Leon Benoit

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, just to answer the hon. member very directly, we would certainly support that. The Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before it called for increased funding to health care in every election platform we have ever run under.

Although it is important, we do not think that spending will solve the problem of health care. We have to find some new and innovative ways to improve the system, to allow the provinces to do that and not stand in their way at every opportunity. It is unfortunate the member is one of the people who has stood in the way of new ideas for improving health care along with the government. That really does not lead to making things better.

In terms of her question on whether we would support their amendment, we do support it. It is something for which we have been calling. Let us go beyond that.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of arrogance that we have seen from the government for some time now.

He stands and says “If you are not going to pass this by Friday then you are just not doing the right thing”. Why Friday? I think we ought to talk about this. We ought to have the debate on it. We could probably get this through the House in the next two or three weeks. I do not see a problem. Certainly that is not my intent.

With this kind of rhetoric coming from across the House and this kind of interference, I do want to point out the Prime Minister's record in the House. It goes beyond the bill and beyond the member saying that if we do not pass it quickly we are against health care.

Let us look at what the Prime Minister has done. What did he do on Bill C-68, the gun bill? We had somewhere over a dozen Liberal MPs whose constituents told them to vote against the gun bill. They were going to do that and some did at the earlier reading. However, when it came to third reading what did the Prime Minister say? I will never forget what he said. He was in Atlantic Canada somewhere.

What did the Prime Minister say? He said “If you dare vote against our bill, even if your constituents want you to, we will punish you. I will not sign your nomination papers the next time if you want to run in the next election”.

Does that sound like a democratic Prime Minister? No, that is not democracy. It is that kind of arrogance we have seen over the past five years. It is just not right. We will not sit here and take this kind of arrogance, these anti-democratic feelings and expressions of the Prime Minister, and just let them go.

On the GST, the member for York South—Weston said “You ought to respect the promise you made in the 1993 election to eliminate the GST”. That is what the Liberals promised. The Prime Minister himself said on several occasions that he would get rid of the GST. Probably that helped him win that election.

When it came time to do something about it, the member for York South—Weston in talking about it asked what happened. He was kicked out of the party. He is sitting as an independent now. That is the way the democratic process works in the House.

In question and comment period another member mentioned the advertisements that are on television right now. They are funded by taxpayers, not by members of the Liberal Party. They are trying to say how wonderful their record on health care is when in fact it is dismal. It is disgusting that they would use taxpayer money to fund partisan ads saying what a great job they are doing.

The brochures they sent out to seniors were disgusting. That is not the democratic process working properly. That is not an acceptable expenditure of taxpayer money. We will not stand by and allow these kinds of things to happen without raising them.

In terms of Bill C-45, my colleagues and I are certainly willing to let it go through quite quickly at second reading. We will get on to committee stage and third reading stage. Let us see what we can do to have proper debate on it and make sure that it is implemented properly. That is all we ask.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

The hon. member across the floor really ought to listen a little. He could learn something. It is really quite difficult for me to make my presentation with that kind of interference from across the floor.

This arrogance flows way beyond this piece of legislation. Let us talk a little about the Prime Minister's record—

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the comment of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party. He is absolutely right. In fact the level is not 13%. It is only 11% right now. It will be 13% if this bill passes and if that funding is actually put in place. I am sure that is what the member was referring to. I was using rough figures and I know the reality is even worse than the picture I had painted.

It was really not a point of order and I appreciate your decision on that, Mr. Speaker. I will try to get back to my presentation now.

The Canadian Alliance really does respect provincial jurisdiction. We think that when the provinces come up with an idea within the Canada Health Act that will improve health care they should be listened to. I think every province probably has an idea that it can implement in its own province that will improve our health care system. I do not think the federal government has all the good ideas when it comes to health care.

I hear a lot of heckling from across the floor. It truly is the arrogance showing through, with the Prime Minister, in his arrogance, saying “This is our bill and you should just pass it”. We saw that in question period. Now we see the members across the floor showing their arrogance and not even allowing us to make our points on the issue. What they are saying in effect is that they have all the answers, that they are right, that they may have slashed health care funding over the last seven years but what they want to do now is to restore part of that, and that they are heroes for doing so.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the bill dealing with health care funding.

The bill would ratify and implement the deal between the provinces and the federal government. We respect the fact that the provinces did reach an agreement with the federal government to increase funding and we support that. The Canadian Alliance supports increasing funding for health care, but we do not pretend that will solve the problem with health care. We do not believe that is the case.

Just because we support the bill does not mean that we will just let it pass all in one day. The Prime Minister in question period today said that if the bill did not pass by Friday, because the opposition wanted to talk about it or maybe some government MPs wanted to talk about it, then we were against health care. That is not the case.

Opposition members and government members want to speak on the bill because we have things we want to say on health care. We want to make the point that more money will not completely solve the problem. We want to make the point that the amount of money the government has agreed to put back into health care through the legislation and through its agreement with the provinces will not restore health funding by the amount it has cut over the last few years. It is absolutely absurd for the Prime Minister to say that if we do not agree with the bill and if we do not pass it immediately then we are against health care.

I remind the Prime Minister of a few facts about the legislation. One fact is that a bill of this magnitude has received less than six hours of debate in the House. Yet the Prime Minister said that if we did not pass it today we were against health care. The Prime Minister really does not understand the democratic process. He does not understand that the House is a place for debate. This House is a place where we should bring out different views on issues, especially on important issues like health care.

Debate on the bill was first called for on October 5. This was less than three and a half years into the government's mandate. The government has been in place for seven years. Yet the Prime Minister said if we did not let this pass we were against health care. We will tell that to Canadians. That is not right.

The Prime Minister is asking for the members of the House to break the rules of the House. That is what he called for in question period today. That is not right. We should have time to talk about the bill. We should not just pass it on through. We should give Canadians a chance to know what this piece of legislation is about.

The legislation is about ratifying the provincial-federal agreement on health care. It is about returning only part of the funding that the government reduced over its seven year mandate. It is not as wonderful a thing as the government makes it out to be. There is no increase in funding. This only returns part of the funding that the government cut over the past few years.

Does that mean we will hold up this legislation? Absolutely not. In fact, as far as I am concerned we can allow this to pass second reading in the next few minutes and get on to the rest of the process.

There is no reason that we cannot pass this bill over the next few weeks. We do not want to hold it up. We respect the fact that the provinces have reached an agreement with the federal government. The legislation would ratify the agreement so that the money could be paid out, but we are looking for proper debate on the issue.

It is ironic that the Prime Minister said that if we did not agree to pass this legislation immediately we were somehow against health care. If we look at the government's legislative calendar for the next three weeks, Bill C-45 is not even on the legislative calendar. That is the level of priority the Prime Minister gives to this piece of legislation. If the Prime Minister feels that the bill is important, as I think it is, and wants the bill to be dealt with in a quick fashion, then he should talk to the House leader and get him to put it on the legislative calendar as a top priority item. He has not done that.

Again, we are here to talk about ratifying this deal. Does the Canadian Alliance support passing Bill C-45? Yes, we do. We believe that restoring some of the funding which the Liberals cut from the provinces to fund health care is the right thing to do. We say they should restore all of the funding that they cut from the provinces over the past seven years of their mandate. We say this deal is not good enough. We say it is only a start.

When we form the government it will only be a start. We will not only focus on funding, we will focus on actual solutions to the problems in health care. We respect the jurisdiction of the provinces in health care. Under the Canadian constitution the provinces have jurisdiction over health care. We also respect the Canada Health Act.

Today in question period, the Leader of the Opposition said “Let us add a sixth pillar to the Canada Health Act”. That pillar would be guaranteed funding for the provinces. The provinces could then rely on getting a certain level of funding committed to and guaranteed by the federal government so that the federal government could not decide some time in the future to cut back, slash and burn health care funding. That is what the Liberals have done over the past seven years. We want a sixth pillar to health care which says we will guarantee funding over the long run.

How many Canadians know that when medicare was first agreed to back in the 1960s, the level of funding of the federal government was more than 50%? The provinces signed onto the deal because the federal government was committed to this level of funding. Have successive Liberal and Conservative governments respected that commitment? No, they have not. Now the federal government only funds somewhere around 13% of the cost of health care. It has absolutely reneged on the deal that a Liberal government committed to back in the sixties.

The Liberals reneged on the deal that the Liberal government committed to in the sixties. They reneged on the commitment to the Canadian people and to the premiers of the provinces back when the provinces agreed to publicly fund health care. That is just not right. That is why the Leader of the Opposition today stood in the House and said “Let us put that sixth pillar of health care in place”, and that would be—

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that I rise today to speak to Bill C-17. First I will talk a bit about what the bill includes. It is one of those omnibus bills which includes things that should never be grouped together. I encourage the government to decouple the issues in the bill so that we are dealing with like issues only in one particular piece of legislation instead of such wide ranging issues.

In the bill we have issues ranging from cruelty to animals to disarming a police officer, to a whole group of miscellaneous issues including those under the Firearms Act. They are completely unrelated.

When many of us came here in 1993, particularly those of us in the Reform Party which is now the Canadian Alliance, we expressed concern, and we have expressed it many times since, about omnibus bills and the need for decoupling unrelated issues so that we could have debate on the particular issues before the House and could vote on a bill without having to vote against a bill because we could not support one part of it when there may be other sections that we fully support.

The government uses this tactic. The intent is to make it difficult for opposition members to vote against a bill because parts of it are difficult to vote against. This tactic is not reasonable for the government to use. I request that it break the bill down into three or more bills so that we could deal with it in a reasonable fashion and have debate on related issues. The most important part is that we could vote on issues that are at least in some way related. Unfortunately that is not the case with this piece of legislation.

When we look at Bill C-17 it is hard to disagree with its stated intent, the main part of the bill, cruelty to animals. How many people would not support a piece of legislation which in a reasonable fashion protects animals against abuse? I do not think we would find one member of any political party in the House who would not support that. That is not the issue when we are dealing with this bill.

There are some areas of concern in the legislation. One part of the bill is the disarming of a police officer. I think we would find very wide support in the House for that portion of it. With some changes I think we would find that almost everyone in the House would support that portion of the bill. I cannot speak for everyone else, but that is what I have heard from the debate so far and from speaking to some people from other parties regarding the legislation. I think there is pretty wide support for that part of the bill.

There is an issue in the miscellaneous section which I think has been overlooked and to which we must pay attention and speak on today. I am referring to the issue of once again having the government expropriate property from Canadian citizens with no compensation. There is a section in the bill which does exactly that. It will expropriate property and cause people to destroy property so that it is worthless, with no compensation.

That stems from a deep rooted problem in the country that Canadians do not have the right to own property. There is nothing in the constitution that says Canadian citizens have a right to own property. It is an issue to which we have spoken many times since we have been here. I think it is an important issue to raise again.

It is all wrong. It is part of what is wrong with the species at risk act. In that piece of legislation property can be expropriated from citizens. The use of property could be denied. There may or may not be any compensation, but certainly the minister has made clear that under that piece of legislation there is no guarantee of fair market value compensation. It has been made very clear that there just will not be fair market value compensation.

In the species at risk act the problem arises from the fact that we do not have the right to own property enshrined in the constitution. It comes to the forefront. That is a big part of the problem in that piece of legislation, as it is in this one. I certainly cannot support that part of the legislation. I just do not believe it is proper for a government to expropriate property from individuals without fair market value compensation. That is exactly what would be done in the miscellaneous section of Bill C-17.

We have heard a Bloc member of parliament speak to the disarming of a police officer to some extent. Others will speak and have spoken to that issue, but I want to focus on the part of the bill that deals with protecting against animal cruelty. It is very clear that probably there is not one member in the House who would not agree that we want to protect animals against abuse.

Many of us have pets. I am in Ottawa almost half the year. When I came here in 1993 my family replaced me with a miniature schnauzer named Lady. My family figured it was a pretty good deal, which kind of concerns me. The Liberals think it is a pretty good deal too. She is just such a sweet little dog, sometimes. Our family loves her dearly.

Many people have pets they feel that kind of attachment to. Who would not want legislation to protect against abuse of our pets and of animals we feel are very important to us. That is not the issue.

The issue is that in this piece of legislation there are flaws which have led to a concern expressed by hunters, anglers, farmers and ranchers in particular. I will refer to legal opinions which people from all these groups have obtained from their lawyers on this issue. They are concerned that as the legislation is written now it could harm farmers, ranchers, hunters and anglers in their activities. I will refer to that real concern.

Before I read from the first letter which mainly concerns farm animals, I would like to talk about the care farmers and ranchers take with their animals.

I have had neighbours on the farm who have complained that their wife or husband, the person who looks after the animals, cares more for the animals than they do for their spouse. That is kind of a farm joke. At calving time farmers are out there watching to make sure their animals give birth safely. They are out there in the middle of the night checking to make sure that calves are not lost, frozen or harmed in some way.

Farmers and ranchers take good care of their animals. Of course that is how they earn their living and there is a monetary reward for doing a good job, but also it is just because they care for their animals. They genuinely care for their animals.

I must express concern when we have a piece of legislation that seems to ignore that fact and does not seem to recognize that a vast majority of farmers and ranchers do an absolutely wonderful job. The last thing they would want to do is to inflict any kind of pain on their animals or to allow pain to be inflicted on them. Yet farmers and ranchers once again have to defend themselves against a piece of legislation put forth by the government. Bill C-17 could interfere in the way they look after their animals. That is a concern.

I am going to read from some documents. The first is from the county of Vermilion River No. 24. That county is very close to where I live in east central Alberta. The area has a very large number of cattle and other farm animals. Enough farmers and others have talked to the councillors about this legislation that they have taken the time to write to the minister about this issue. I was at meetings with the council on a couple of occasions where this issue was brought to my attention. I brought it to the attention of our caucus and members of other parties as well.

I am going to read the short letter from the county of Vermilion River to explain where it is coming from on this issue. It reads: “The County of Vermilion River No. 24 Agriculture Service Board recently reviewed the proposed changes to Bill C-17, under section 182 animal cruelty provisions. The Agriculture Service Board understands that the intent of the changes of Bill C-17 is not to alter the animal care practices currently being used by livestock producers throughout Canada. Presently livestock producers operate lawfully under a vast array of federal and provincial laws, regulations and voluntary codes of conduct. The County of Vermilion River No. 24 Agriculture Service Board does not condone the mistreatment of animals. However, the current wording of C-17 could put livestock producers involved in legitimate and lawful livestock production at serious risk of criminal prosecution. The County of Vermilion River No. 24 Agriculture Service Board would ask that amendments be made to Bill C-17 which would ensure the protection of law-abiding livestock producers from unfair criminal prosecution. The livelihoods of Canadian livestock producers are at stake”.

The letter is signed by the reeve of the county, Peter Green. He also includes a legal opinion on Bill C-17, particularly dealing with the livestock cruelty provisions. It is an overview of their concerns. The briefing document, which includes comments from the legal opinion, was sent to the Minister of Justice.

The risks of the bill are listed. It states “leaving aside the government's best intentions, if Bill C-17 is left as it is”, and therefore they acknowledge that the government has the best of intentions in this regard. They believe that, as do I. Leaving that aside, they said they have concerns about the risk to farmers, hunters, anglers and other people.

Farmers risk criminal prosecution for such common practices as dehorning, beak and tail trimming, castrating and hot iron branding given in the wording of 182.1(1)(a).

Meat plants which engage in religious slaughter risk criminal prosecution for not stunning livestock prior to killing, according to the wording. The second concern is slaughter for religious purposes and the process that must be followed to respect those religious beliefs. They have a real concern about those not being upheld as a result of the bill.

Biomedical researchers in food, cosmetics, medicine and chemicals risk criminal prosecution from procedures which result in any pain or suffering according to the bill.

Anglers risk criminal prosecution for even putting a worm on the hook as a result of the changes in the bill.

Hunters risk criminal prosecution for wounding or using a bow. Likewise trappers risk criminal prosecution for using live holding traps as a result of the legislation.

Those are the risks listed in the legal opinion. It is a long list. Practices which are considered to be perfectly normal could be altered and could be forced to be set aside as a result of the legislation. I do not think that is the intent the government had.

I am asking the government to look at these concerns and to fix the legislation. We will be more than co-operative in that regard. These concerns have been sent to the minister. We sent proposals to the minister. Several people have sent proposals to us which have also been sent to the minister. We do not want to make a political issue out of this. We want it fixed. That is why I am taking this very co-operative approach.

I do not want to go through all the other concerns that are listed. I believe that the concerns of farmers and ranchers certainly in our part of the country as expressed are legitimate. I think they have accurately identified real problems with the way the legislation is written. The legislation has to be either set aside or amended so that the hardship that could be forced on ranchers, farmers, hunters, fishermen and other people can be taken into account.

That is the letter from the county of Vermilion River. I will not read through all of these documents, but I want to read portions of a letter and a background document including a legal opinion sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. This is not just a western Canadian problem; it is a problem right across the country. Farmers farm and ranchers ranch right across the country, but people also like to hunt, fish and take part in other activities which have been generally considered to be acceptable.

I think a lot of Liberals would find those activities to be acceptable. If they do not, then they should state that. They should say no, they do not agree that people should be allowed to hunt. They should say no, they do not agree that people should be allowed to trap. They should say no, they do not believe that farmers should be allowed to do things with their animals which they normally have done in the interests of good animal husbandry. If they do not believe that, they should come out and say it. If they do not believe it is right for certain religious groups to kill livestock in a way that is laid out by the religion of those groups, then they should come out and say that.

If it is not the Liberals' intention to interfere in normally accepted processes, then they should say, “Okay. We have made a mistake. We have a bad piece of legislation here, so let us fix it up”. That is all I am asking.

I really do not think this should become a political ball that we throw back and forth. There should be co-operation on this issue. There is certainly co-operation from me and members of my caucus. I think members of the governing party will show the same kind of co-operation in this case. This issue is not one which would favour one political party over another. We are trying to protect the very people who could be harmed by the legislation should it pass.

I want to refer briefly to a couple of the things the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters put forth in its letter. The letter states in part: “Make no mistake, an outspoken national animal rights organization has labelled Bill C-17 revolutionary and as such, Canada is poised to elevate the interests of animals in the law. The justice department officials themselves have recently made remarkable claims that the current law recognizes animals' interests. Let us repeat some of our major concerns on C-17”. There are three concerns listed in the letter. “There is absolutely no need to move cruelty and care provisions from part XI to part V of the criminal code”. I agree. It is important to note that moving those from part XI to part V gives animals a status that somewhat equates to people. I do not think that is generally accepted by Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I see you are indicating that my time is up. In summary, my family and I love our little dog Lady, and many times when we watch her play and interact with us we wonder just what she does know, but we do not believe that she equates to a human.

I have a concern when a piece of legislation appears to somehow equate a pet or other animal to a human. I agree with so many groups that have written to me saying that we must change that, put it back to the way it was. Let us work in a co-operative way to fix this legislation.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to this bill today. I agree with many of the comments made by my Bloc colleague, particularly in the area of interference on the part of the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We share a lot of those concerns in that area. The government quite frankly does not respect provincial jurisdiction as is set out in our constitution. That is very unfortunate because it is not particularly productive.

We are talking about protecting species at risk. I know that I and the people in my constituency certainly take that seriously. I know my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance also take this issue seriously. We are concerned about protecting species at risk. The approach the government has taken will not do that. It will not be effective in any way in protecting species at risk because instead of using a co-operative approach, instead of ensuring that there will be fair compensation for any loss of property or loss of use of property, the government has taken a heavy-handed approach with large penalties and fines and large potential jail sentences for those who do not act in the way that it lays out in the legislation. It has used a big stick rather than a true co-operative approach which would by far be the most productive approach.

I could cite dozens of examples from around the world, including here in Canada and in the United States, where a co-operative approach has been extremely successful in protecting a species which a particular group has decided should be protected. It has been proven to be effective.

United States endangered species legislation has proved that this heavy-handed intrusive approach with large penalties does not work. It does not work because people who may find they have a species at risk on their property or on property that they are using will not report that and will not work with government in protecting those species because of the fear of losing their property or losing the right to enjoy it or losing income from it.

I have been here seven years and this is the government's third attempt to put forth legislation. In spite of the fact that it failed twice before to put forth legislation to protect species at risk, it has taken the same approach again, a failed approach and an approach which does not work.

I want to talk a little about my background and where I am coming from in terms of my most urgent concerns with this legislation. In my constituency of Lakeland, in east central Alberta, there are many farms. It is a rural constituency. Also, there is an oil and gas industry which is a resource industry that is very concerned about this particular legislation as well.

I grew up on a mixed farm by Lloydminster. I bought a farm in 1974. I took agriculture at university. I have a bachelor of science in agriculture degree. I bought a farm with 100% financing, so I know what it is like to try to make a living on a farm. I know it is extremely difficult. I know there were years when I wondered whether I was going to make it another year.

I also worked as a farm economist and a business management consultant with farmers, first seasonally and then even on a full time basis as I farmed to help support this farm. Too often I was at a kitchen table where the children and their mother were in tears and where the father was there with a vacant look in his eyes because they knew they were about to lose the family farm. Too often I was at the kitchen table in situations like that.

I made a promise to myself at that time that it would be my mission to make sure that things improve for farmers so that it did not have to be like that any more. It is still my mission today.

I am not going to stand by and allow a piece of legislation which takes a heavy-handed approach which will cause farmers should it go ahead to lose their farms when otherwise they would not and one which will cause a loss of income to farmers which they cannot afford. I am not going to stand by and allow that to happen because I came here to fight on behalf of farmers and others against legislation such as this. We all want legislation which will work to protect species at risk. This bill will not. It will make things worse.

Farmers have proven over the years that if we co-operate and work with them, they will do everything they can to protect species at risk. They have done that and proven it. This legislation is going in the wrong direction.

Farmers have told me privately that if this legislation goes through what it will lead to. If they should identify a species at risk understanding that they could lose their property without compensation or should they lose the income from a part of their land which has been designated as the habitat for a species at risk, knowing that could happen, they are not going to want to be particularly co-operative. There is no guarantee of compensation and there is certainly no guarantee of compensation at market value.

In fact, it will be counterproductive and will lead to them ignoring that species at risk or worse. It will be a negative thing and that is not what we are looking for. The legislation simply is not productive. It is not a positive way of dealing with this problem. It has failed twice before because of that and now the government is introducing the same type of legislation again. It will fail again and that is not what we want.

I talked about farmers and those in the resource industries who will be impacted by this legislation should it pass as it is. I would like the environment minister to explain the situation to his friends. They may have cottages or may have finally, after years of work, managed to build the house they want on a shore someplace in an ideal spot. They have worked their lifetime to finally achieve this and they value it so greatly. What would happen if a species identified at risk was an found on their land? I want the minister to explain to those people whom he does not know what would happen if a species at risk was found on the land around their cottages or on some other property they own or use to earn a living. I would like the minister to explain to them what would happen in terms of compensation.

This minister has refused, despite being asked so many times, that should that situation arise, should that property be confiscated or should the use of that property be limited as a means to protect a species at risk, to guarantee that there will be compensation at fair market value.

The message has come across very clearly that there will not be compensation at fair market value. I want him to explain to his friends when they lose their cottages or lose the right to enjoy it or lose their property or the right to use it for the purpose of their business, why he thinks they should lose that right and lose their property without at least a guarantee of compensation at fair market value. Yet no such guarantee has been forthcoming. In fact, the message is very clear that there will not be compensation at fair market value.

In a vague way, the legislation talks about the possibility for compensation. It does not say there will be compensation and nowhere does it guarantee that there will be compensation at fair market value.

What I want put into this legislation, not in regulation, before it ever passes this House, is a clause which guarantees, in an ironclad way, that should anyone lose property or lose the right to enjoyment of property or to income from property as a result of a plan to protect species at risk, that they will be compensated at fair market value. Along with some other changes that will help lead to a co-operative approach to dealing with the problem. Under that kind of situation, we can protect and will protect species at risk in a meaningful way.

[Immigration, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in due process, too. However, this minister's ill-advised delay in processing is making the situation worse for the migrants, to the point that they are rioting. They languish in detention centres at taxpayer expense. Now it is too late to do anything that will act as a deterrent for boats coming this summer. The minister's weak response to this new slave trade, people smuggling, has exacerbated an already serious situation.

Will the minister commit today to cleaning up the backlog from last summer, or is she planning on setting up permanent refugee camps right here in Canada?

[Immigration, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has now had almost a year to deal with the boat migrants of last summer. Of the 600, fewer than one-quarter of the cases have been finalized. That is to say, they have either been accepted as refugees or deported. The rest are either still in detention—and now some are rioting—or they are quickly disappearing, including 21 children, into the hands of the smugglers who brought them here. The minister's record is shameful. She said that these cases would be finalized in six months.

Is the minister going to step in and deport the remaining cases, or is she going to set up detention centres and refugee camps right here in Canada?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it as well as my colleague did. It shows the state of that party. Those members granted unanimous consent, obviously according to what they said, not knowing what is going on. It shows the state of communication within that party when the House leader who was involved in all of these negotiations did not tell his own members what was going on. My question is what is going on over there?