John Duncan

[The Environment, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an ongoing problem. It only ceased this week. This is happening because DIAND has abdicated its responsibility with its policy of devolving authority to band control.

In this case the Indian timber regulations are the legislation that control the forestry activity. This is giving loggers, taxpayers, the band and the department a black eye.

Will the minister ensure this legislation is enforced?

[The Environment, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are serious reports from the Stony Reserve in Alberta of logging activity which is illegal and harming the environment. The reports also state that a few are getting wealthy, tax free, as a result.

Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ensure that violations of the Indian timber regulations in the Indian Act are quickly dealt with and the legislation and departmental policy strengthened to prevent a repeat occurrence?

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-18. Eleven months ago I rose to participate in the debate on this bill suspending the

operations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. At that time I questioned the political interference, the waste of millions of dollars and the fact that as politicians we were involved in that messy process at all.

I consider this whole thing to be unfair to the public. We are wasting taxpayers' dollars again, in the order of $5 million, and once again we will be soliciting their input. I have had discussions with many members of the public and they have lost the thread on this whole redistribution exercise, as have I from time to time. It is beginning to read like a bad novel.

Some of the debate that has gone on today reminds me very strongly of why politicians should not be involved in drawing lines on a map. Some of the objections are tantamount to that.

Eleven months ago I also expressed regret and concern for overturning a process which had been in effect every decade since 1867. I could not determine precedent for this action and nothing has changed my mind in the intervening time.

It remains a shame why we have gone through this process at all, and having gone through it, we have achieved so little. What we have before us today, in my view, confirms that fact. This is an exercise which retroactively thwarts a longstanding, non-partisan method of redistribution.

The Constitution sets out the formula for representative government based on the concept of equality of voting power, that all Canadians should have an equal voice in governing themselves. This concept has been modified over time to ensure equality and continuity. Today's report does very little, in my view, to solidify this notion. We had hopes for a workable report. This attempt does not meet our standards and that is why we submitted a minority report.

First, the total number of seats in the House is not reduced. They have increased from 295 to 301, which was the original situation with the Electoral Boundaries Commission reports that were previously made. We have gone through this whole exercise and we are right back at the same place we started.

We argue that it is time to reduce the cost of the precincts and reducing the number of seats is an important first step. There seems to be a notion that the more members of Parliament we have the more will be accomplished. We should not confuse more and motion with real progress.

The hon. member for Calgary West described the capping of the number of seats very well so I will not pursue that in my speech today. However, we have had a consistent message throughout this piece. I am a member of Parliament from British Columbia where we have the somewhat unique situation of getting additional seats. We receive two of the six additional seats in this proposal. Our message has been consistent. It is consistent whether we reduce the number of seats to 265 or whether the number goes to 301. The message is that B.C. should get its fair share, as should the other provinces and territories. We started this exercise on the basis that the Liberal government wanted to freeze the number of seats at the 1993 levels. That is not where we are now.

The recommendations on the quotient factor contained in the report do not deal effectively with the 25 per cent quotient factor or the what is called the population variance factor by some.

The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act specifies that a commission is to draw constituency boundaries in such a way that the population of each constituency is as close as possible to the quotient obtained by dividing the provincial population of eligible voters by the number of seats in each province. No constituency is permitted to have a population smaller than 75 per cent of this figure or greater than 125 per cent under this proposal.

Elections Canada reports that 51 of the 295 existing ridings exceed the current permissible population variances. By suspending the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act we have perpetuated present inequities. What we are being offered today as a consequence of Bill C-18 and suspending the work of the commission, is 25 per cent. Surely we should expect an improved situation as a consequence of this delay and study. That is not the case. In fact, the recommendation is worse and ultimately the situation will be too.

We are very concerned that the commission will continue to be allowed to draw maps that from the very outset vary up to 25 per cent from the electoral quotient. This will compound the quotient factor in light of population shifts between redistributions.

The Reform minority report advocates an allowable maximum variance of 15 per cent to ensure the primacy of equality of voting power over sociological considerations.

The report states that there may be some ridings that should be more or less than 25 per cent of the provincial quotient and that these ridings should be set out in a schedule to the act. What a contradiction. We are allowing a plus or minus variance from the 25 per cent. With a variance of 25 per cent there should be no exceptions, no need for a schedule, I might add a schedule without guidelines.

Can we really say there has been any substantive changes to the bill? When one considers the lack of reduction in the size of the House of Commons, one has to consider the conviction and the motives of the legislation. It is very difficult to justify discarding the work at great public expense of the existing Electoral Boundaries Commissions for these so-called changes.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the other petition signed by 33 of my constituents requests that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code and therefore will uphold the current law disallowing euthanasia. I personally concur with these petitioners.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

One is on behalf of 149 of my constituents from the riding of North Island-Powell River requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code that would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Communications Security Establishment, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on motion M-38 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

It is also a pleasure to support this motion. It is not only timely but essential to accountability. It is essential to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the operations of the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE.

This motion brings to light concerns expressed as early as 1990 in the book Spy Wars and more recently in the new book Spyworld written by Michael Frost, a former CSE employee, where it is alleged that this organization routinely snoops on law-abiding citizens. It compiles dossiers on everything and

everybody from Margaret Trudeau to Quebec separatists. It is open season on any unsuspecting Canadian citizen.

CSE is a unique entity in government. It normally comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence as its budget is hidden in the communications budget of the military. However, in reality it is a separate entity that receives its operational tasking from the deputy clerk for security and intelligence of the Privy Council. The political tasking comes from the cabinet committee on security and intelligence.

As we witnessed as a result of recent questioning in the House, the mandate of the CSE is questionable. There is no political accountability except to a group of cabinet ministers which is the most secret cabinet committee of government. Here we have an agency with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars listening to overseas phone calls and accountable to no one person. This is not ham radio and catching the BBC Sunday night opera. This is serious business. It requires serious attention.

We are told all this snooping is done to protect national security. Well the Diefenbunker is no longer a secret and we are about to mothball some CF-18s. There is no obvious external threat, so why so much resistance from the government to outside scrutiny?

While I am no big fan of SIRC, it is as good as anything we have for this purpose. SIRC has managed to keep an eye on our spies without exposing them to danger. We can work on the patronage elements of SIRC at a different occasion.

Why not let SIRC have a review capacity in CSE? Why should CSE be above the law? Why should its budget, mandate and methods not be scrutinized? The operative question is: Does CSE spy on Canadians? The Deputy Prime Minister says it has no mandate to do so, but the Deputy Prime Minister recently refused to answer direct questions regarding if in fact it had.

In September 1990 a report entitled: "In Flux But Not in Crisis" was tabled. This report was the work of a special parliamentary committee on the review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. On page 153 it reported: "This organization clearly has the capacity to invade the privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways. It was established by order in council, not by statute and to all intents and purposes is unaccountable."

The passage goes on: "While the committee understands that this agency must be shrouded in secrecy to some degree, it believes that Canadians should be in a position to understand what the organization does and should not have to wonder whether their rights and freedoms have been infringed. The committee has evidence that both the RCMP and CSIS have asked the CSE for assistance and as such the committee believes that the Communications Security Establishment should have a statutory mandate that provides for review".

My congratulations to a member of that special committee, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, the member responsible for the motion before us today. He at least recognizes the gravity of the previous passage I just read from the report.

The Minister of National Defence unfortunately believes there is already sufficient review. To me, he is another of those do nothing, say nothing, status quo ministers who would rather stonewall than change. Things are just fine the way they are because they do not impact on his personal and private life.

The fact is this minister really does not have control of the CSE. What he controls is financial and administrative matters. The chief of the CSE reports to the Clerk of the Privy Council for policy and operations. This is not what I consider a fully constituted part of DND like the minister says it is.

The minister need only take a look at the government's response to the "In Flux But Not in Crisis" report entitled: "On Course: National Security for the 1990s" to see what it has to say about control of CSE and what is and what is not a fully constituted part of the Department of National Defence. The Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office are the real power and the issue. The Minister of National Defence is the filler in the sandwich.

I am not as naive as to believe that Canada does not need to intercept communications for intelligence purposes. It is part of the electronic information highway. There has to be some form of review and accountability, otherwise abuses can take place.

As the book Spyworld states: ``Employees of the CSE routinely listened to the conversations of Canadians as they tuned and tested their equipment''. I also believe there is nothing wrong with sweeping offices or encrypting phones. This is normal in today's age but I want to know what the CSE is doing besides this. I want to know that it is not abusing its powers. An external review agency seems the only way we can lift this veil of uncertainty, assure accountability and free the CSE from suspicion. That does not sound like such a bad thing to me.

I understand that the CSE is good at what it does. Let us make it even better. Let us support this motion for the good of all Canadians.

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to have a lot of knowledge about this agreement. My questions relate to the situation at the reserve and adjacent to Boat Harbour itself.

Are the conditions such that the member would anticipate a significant number of members from the reserve would actually choose to relocate? If they do choose to relocate is there a provision within the agreement that specifies a time frame by which they must exercise that option? In other words, is there a window that closes within I believe it is the $9.725 million allocated amount?

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and I must say a bit of a habit to rise today to participate in a legislative debate on a bill that is a fait accompli.

Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian band agreement, is another instance where statutory authority is being sought after an agreement has been signed and where the majority of compensation has already been paid out.

This debate will remind members of Bills C-33 and C-34 as well as Bill C-55. These were the Yukon agreements. Alas, we are getting good at passing legislation on behalf of the former Indian affairs minister and his department.

The circumstances behind Bill C-60 would suggest that this is a final step in the settlement of a specific claim brought by the Pictou Landing Indian band. In recent years there has been a great many such deals. In fact, information provided by the department indicates that by 1994, 632 such claims were received, 203 of the claims were settled and the rest are either in the process of settlement or have been rejected. About 20 of these claims have led to litigation of which the Pictou claim appears to be one.

Up to the end of 1992 the federal government had contributed $169 million and the provinces $39 million to specific claims, not including treaty land entitlement settlements which are a particular and separate type of settlement claim.

Specific claims arise from the alleged non-fulfilment by government of existing treaty or other obligations or claims arising from the alleged improper administration of reserve lands by the department. Bill C-60 would appear to address this latter category in that the Pictou band claimed breach of fiduciary duty because the department failed to obtain the band's informed consent before transferring riparian rights to the province of Nova Scotia on the Boat Harbour tidal estuary, which I presume is adjacent to the Pictou band reserve.

This transfer permitted the province of Nova Scotia to use Boat Harbour as a facility to treat effluent from the kraft paper mill owned by Scott Maritimes Limited.

The Pictou band commenced a lawsuit against the department of Indian affairs but a negotiated settlement gave rise to an out of court agreement to settle. This agreement was signed by the parties on July 20 of last year. The agreement provides for $35 million in compensation. As of April of this year, some $28 million of those moneys have been paid out and the remaining $7 million will be paid out by April of 1995. Twenty million of this money is to go into a trust fund to pay out claims to the Pictou band and to band members individually. The remaining $15 million of the total is to pay for band members to relocate "should it become necessary".

Allow me to look at these payouts more specifically. The cash settlements will be divided for purposes of compensation and mitigation as follows: $2,275,000 for band compensation and developments; $15 million for community development; $8 million for individual compensation, and $9.725 million for continuing compensation for a total of $35 million. As I stated earlier, $28 million of this total has already been paid out. There are two terms of the agreement that require parliamentary approval. The first is to provide that any claims coming forward from band members beyond those settled by the settlement payments to individuals can only be made from the $9.725 million portion which is part of the $20 million individual compensation and development fund.

The second requirement requiring parliamentary approval is to make certain that the settlement moneys are not Indian moneys within the meaning of the Indian Act. One might ask why this legislation was not tabled earlier to authorize moneys paid already not to be Indian moneys under the Indian Act.

I note from the agreement that the eligible use of moneys from the band compensation and development account are intended to provide and improve individual family and community self-reliance and include the following: resource rehabilitation and development to support increased viability of traditional and commercial resource pursuits and other resource harvesting; cultural and social support and development initiatives; business, economic and employment development initiatives; community infrastructure and housing development and reasonable, technical, legal and management activities in respect of the pursuit of band goals and objectives, including the implementation of this agreement.

Only time will tell how effectively these resources are used and if again $20 million of taxpayers money will help deliver the Pictou band to self-sufficiency. I understand there are currently 425 band members, 304 of whom live on reserve.

The individual compensation account breaks down as follows: $3 million has been distributed to all members of the band including those resident or non-resident before the effluent treatment system began which was away back, I believe in the 1960s. Another $5 million will be distributed among individual band members who were residents of the reserve for any period of time since Boat Harbour started to be used for treatment of effluent. This would suggest that in the latter case, the individual band member settlement amount would be approximately $16,500 per individual.

I wonder if this will improve the self-sufficiency of these individual Pictou band members. I sincerely hope it has had a positive impact and creates a new level of existence for these people.

This agreement has been a fait accompli for a year and a half, as I said before. The bill before us asks us to ratify two specific aspects of the deal which I would suggest is a couple of hundred pages long and excludes at least 10 other sections of the agreement. There are some basic questions to be asked that beg better understanding.

There is no way for parliamentarians to know whether the department officials succeeded in negotiating a deal in the best interests of Canada or not. It is an act of faith on our part to believe that this is the best possible deal for Canada. As I said, it is a done deal. It is a specific claim, meaning that it is specific to the particular circumstances of the case, unlike a comprehensive claim that may set a precedent for other situations. It is a one time deal with strict compensatory parameters.

There is a series of questions that arise as a consequence of this agreement and subsequently Bill C-60. One issue that comes immediately to mind is why we are here at all today. Usually specific claims do not require special legislation. Why is this agreement different?

In the agreement it states that the department failed to obtain informed consent in the 1960s before proceeding with this project. Did the department just move unilaterally or did it at least get some kind of consent? It seems rather draconian to just move ahead on such a clearly obvious breach of rights.

Turning to the terms of the lawsuit I cannot help but ask how much the band asked for and felt it was entitled to. With this concern comes the obvious question of why the lawsuit did not go to trial.

The province of Nova Scotia and Scott Maritimes Limited obviously benefited and continue to benefit from using Boat Harbour. Perhaps these two parties should pay part of the compensation awarded to the band. Why should they walk away and have the Canadian taxpayer pay the full shot?

This brings me full circle to my concern regarding the best possible deal. It has always intrigued me how we come up with these compensatory figures. I look forward to our review of Bill C-60 at committee stage. Perhaps some of my questions could have been answered in a briefing which the department kindly offered. Unfortunately, schedules and time precluded this much valued courtesy last week.

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the debate we have heard, I think we are in general agreement on this motion with the exception of some of the debate from across the floor.

I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the question of furnishings, supplies and equipment in the constituency office and in the House of Commons office of every member of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House,

1) during an election period but before the date of the election, every Member of Parliament should be required to certify the location and presence of their furnishings, supplies and equipment: a ) in the constituency office, which list should be attested to by the Deputy Returning Officer, and b ) in the House of Commons office, which list should be attested to by House of Commons staff;

2) after an election, the smooth storage and/or transfer of furnishings, supplies and equipment to the new Member of Parliament should be arranged: a ) in the constituency office, by the Deputy Returning Officer and b ) in the House of Commons office, by House of Commons staff;

3) if an outgoing Member of Parliament fails to deliver all furnishings, supplies and equipment, the shortfall value should be deducted from the Member's pay and/or pension, or compensation should be sought and, in extreme cases, criminal charges should be initiated.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate my private member's motion M-290 which seeks to address the current inadequacies and shortcomings surrounding the turnover of assets and inventory by defeated MPs to their successors.

Currently volume 2 of the member's manual of allowances and services, chapter G-3, is the only reference to the turnover of constituency assets of the House of Commons. The closest and most direct statement referencing the turnover is as follows:

A member who stands for re-election but is not re-elected is required to vacate the constituency office within 30 days of the date of the election. Thus the essential costs of maintaining the office for the 30-day winding up period, (e.g. office supplies, telephone rental, telephone answering service, utility bills, furniture and equipment rental) may be charged against the members' office budget.

This is the only reference to a time line, a 30-day winding up period, and it is not specific as to transfer of assets.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to read into the record the text of my motion. However, you have just done that.

I welcome debate, input and suggestions during this allotted hour and following on how to improve the transition for incoming MPs, particularly as this motion directs office inventory and assets.

The public has high expectations of its new MPs after an election. The goodwill component which is now the driving philosophy behind the orderly and timely turnover of assets can and has led to political abuse and interruption of the political and constituency response process.

I know this first hand. I know I am not alone, particularly after the last election which saw over 200 new MPs elected, 200 eager MPs who wanted to get down to business at the constituency level and in Ottawa but were precluded by outright refusal by some losing candidates who procrastinated in turning over government assets or in extreme cases could not be contacted at all or refused to return calls. Such was my case. Ultimately my entire office inventory was not in place until January. If it had been one day later it would have been February, more than three months after election day.

The House of Commons materiel management group could not account for the inventory and was unable to locate the inventory because of its inability to locate the outgoing MP, because it was unaware of two of the four constituency office locations which he utilized, and because the MP had placed assets in storage facilities without notifying materiel management-totally stealthy and irresponsible behaviour on the part of an outgoing MP who refused to show goodwill, inconveniencing not only me but the constituents of North Island-Powell River.

Allow me to elaborate on the saga of my misfortune by quoting from my constituency assistant, my second employee at the constituency: "On my first day of work, December 1, 1993, I walked into an office that was sparsely appointed with borrowed furniture. Not one piece of equipment belonged to the Government of Canada. I brought my own computer from home so that we could reply to correspondence".

My staff frustration grew daily. My staff paid a visit to the office of my predecessor. It was locked and no staff was around. A call to Ottawa to materiel management proved fruitless. It also had no idea where the assets were and was spending considerable effort tracking down the MP without success.

Essentially, the problem could be summed up by the House of Commons materiel management official who stated that there were two MP phone numbers, each with an answering machine referring the caller to the other telephone and no returned phone calls. At this point I purchased a photocopier. I knew that an effective MP had to possess some investigatory skills. This was ridiculous.

Materiel management representatives indicated they were getting nowhere with the former MP and their hands were tied because they lacked power by statute or by decree to do anything. They floated the scenario at this time of trying to access the MP and influence his behaviour through the party constituency association or his party leader.

On December 8, 1993 my constituency office received a call from the House of Commons to say that the furniture and office possessions were located. Delivery was promised to my main office. On December 13 some basic furniture arrived. On December 17 more furniture arrived, but no sign of computers or photocopiers as listed on the inventory list. My office continued to supply the personally owned computer and borrowed a fax machine.

At that point considerable correspondence and filing had accumulated, not a good beginning on response turn around time.

On December 20 the House of Commons called to say it had no idea where the computers were. I decided at that time to purchase two computers from my member's office budget. The former member had four constituency offices, so possessions belonging to the government were scattered. We located some more inventory in storage with over a month owing on their storage because the former MP had paid for two weeks storage and indicated the House of Commons would pick up the remainder of the tab without further instruction and without informing the House. Again, not all the computers were present at this storage site.

Also I quickly found that the fax machine we located was in poor repair, forcing me to purchase a new one. I received further inventory on December 24, 1993. On January 5, 1994, I received delivery of a new fax machine. On the same day I took possession of two new computers, more than two months after the election.

On January 7, I found the inventory from the previous member's Sechelt office, far from complete after reconciling the inventory list. Computers again were missing. Included was a 386 and a lap top. With rent still owing to the storage facility of the Sechelt inventory, I personally paid the amount to solve the operator's frustration with the position he had been placed in.

On January 22, I received information that more inventory had been located in a Campbell River storage facility. The missing computers with the exception of the lap top were in the room. They were of the older 286 variety. On January 31, I did a formal reconciliation, the 286 lap top never did show. In May I was informed that it had been returned to Ottawa damaged and unusable and materiel management informed me that the former MP had been requested to pay and had paid for the lap top.

The sleuthing around by me, my staff and House of Commons staff was bad enough in order to locate government inventory. Because Parliament had not been in session for about seven months previous to the election, there was a large pent up demand for service and reasonable expectations by deserving constituents for attention to their needs.

The fact that I was without assets was a major distraction for me in fulfilling my duties as an MP. The previous member had been in office for 14 years. As a green MP and with the residual effects of a contested campaign still fresh in my memory, I did not want to go public with the inexcusable behaviour of the previous MP because I had taken the high road consistently when others had not and I did not want to appear somehow affected by my win.

The events I have described should not be allowed to reoccur. These assets had been bought and paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and we need better ground rules than currently exist. Materiel management did all it could do at long distance within it mandate. Even with that my staff was instrumental in its sleuthing and finding where some of the inventory was stored. Members can appreciate that my staff could not view the items once located in storage without authorization from the House of Commons. Even this was awkward and so was not done, adding further to our delay in reconciling our inventory.

We would all be much better off with clear lines of authority and responsibility to effect the transfer of assets. In my view the withholding of the entire office inventory was punitive and retributive and I should have had some recourse beyond good will to pursue the matter. I was the last member of Parliament in Canada to receive my assets. I know I was not alone in my grief and frustration and that is why I feel so strongly about my motion.

Similar activities as perpetrated by my predecessor would be tantamount to theft in the private sector. We must untie the hands of the materiel management people of the House of Commons and allow new MPs to do their job effectively. Good will is not enough. Accountability must be introduced. We must put teeth into the rules and procedures for the turnover of assets and initiate ramifications for those who do not prescribe to the rules.

My motion calls for the involvement by the deputy returning officers at the constituency level. They would be charged with the responsibility of reconciling inventory of the former member and co-ordinating the transfer.

In Ottawa the materiel management staff shall ensure storage and/or transfer in an orderly fashion. If the outgoing MP should fail to deliver, the shortfall value would be deducted from that former MP's pay or pension or compensation sought and, in extreme cases, criminal charges should be initiated.

During my trial surrounding this debacle and the senseless behaviour exhibited by the former MP, various strategies emerged including, as I previously mentioned, contacting the former MP's riding association and party leader. The other option was to pursue the issue through the Speaker which was complicated because this was also a time of transition for that office.

In the final analysis, materiel management of the House of Commons has no power to initiate the transfer of assets and in the final analysis again must rely on the good will of the former MP who in this case had none.

My situation may be a dramatic example, but as my colleagues who will speak later will attest, I am not alone. If we do not do something about it now it will get worse. I will tell members why. Currently we are dealing with stable and existing ridings. We all know we are considering the adoption of a bill which would see ridings actually change their boundaries every five to ten years. Therefore, the frequency in which members inherit intact ridings is going to reduce and the frequency when they inherit changed ridings is going to exacerbate the problem. The new MP will not know which former MP or constituency office he or she will be inheriting because the boundaries will have been shifted.

Clearly it is incumbent upon the House to take a look at the current turnover of assets procedure. We cannot have a situation where the legislators of Canada are found incompetent due to a lack of legislative authority governing their own activities in areas so common sense as transferring MP furniture, supplies and equipment. If the House allows this injustice and waste of taxpayers' dollars to continue it is not serving its function.

I would like to submit one further option to make my case. While I have not spoken to the chief electoral officer, it may be that this individual through some amendment or addition to the Elections Act can be empowered by statute to initiate and ensure the turnover of these government assets in an orderly and timely manner.

This is a serious issue and one I would implore the House to deal with even if I had not experienced this frustrating, time consuming delay. As it is now, the House is powerless, materiel management is powerless and sheer good will is not enough.

I thank the House for the opportunity to debate my motion.