A share of the $25 million the federal government has already provided to the Ontario government and a share the $50 million to the province of Quebec under the disaster financial assistance program arrangements are destined in part for full time farmers in these two provinces. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has announced that part time farmers in Quebec who were hardest hit by the ice storm can look forward to $50 million in further federal assistance to help get them back on their feet.

The fifty million dollar federal ice storm recovery package for part time farmers, although outside the disaster financial assistance arrangements, addresses the main concerns put forward by the hon. member in his motion, namely that part time farmers, including so-called hobby farmers and the junior farmers category defined by the member's motion, will receive financial assistance from the federal government to help them recover from the ice storm.

Without going into the details of the program administered by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, let me point out that this special ice storm recovery program provides part time farmers in Quebec with $1,000 toward their eligible ice storm related costs for each full week they were without power.

The minister responsible for emergency preparedness and the Ontario ministry of municipal affairs and housing have announced the joint financial assistance program that will help part time farmers and rural communities in Ontario to the tune of $20 million. This assistance is being provided without changing current eligibility criteria or definitions in the longstanding disaster fund assistance arrangements.

We all know how devastating the ice storm was for so many people, including many farmers. We all want to do our part to help these people get back on their feet. This private member's motion reflects the very Canadian desire to help our neighbours when they are need. But because we are currently reviewing the eligibility criteria for farming operations and there is a special program for part time farmers devastated by the recent ice storm, I believe this motion to change the current definition of hobby farm under the disaster financial assistance arrangements should be put to the interdepartmental working group.

I assure all hon. members that this government cares about all Canadians, including all farmers, who suffered major losses during the January ice storm and other major disasters that wreaked havoc on their homes, farmsteads and essential personal properties. This government stands on its record of providing financial assistance in disaster stricken provinces in a prompt and equitable manner. We have done this through the longstanding disaster financial assistance program and the arrangements that flow from it.

When circumstances warrant, as in the case of the recent ice storm, we have provided support outside these arrangements with a special ice storm recovery program for part time farmers in Quebec and Ontario. We are consulting and reviewing these arrangements to ensure we can continue to help people when disaster strikes.