John Richardson

[Petitions, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I present a petition which requests that the House of Commons enact legislation to amend existing legislation defining a marriage as the voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other, to the exclusion of all others.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I know the methodology of the hon. member is valid and honourable, but in this situation with the feigned acting we know the election is at the door.

If the member had read the report of Justice Dickson he would know that military justice was reviewed by Justice Dickson. We intend to bring forward all the information and reforms he suggested. They will be tabled and will be part of military justice in the future.

It will give us a stand alone justice system with an ombudsman to hear complaints where the justice system has gone wrong.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, again I address the hon. member's persistence in following up on a newspaper article.

This action took place five years ago in 1992-93. It was investigated. The file on the action is open to the member. He can review it at any time. Some of the things that were questioned may be valid. Certainly it was investigated and the file was closed, but it is available under the access to information.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has taken a number of actions to shore up training programs to bring about better ethics and performance in the field by our soldiers and our officers as part of the renewal plan. Action is in place in our training programs at both the non-commission level and the officer level.

The article in the paper, which has been dressed up with liberal use of adjectives by the writer to gain readership, may be under question. I suggest the member take my advice, go to the reading room, read the evidence and then think it over.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is persistent in his question.

We must remember that this action took place five years ago under the former Conservative government. It is an action that has been investigated and where there were grounds for charges, charges were laid.

The whole background of the investigation is available to the hon. member at his convenience in the reading room of the Department of National Defence.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

There were allegations that events occurred in 1992-93. I understand that the allegations were investigated and wherever there was substantiation action was taken. The file has been made available under access to information. It is available in the reading room of the department to anyone, including the hon. member if he wishes to review the entire history of those investigations.

[Anzac Day, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on ANZAC day. Some will wonder why are we recognizing ANZAC day in Canada.

ANZAC day originally commemorated the landing of the Australian and New Zealand army corps at the Gallipoli peninsula in Turkey on April 25, 1915.

Since that time and with the battles of the second world war and the ensuing battles in Korea and Southeast Asia, those countries have chosen this to be their remembrance day, similar to our remembrance day.

The significant feature about ANZAC day in Gallipoli is the little known fact that the Royal Newfoundland Regiment played a significant part in that battle. This regiment suffered tremendous casualties at Gallipoli, both from Turkish gunners and from the terrible flood which swept through their encampment.

The Royal Newfoundland Regiment has served with great honour at Gallipoli and in France. It made great sacrifices. We want to thank them for their contribution.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act. I would like to thank the hon. member for his hard work in presenting his case to support this.

This bill reflects worthy intentions and concerns which I am sure the hon. member will share. Most of us in the House are very directly aware of the importance of trade to Canada. Each of us represents constituents who are in some way involved in trade, be it business, banking, retailing, agriculture, construction or some other exchange of goods and services, capital or labour. Canada is a trading nation.

Trade, the efficient exploitation of our natural resources and effective use of our innate abilities and skills, has enabled us to grow and prosper both as individuals and as a nation. We trade, both internationally and internally.

Internationally, we operate in an increasingly exciting world market, one that is continuing to become more and more open, dynamic and demanding. We have benefited, and will continue to benefit, from the opening of that market and the opportunities it gives us to sell and to make the best of ourselves and what we have.

Internally, we are blessed with being an economic union that has a high degree of coherence and integration. The relative openness, freedom and efficiency of our domestic market, compared to international markets in many other parts of the world, has served us well. Our internal trade is worth over $300 billion a year and accounts for 1.9 million jobs.

In many, indeed most, areas or sectors of economic activity, our internal market has made it possible to develop the abilities and to increase the areas of competitive advantage, expertise and experience. It has given Canadians, business and industry the basis on which to become strong and effective competitors in both foreign markets and against foreigners and foreign suppliers here at home.

That said, it remains evident that our domestic market is not quite perfect. In the past, national business, industry and professional associations have cited numerous examples of companies, businesses or individuals being unable to invest or supply goods or services in certain parts of the country.

Many individual workers have found that their ability to work anywhere in the country is hampered by the fact that some local authorities refuse to recognize their qualifications, skills or experience. Such problems are not unnatural where jurisdiction over trade, commerce and economic matters are shared between different levels of government.

That was one of the reasons why the federal, provincial and territorial governments negotiated the agreement on internal trade in 1994. That agreement reflected the readiness of governments in Canada to try to deal with the problems of conflict, overlap and duplication of their measures without entering into discussion of, or affecting, their respective constitutional powers. The substance of that argument treats how governments agreed to exercise their respective powers. It does not change those powers.

The agreement on internal trade, as the minister of industry emphasized in 1994, was a consensual agreement. It is important to remember in considering this bill that the basis of the agreement on internal trade was voluntary acceptance by each of the governments that signed it. That is the main reason for the weaknesses and shortcomings of the agreement and perhaps why it has failed to

live up to the expectations of many since it came into effect in July 1995.

Those weaknesses have been analysed and reported a great deal in the last year. The hon. member who proposed the bill before us has elaborated on several at length and on numerous occasions. What he has said is not without basis and many of his criticisms of the agreement are backed in very respectable and respected quarters.

When they testified before the House committee concerning the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada and others all identified a range of problem areas: the decision making process; the dispute settlement mechanism; the exceptions and exemptions; the putting off of issues to future negotiations; and the failure to meet the deadlines set for those negotiations.

The intent of this bill is to correct at least one of those problem areas, the decision making process. Unfortunately the proposed changes cannot accomplish that. Indeed, no action by this House alone can change that agreement.

The question might be asked then, why did the government introduce the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act last year and why was it passed into law? The short answer is that the legislation the House passed was necessary to give the government the tools it needed to meet its own responsibilities, obligations, and commitments under the agreement.

The fundamental flaw of the bill before us is that it fails to recognize that simple fact. The legislation could not and did not pretend to make the agreement binding on any of the other parties. The provinces and the territories are bound to the agreement on internal trade by their acceptance of and signature to that accord. Changing the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, as the bill proposes, could not affect how the agreement works.

This bill is inappropriate because it fails to recognize that the agreement on internal trade is a consensual agreement and not just a federal creation. Besides that, the proposed amendment is unviable because it is based on simplistic analysis and cloudy assumptions regarding constitutional powers. It unwittingly mixes apples and oranges where it joins the exercise of federal constitutional powers with proposals being negotiated among the provinces in the context of the agreement on internal trade.

Many, if not most, matters under the jurisdiction of the agreement are sectors or areas where jurisdiction is shared with the provinces. Some areas are exclusively within provincial constitutional power. Where provinces are negotiating a proposal but one or more do not agree, this bill would have the federal government impose a majority view on all.

If the matter under negotiation were clearly or even arguably within provincial jurisdiction, the ability of the government to impose a solution would at best be open to challenge in the courts. Instead of being a way around the impasse, this amendment is more likely a recipe for protracted legal wrangling. It could make matters worse, but the intention of the person submitting this bill are honourable.

Even if, suspending all critical faculties, we were to allow that the kind of action envisaged by this amendment might be legally sustainable, it is not necessary. The government already has the power to regulate under sections 91 and 121 of the Constitution Act where it considers that doing so would be desirable and practical. Not only would the amendment be unnecessary but it would have the perverse effect of restricting government's ability to act in the national interest by limiting its powers in two ways.

First, the amendment makes the exercise of that power contingent on a majority of the provinces being in favour. The government's record in consulting interested parties before taking action speaks for itself. However, limiting our ability to take actions in areas within our jurisdiction to the approval of the majority of provinces as this bill would do is an unreasonable and unnecessary constraint.

Second, the amendment would further constrain the government's ability to take action in circumstances where both sections 91 and 121 of the Constitution Act would be invoked. Given the intent of the bill, the specific linkage would limit even further the practical scope of the kind the government action envisaged. It is difficult to determine whether that particular linkage is intentional or inadvertent. It is certainly poor drafting.

It is clear that there are several reasons this bill does not merit the support of the House. First and foremost it is not viable. It is inappropriate. It is unnecessary. It is poorly conceived and drafted. But the intent is honourable.

There is another reason this bill is wanting. It is coercive and divisive in a context where co-operation is necessary to achieve practical results for workers and companies.

In summary, this bill would amend section 9 of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, the section that gives the government authority to make orders pursuant to the dispute settlement procedures of the agreement on internal trade. The intent is to fix unilaterally a major AIT weakness by applying to or in all provinces any measure under negotiation in the AIT on which the provinces cannot reach consensus but for which there is

majority support, that is, two-thirds of the province and 50 per cent of the population.

The bill misconstrues both the nature of the AIT and the real scope for unilateral action under federal constitutional powers. New personnel and financial resources would probably be required to enforce any regulations made under the agreement.

[Communications Security Establishment, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), it is my pleasure to present, in both official languages, the annual report of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, 1996-97.

[Vimy Ridge, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the proud Canadians who put their lives on the line in the name of justice and liberty in Vimy some 80 years ago.

Vimy was the most remarkable of battles. Within three days, the Canadians captured and controlled the entire ridge and had captured more ground, prisoners and guns than any previous British offensive. In fact, the assault turned out to be the swiftest and most complete victory of the war.

Anyone who watched yesterday's news coverage of the anniversary commemorations will not forget the emotions on the faces of the Canadian veterans who had returned to Vimy. From the sorrow in their eyes, you could appreciate the pain of loss of their comrades who died serving their country.

Many veterans view events such as these as their last hurrah. Who will be around to celebrate the next anniversary, they question. But the celebrations will continue.

While those who made history will leave us, time will never erase the memories of their courage, their valour and their patriotism. May we remember them always.