Keith Martin

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the subs were purchased on the recommendation of all parties in the House. Yes, we purchased them and it was the right thing to do. The member might want to inquire, if it had cost four times that much to purchase submarines, would we have had the money to do that? We did not. With the resources we have, we make sure we get the best bang for the buck for the Canadian public.

On the issue of informing the public about the situation, I can tell the member that the House was informed in real time as quickly as we received the information. That information was given under very difficult circumstances.

The members of the Canadian Forces and the crew of the Chicoutimi are heroes in all of this. They ensured that we had the best information we could have had under difficult circumstances. As things changed, we again informed the House and the public on what was happening. All information was given in an utterly transparent fashion. I think there was nothing more that anybody could have done.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition member knows full well that the question he posed to us was on the HMCS Chicoutimi , which I will deal with in a moment. However, I will address some of the concerns he has mentioned and some of the accusations that are baseless.

First, on the issue of equipment, very recently the government made a commitment of $7 billion for the purchase of five new equipment platforms for our military. This will address some of our concerns. We have also made a commitment to increase our troops by 5,000 on the sharp edge of our regular forces, plus 3,000 members in our reservists.

We cannot do everything, but I would submit that this is a very good start in trying to improve the conditions for our armed forces and ensuring they have all the equipment, the tools, the manpower and the training they need to do their job.

The opposition member also mentioned substandard equipment and suggested that the HMSC Chicoutimi was of that nature. I can tell the hon. member that when the House and the standing committee on national defence got together to discuss this, the issue of submarines came up. All parties, including the member's party, recommended unanimously that we purchase the four Upholder subs from Great Britain. This was a recommendation that was put forth to the government. The government acted on that recommendation and purchased the subs. If I can quote the head of our maritime forces, Admiral MacLean, and the British defence admiralty, both agreed that the Upholder submarines were excellent submarines.

We have the largest shoreline of any country in the world. It is our responsibility to ensure that we guard that area and that we have the ability to patrol those waters. With 40 countries in the world having subs, it would be ridiculous if we did not have them. We managed to purchase those subs at one-quarter of their value. With 80% of their lives left, that is a good deal. I think I can say that members from all political parties recommended we purchase them.

In closing, we do not account for a moment or except the claims the member has made.

On the issue of the Chicoutimi. , I summarize by saying this. When the member brought up this question, he made some accusations. I was here when the Minister of National Defence informed every leader and every party in the House in real time of what was happening after the families were informed. They were kept informed in real time to ensure they had the information that was of concern to all of us. That is responsible governance. It is our duty and we will continue to do that.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-17 which is a far-reaching, innovative bill.

Years ago I introduced in the House of Commons a bill to decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. I was pleased to have input across party lines as to how to ensure we had more rational drug laws in this country. Bill C-17 is a strong step in that direction and I will tell the House why.

Bill C-17 seeks to disarticulate two groups: the individual user and those involved in commercial grow operations which are connected to organized crime. Bill C-17 seeks to decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana and also possession of a small number of plants.

The first is important because it would remove the individual from being made a criminal. Making an individual a criminal for being in possession of a small amount of marijuana is an unethical, harmful objective. The Canadian Medical Association, church groups and some police associations have also said that this is a punitive effort that harms an individual and harms Canada at large. The individual who is charged and convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana is stuck with that conviction forever. It significantly impedes the person's ability to work and travel for a good chunk of his or her life. That is an inhumane act.

Someone in possession of a small number of plants for individual use would not be considered as somebody involved in commercial grow operations. Bill C-17 separates that individual from those individuals involved in commercial operations that are connected to organized crime. The latter part of the bill increases penalties for those involved in commercial grow operations.

In my province of British Columbia that is a very important thing. In my province between $3 billion and $7 billion a year comes from the commercial cultivation of marijuana. Why is this important? It is important because, make no mistake about it, the people involved in commercial grow ops are involved in organized crime. For example, a hockey bag of marijuana that goes south across the border often comes back filled with cocaine and heroine. It is sad to say that British Columbia has become a major conduit for cocaine, white heroine and marijuana coming into North America.

The commercial grow operations are directly connected to organized crime. Bill C-17 seeks to substantially increase the penalties for those individuals who are involved in the nefarious activity of commercial grow operations and who, by extension, support organized crime in Canada, across North America and the world.

This is also important because the trafficking of drugs is connected to organized crime and terrorism. Terrorist organizations in the Middle East are connected to the heroine trade. For example, in Afghanistan right now there is one of the largest productions of opium in the world, and it will be harvested very soon. This has far-ranging implications for international security and the security of Canadians. Furthermore, FARC, the major terrorist group in Colombia, is directly connected to and is working with terrorist groups in the Middle East.

I want to say to those who are watching today that if they use drugs, they are supporting terrorism and they are harming all of us. That message is not well known but it needs to get out to not only people in Canada but people all over the world. Security is of paramount importance to all of us. People may think it may be harmless to use cocaine, heroine or marijuana, that it is their personal business, but when they buy those drugs, they are actually supporting commercial operations which in turn are often connected to terrorist groups in other parts of the world.

That is why Bill C-17 is extremely important. It dramatically increases penalties for those involved in commercial grow operations. The bill separates the small time user from those individuals involved in commercial grow operations. This is very humane. Individuals will want to make changes and they will have the opportunity to do so.

It would also be wise for us to look at the situation south of the border because individuals have said that the Americans will like this. The situation in the United States is very interesting. Some 70% of Americans do not support the marijuana laws in their country. They think the marijuana laws in the United States are punitive and grossly unfair. That is very important to know.

The United States and Canada have similar concerns over security. Both countries want to reduce harm. One thing that has been mentioned in the House is how to do it.

One of the things that is being done right now by the government is the early learning program. The former minister of labour was involved as an innovative individual in New Brunswick who worked on the head start program. It dramatically reduced a whole range of social parameters including drug use. Kids are staying in school longer. There is less criminal use by juveniles. We are going to employ that program through our early learning program to ensure that we have the most effective preventive model. We have to get to kids early on if we are going to have a substantial impact upon them in terms of drug use. This is particularly important in the first seven to eight years of life.

That is why the investment the government has made into early childhood education and early learning is exceedingly important in terms of addressing social problems such as drug use.

In the United States 70% of Americans do not support their own government's punitive drug laws. On comparing the United States to Europe, or indeed to us, we find that with the higher rates of punitive drug laws there is an increased drug use of both hard and soft drugs, increased incarceration rates, higher rates of HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and other problems associated with drug use. Overall there is a much higher cost to society.

Said another way, those punitive drug laws that the United States is imposing do not help. They actually harm the situation and detract from our objective, which is to reduce drug use and increase the penalties on organized crime.

As has been said before in the House, part of the problem is the high profit margin for producing something that is essentially a weed. Because the profit margin is so high, organized crime gets involved. It will capitalize on anything where a profit exists. This law is going to disarticulate small time, individual users from those who are involved in the commercial grow operations. That is important.

In the context of the bill, some have suggested that by passing this bill, it is somehow going to fall outside the international laws that we have signed. International laws that govern these illicit substances allow individual countries to engage in those programs and initiatives they feel are going to better address small time users. We have the flexibility within the context of the international laws that we have signed to do what we think is the right thing to reduce use in Canada.

The justice minister is putting this forward because he knows and we have seen from looking at the European experience the results when drug laws are a little more flexible, when there are not those punitive drug laws. The difference between a place such as the U.S. with punitive drug laws and Europe is quite stark. In Europe there is lower drug use, less hard drug use, less soft drug use, less crime and fewer diseases associated with this problem.

In closing, it is safe to say that our objectives and the objectives of most members in the House are clearly the same. We want to reduce substance abuse, particularly in youth, because it is not good to use these drugs. However, we also have to accept the reality in which we live. We are taking the balanced approach with this bill by being punitive with the commercial grow operations while enabling flexibility with the individual users and enabling them not to be harmed by our justice system. This is a fair, effective and a much wiser use of the limited resources we have. It is a good use of our justice system.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of this bill, because the changes to the legislation on DNA banks it proposes will also affect the National Defence Act.

The bill will add to the list of designated offences under the Criminal Code. Consequently, the numbered of designated offences under the National Defence Act will also be added to.

A similar situation occurred in the past. Members will recall that the National Defence Act was also amended when the DNA Identification Act came into force in June 2000. Under the changes introduced at that time, judges, including military judges at courts martial, were given the power to order the collection of bodily substances from offenders convicted of designated offences. This power is the same as the power that was granted to civilian criminal court judges.

Within the present military justice system, if an offender is found guilty of a designated offence at a court martial, the military judge can order that a DNA sample be taken from the offender. The military judge must consider, in the case of a primary designated offence, whether the impact of such an order on the privacy and security of the offender would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society and the proper administration of justice.

In the case of a secondary designated offence, the military judge may be satisfied that it is in the best interest of the administration of justice to make the order and must consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, any previous convictions and the impact on privacy. Samples are usually taken by a trained military police member immediately after the conclusion of the court martial and then are sent for analysis.

The results of the forensic DNA analysis are then transmitted to the Commissioner of the RCMP for entry in the convicted offenders index of the national DNA data bank established under the DNA Identification Act.

The changes proposed in the bill would further enhance the military justice system and crime solving in Canada, while respecting the rights of Canadians to privacy. It would do so by clarifying and expanding the list of offences.

The amendments would add more crimes of a violent or sexual nature to the list of designated offences in which a DNA data bank order may be made. In particular, the amendments would add child pornography and Internet luring, among others, to the list of primary designated offences in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

A new mechanism to compel the offender to appear at a certain time and place in order to provide a DNA sample is also included. Of course, a court martial would be given this power too. Additionally, a new provision would allow for the taking of samples at a later date when it is not possible to take them at the conclusion of a court martial.

Another proposed amendment includes the provision for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who has committed a designated offence, but is found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder.

Also important is the issue of improperly taking DNA samples. The proposed amendments allow for the destruction of those samples that have been taken under the authority of a defective court order. For example, an order made following conviction for an offence not included within the scope of designated offences could be a defective order. These changes would allow the destruction of samples taken from individuals to whom the DNA legislation was not intended to apply.

We are building on an existing structure with proven success and this bill is intended to improve the effectiveness of the DNA data bank, an already potent investigative tool as we have heard here in the House already.

The national DNA bank has been in operation since 2000. Since that time it has played an important role in identifying or eliminating suspects and has facilitated numerous investigations.

The purpose of the proposed reforms is to bring the perpetrators of serious offences to justice. The government does, however, also recognize the Canadian tradition of respect for civil liberties, as reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government is fully aware that these individual rights and freedoms are an important aspect to the collection and use of DNA information. The privacy of Canadians continues to be a very important consideration for our government. This is why the collection of DNA samples is not automatic, but rather is made after a careful deliberation of all the relevant criteria, which I previously mentioned.

The legislation needs to be implemented rapidly to address the concerns of the provincial ministers for criminal justice and law enforcement. The government is addressing issues that have been identified as high priorities for the provincial attorneys general. It is imperative that these proposed changes are enacted now, and that the discussion of broader issues is left for parliamentary review to take place in 2005. The bill under discussion is not replacing this review.

These amendments in no way mean that further changes will not be considered. Continued assessment and revision of the bill will continue. The Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Forces support these changes as they help to ensure that the military justice system continues to reflect Canadian legal norms and societal values.

In closing, I would like to remind hon. members of the government's desire to facilitate the work of the police and the courts by bringing the perpetrators of serious crimes to justice.

At the same time, these amendments continue to respect the constitutionally protected rights and privacy interests of Canadians, including those who are subject to be dealt with at a court martial under the National Defence Act.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on his very fine speech. He hit on a number of issues. His own personal experience will attest to the responses that he gave.

The questions that were brought up by colleagues from the other side are ones that many Canadians are concerned about. My hon. colleague has answered some of those. However, I want him to put this bill in the context of a move from the past to the future, where aboriginal members and communities were restricted from looking forward in order to take hold of their livelihoods and their future, and to capitalize on the assets that they had around them.

I ask my hon. friend, how does the bill enable aboriginal communities to move forward, take control over their assets, live in an environment where their leadership is accountable to the members within the group, and where they can live and thrive not as a separate entity within our country but as an entity working with other communities, not only locally but throughout the country? Could he describe the bill in the context of how it enables a group to work with other Canadians, not separately but together for our mutual benefit?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to compare equivalency, apples to apples, not apples to oranges, and my comments before were related to circumstances where I felt that laws would be different. My feelings have always been that the laws of Canada should supercede any laws of another nature.

That is the beauty of this agreement and I encourage the member from the other side to look at this very closely. The Tlicho have been very careful in ensuring that this was within the constitutional framework. The Tlicho people will establish their rules and regulations within the constitutional framework of Canada, not separate from it, not above it, but indeed within the framework.

The Tlicho government will respect Canadian law fully and the Tlicho people will recognize that as Canadians they are subject to federal law everywhere. They are subject to the same laws as everyone else in Canada. The laws of Canada will supercede any other laws that are made within the context of this agreement.

Furthermore, and this is an important point that the hon. member should realize, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supercedes any kinds of agreements or laws that are made up within this agreement. The member should be very happy that if he had the same concerns that I had, where laws would somehow supercede the laws of Canada, those questions have been answered fully. Within the context of chapter 7 within the agreement, it clearly states and supports the comments that I have made in response to his questions.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-14, which I do support.

Many of my hon. colleagues had much to say about this and I will not restate their points, but I will talk about it in the context of first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners identity, self-sufficiency and treatment within Confederation. In my opinion the bill is more than appropriate and timely. It is absolutely essential.

Bill C-14 would enable the Tlicho to affect their environment and the changes in a better way because they are most familiar with their local conditions. At long last the Tlicho will be guaranteed representation on land, water and renewable resource boards and within community governments. They will have control over the land and resource management, aboriginal language and culture.

By exercising their inherent rights, the Tlicho will have the power to assume control over their resources once and for all. They gain the right to grant interests and licences and they gain the freedom to establish partnerships and conduct business according to their needs, while at the same time respecting interests that already exist. I think that is an essential point to the good question that was posed by the opposition that this bill respects the interests of groups that are already there.

The Tlicho have ably demonstrated that they can manage their affairs responsibly and, indeed, profitably. I urge hon. members here today to remember that the Tlicho are one of the most prosperous aboriginal communities in the north. They have proven to be both forward thinking and industrious. They constructed and now run an airport, take a lead role in the management of their schools and have built and operated both senior centres and a long term care facility.

They have proven to be able and fair negotiators, and have successfully negotiated delivery agreements on a number of matters and, in particular, in working with the Northwest Territories. They have signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements with private sector firms, chief among them the far reaching impact that the Ekati Diamond Mine deal has struck.

The Tlicho have long experience in devising and supporting fruitful partnerships and alliances, partly due to their sharing nature and partly because of their world view. They and their society understand that long term health and prosperity lies directly with their ability to cooperate with those around them.

In the private sector their agreements have resulted in a wealth of economic and social benefits, including jobs and training opportunities. The resulting economic activity in Tlicho communities supports a wide range of social services. Indeed, when we consider this agreement, it springs from a group of communities working together in the spirit of collaboration. It is no surprise that Bill C-14 itself is the result of extensive and fruitful collaboration by many groups.

I am aware, though, that sometimes the results of public consultation have been criticized and overstated. In fact, we all know that sometimes consultation and collaboration have been far less than successful and merely an exercise of having a lot of meetings. However that was not the case in this set of negotiations that have resulted in Bill C-14.

The consultation process, in short, was exemplary. First, it was conducted as the combined efforts of the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada. This coherent tripartite approach ensured proper representation of all three levels of government from the beginning and, by unanimous agreement, the process was refined so that we have the formal agreement we have now.

Open house sessions were held in four Tlicho communities, as well as Yellowknife, and feedback was listened to and incorporated. What is important is that the public at large was informed about this process and had opportunities to have input all the way along.

In the summer of 2002, when the Government of Canada announced the withdrawal of 39,000 square kilometres of land that would eventually become Tlicho land, widespread public consultation occurred again with interest groups and representations from all three governments were brought to bear.

Another public information session occurred in September of that year when it was decided that further consultations were necessary to ensure that the public was completely informed and had ample time to discuss and respond to all these proposals. The chief negotiators had set up a three month information exchange period with interest groups so that questions would be asked and answers would be forthcoming.

It is worth noting that during these exchange periods, tangential discussions between the Tlicho and the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene gained considerable momentum. To their credit, the Tlicho were diligent negotiators. During these information exchange periods, in which the Tlicho agreement was hammered out, it was refined in a number of areas as a result of these negotiations so that by March 2003 the ratification process was formerly commenced.

This is a remarkable achievement of public consultation. It makes clear the intention of the local aboriginal people to be heard and respected. High public turnouts attested to this fact. Moreover, wide public consultation occurred throughout this process. People throughout the north had their views heard, respected and incorporated. That was been important. Some concerns had been expressed by members about the process.

The Tlicho are clearly ready to fulfill their obligation. They have been working toward this agreement for more than decade. They have staged hundreds of consultation sessions and have secured the support of a range of public and private sector groups. Now the Tlicho are ready to establish and maintain a democratic government. This is very important. I think it will address a number of the questions that will come from the opposition.

The Tlicho are ready to establish and maintain a democratic government within the constitutional framework of Canada. Their government will respect Canadian law, fully recognizing that the Tlicho, as are Canadians everywhere, will be subject to federal laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague on the other side asked a very legitimate question about the issue of who would be in control and which law would be of paramount importance. It is the laws of Canada. I can reference specifically within the agreement. Chapter 7 has very specific references as to which laws are paramount within the context of any conflicts that may occur between what is in the agreement for the Tlicho people and other levels of government. Article 7.7.2 explicitly states that the federal legislation will prevail over Tlicho legislation where there is any conflict. I hope this will answer the member's question specifically.

Many of us have had the opportunity to work with aboriginal people. We have seen what occurs in aboriginal communities. We have seen the devastation within some aboriginal communities, which has been wrought for such a long time. We have seen the pain, suffering, the social dislocations which have occurred and the terrible social parameters that occur with aboriginal people both on and off reserve.

Domestically, I know we are committed to change the historical problems that have occurred with aboriginal people and change the horrible social parameters in some communities, such as unemployment, substance abuse, the lack of skills training, fetal alcohol syndrome, dislocated communities, communities where they desperately need and want to work with non-aboriginal communities to ensure that together we can enjoy the fruits of our wonderful country.

We on this side are committed to doing this. I have no doubt that members on all sides want to work with aboriginal communities to change those parameters, to rectify those problems and ensure that aboriginal people will be able to teach us the strengths of their cultures and their communities. Together we will learn about each other and will enrich each other. Together we will have a stronger country. Together we are a stronger people. Together we are culturally enforced. Together we will improve the social welfare of the people and societies of which we are part. I know that we are committed to that goal.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech. I wish him well here in this House of the people. He knows better than most people in this House the profoundly tragic problems that aboriginal people endure in our country.

In my little experience in treating aboriginal people in some of the remotest areas of our country, I saw conditions the likes of which I only saw when I worked in Africa. They are basically third world conditions in Canada. It struck me that, as the member said, the system we have been working on for so long has not worked.

What we have here is a bill which we hope enables aboriginal people to take control of their system, to move away from an archaic Indian Act that impedes the ability of aboriginal people to maintain control over their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

I ask the member, in his experience, what would he recommend that we need in this bill to enable accountability? Or is he satisfied with the accountability in the system that ensures that aboriginal leaders are accountable to the members of their bands?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, those 5,000 troops are going to get on the sharp edge as well as the 3,000 reserves. Both of them will be integrated into the needs of our armed forces in order to carry out the complex duties that they do across the board.

The member knows full well that we can only do that if we have a balanced budget. The government has been able to have a surplus or balanced budget and the strongest economy of any of the OECD countries. That is something to be proud of. The only way we will be able to support our military is to have a strong economy. That is our commitment.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the member on the other side continues to live in the past. He does not recognize the exciting commitments the government has put forward, particularly over the last nine months. I will repeat it for his edification because obviously he was not hearing or comprehending what was being said.

The government will be providing $7 billion of new money to our military for four good pieces of equipment. There will also be 5,000 new troops and 3,000 new reserves. The government is committed to change the situation.

The member ought to look in the mirror and look at the commitments his party has made. He has to understand a bit of basic mathematics. The Conservative Party wanted to commit $54 billion in new spending plus $41 billion in new tax cuts. The only way that could be done is if the government went into deficit spending. The member might look in the mirror one day and ask himself if he wants to support the kind of policies like those in the United States, resulting in a $470 billion deficit. If he wants to adopt a deficit spending protocol, then he should say that. However we will not support that.

We will not support that. We will have surplus budgets. We do not think that is the way to support our military, our health care and the requirements and necessary needs of Canadians. We will not compromise the economy of our country. We will have a balanced budget and support our military at the same time.