Leon Benoit

[Criminal Code, May 15th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-406, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure without warrant).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this private member's bill is twofold. It is to amend section 139 of the Firearms Act to first of all remove the power to search and seize weapons without a warrant when there is no evidence that an offence has been committed or suspected to have been committed.

Second, when a search has taken place and if unnecessary damage has been committed restitution will be paid.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[National Defence, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the defence committee in response to hearing about the mistreatment of injured soldier Master Corporal Dohlan, the chief of defence staff said that he would personally ensure that the family was well looked after.

That was three weeks ago, but when I phoned Mrs. Dohlan Wednesday night, what she reported was quite frankly sickening. “The military has abandoned us”, she reported. Mrs. Dohlan must look after her husband, who was seriously injured in a parachute accident, as well as her five young children. She feels desperate. All she asks is that the military pay her expenses for driving her injured husband to the hospital twice a week and cover child care. Some home care would be nice, she said.

She is not exactly asking for $2 million for some big retirement party. Instead she has been given a duty driver who is expensive and unwanted.

Is this how an injured soldier and his family are treated when they are getting the special attention of the chief of defence staff? If that is the way they are treated, then how on earth are all other injured soldiers being treated?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I appreciate the efforts of the Conservative Party for presenting this motion today. The motion reads:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

I expected that we would have heard from speakers from all parties in the House today that in fact that leadership is missing. We have indeed heard as we travelled with the defence committee, of which I am a member and of which many of the members who have spoken are members, that there is a lack of leadership on the part of the government when it comes to the Canadian forces.

I will talk about this leadership from a couple of points of view. First, I will give a clear demonstration of the lack of political leadership by making two key points and then I will demonstrate the lack of commitment by talking about one particular case involving the military's most important assets, people.

First, the lack of political leadership can be clearly demonstrated in several ways. Let us start with funding. Money is not everything. Putting more money into the military is not going to solve many of the problems that we have in the Canadian military today. However, funding has dropped below a critical level which does not and will not allow, even with proper management, Canada to sustain the kind of military force that it needs to provide the basic security that Canadians expect for our country. Funding has dropped from $12.5 billion in 1992, just before this government took office, to $9.3 billion this year.

Clearly this government, as it has over the past many years, as all governments have over the past 30 to 35 years, found the military to be an easy target. Because of the lack of commitment shown to the military by the top leadership in this country the general public does not get too excited when the military is cut. That situation is changing due to the involvement of the men and women in our forces in some of the key natural disasters that have taken place. But funding has been cut from $12.5 billion to $9.3 billion.

Other than funding, a complete lack of support on the part of our Prime Minister and this government has been shown in several ways. For example, when was the last time we heard the Prime Minister say that we need a strong military to provide basic security for this country? I challenge anybody to remember that. I certainly cannot and I doubt that anybody in this House can. It has not happened. The Prime Minister is not committed to having a strong military. When was the last time we heard the Prime Minister say that the men and women of the forces are doing a great job? We saw a little bit of that when the men and women of the forces were involved in the ice storm, in the floods and in peacekeeping.

The Prime Minister seems to completely miss the point that the primary role of our forces is to provide security for Canada as a sovereign nation. The lack of belief on the part of governments over the last 30 years that we need a strong military force to provide that basic security has led to the situation we see today.

That contrasts dramatically with what we see in the United States. I point to our neighbour to the south. There are a lot of things they do not do right, in my judgement, but one thing the president certainly does is acknowledge the need for a strong military to protect that country. Occasion after occasion he points to the men and women who have served so well. We could point to the men and women in the Canadian forces in the same way because they have served well.

I want to talk about the lack of commitment by bringing the attention of this House to a specific case which was dealt with in committee about three weeks ago. I will quote the chief of defence staff who was at the committee meeting in a minute. However, first, I want to set this up.

A woman by the name of Mrs. Dolhan phoned me. I talked to her for some time. This is an extremely serious situation which I believed would be dealt with. It involves Master Corporal Dolhan who is a member of our forces. He was parachuting under very unsafe conditions. He was one of eight out of eleven in that particular jump who fell into trees. He was injured. There was a bungled rescue attempt to get him out of the tree. He ended up in the hospital. The comments made by him and his wife were that they have had absolutely no support from the military. That is sad.

I brought this case to the attention of the chief of defence staff in committee about three weeks ago. The chief of defence staff, General Baril, said this:

This is one of the examples that we are taking, that when an accident happens we've got to cover all angles. We have only one chance of maintaining and furthering the confidence of the men and women who are serving and if we miss it, we miss it for a long, long time and we hear stories that Col. McLellan has heard. We will never be able to repair the damage that was done, but on that case I think that I can assure you that we got the bull by the horn on this one.

She is not an unreasonable person. All she is asking for are some very minor expenses to be covered, expenses that are not minor for her. These are expenses to cover the mileage when she takes her husband to the hospital which she has to do at least twice a week, coverage for some child—

[National Defence, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, picture this: $75,000 spent on a fly-past; $67,000 on the use of a flight simulator; $75,000 on food and drink charged to the Crowne Plaza Hotel; a total of over $2 million spent on a conference-retirement party for General DeQuetteville. All this when privates and corporals are looking for decent clothing and respectable housing and are having to go to a food bank to feed their families.

Who is the genius who approved this spending? Was it the minister? He got an invite.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure where I was in my speech when the interruption took place. I will begin by saying that with regard to this bill on education, the Reform Party supports national standards for education and apprenticeship across the country.

In a broader way, the Reform Party's ultimate goal on aboriginal matters is that all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in the Canadian citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other Canadians. I want to clarify that just so there is no doubt about what we are saying.

By saying that the aboriginal people should be full and equal participants and indistinguishable in law and treatment, we are not saying that it means they should be indistinguishable in cultural, language, dress or character. That is not what we are saying at all. I am clarifying this because I have had people interpret it that way to me.

I personally very much enjoy the culture of aboriginal people. Over the last few months I have had ample opportunity to enjoy that culture, the character and the formal ceremonial dress of the aboriginal peoples.

I want to end my presentation by asking the government four questions in response to the bill. I will also make some comments on the questions.

First, do the grassroots aboriginals on the reserves that are being covered under this legislation support the change that this legislation would make?

We already know that only nine of the thirteen reserves that are covered support the legislation. We have no idea whether the grassroots people themselves on the nine that have supported it support this legislation in any way. It is crucial that this be determined before the bill continues. We know Phil Fontaine supports the bill. We know that the chiefs and councils from the nine reserves support the bill, but do the grassroots aboriginals? I would like an answer to that question.

Second, $24 million will go into this fund to be managed by the chiefs and councils. It has been said that there will be a requirement for an independent auditor and some accounting for that spending.

Specifically my question is what level of accounting will be required? In what detail? How will the auditor be chosen? Will the Auditor General of Canada who after all is the final auditor on federal spending have the final responsibility to check into the spending of this money? This is critical.

In the aboriginal task force I set up, in the private presentations and at the public meetings, and in the presentations made to the questionnaire, the issue which came up more than any other issue was that of accountability on the part of chiefs and councils to the grassroots aboriginals. That question must be answered.

Third, if this deal is being made to help status Indians move toward self-government, has this government determined in fact that is what they want? It is an important question.

At the largest of the public meetings I had on this issue, there were about 75 people. About 70 people were aboriginal and I would think 40 of them were status Indians. Television cameras were there. I asked how many would support self-government. Not one hand went up. One woman stood up and said “What do you mean by self-government?” I said that that was a very good question. That question remains unanswered.

What exactly is self-government? Do grassroots aboriginals support it? Certainly the people we have heard from do not. They support no new level of control on the part of their governing bodies until the time that they are assured that there will be real accountability.

This fourth point is a comment. With regard to the quality of education, the task force found, and it was expressed very clearly and strongly, that better education is required. Better education is the key to two things. It is the key to things becoming better on the reserves. It is also the key to giving those people who choose to leave the reserves a fighting chance when they go. This was expressed very clearly. That is why I need some assurance that this change will provide a better quality of education. I really do not feel that I have that assurance right now.

As we go through the rest of the process, through the amendments to the bill at committee, at report stage and at third reading, I ask the government to provide that assurance in a way that really means something. I also ask that the government answer my questions.

In closing, there are too many unanswered questions. I certainly cannot support the bill as it is now, but I will look at what happens over the rest of the process.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the explanation.

This legislation has not been supported by all 13 reserves. There are two reserves which do not support it because they want to see how it will all come together. However, there are two other reserves that think the federal government should not abandon its responsibilities.

Beginning last November and early December I put together an aboriginal task force in my constituency. From a group of 20 we came up with four members who helped me with the process. The purpose of this task force was to hear concerns from aboriginals in the constituency and to hear their recommendations with respect to dealing with these concerns.

One of the things this task force heard as it listened to aboriginal Canadians in the constituency, both status and non-status Indians, Metis and anyone else who wanted to make a presentation to us, was that there was certainly not unanimous—

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia in relation to education. I am not going to speak too much on the actual content of the bill, as former speakers have done that.

The purpose of this bill is to implement an agreement signed by the government and nine of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia. It gives these communities control over primary and secondary education, at least for those band members and non-band members who live on reserve. It is interesting that it does not apply to band members who do not live on reserve.

This bill has been presented by the minister as part of the answer to RCAP. However, the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia have been working on this since January 1991. It is something that has not just come up, it has been in the works for some time.

This bill is the first of its kind. It is interesting that Phil Fontaine has referred to this bill as a historic piece of legislation. That concerns me. If viewed as a historic piece of legislation, my guess is that it will be applied in the future to other reserves across the country. Therefore, it should be of concern to any member of parliament who has a reserve in his or her constituency. I will speak later on this from that point of view.

I want to again stress that this has not been supported by all 13 Mi'kmaq reserves in the area. There are four groups which so far have not supported the legislation. Two of the four are not supporting it because they are waiting to see how it all comes together.

Before I get too far into my presentation, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me for the debate on this motion.

I want to read the motion because I think it is important to look at something in the wording. This is a government motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

That this House take note of the intention of the Government of Canada to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization force, SFOR, in Bosnia beyond June 20, 1998—.

Here we are almost in May. We are in a take note debate because the decision was made and announced some time ago. We are here debating whether Canada will carry on its commitment beyond June 20, 1998. Clearly this is a joke. Where is the planning horizon the government works on? It clearly is not there. It really does not plan things. I think that will explain some of the problems I will bring up in my presentation.

I will deal with three questions. First, can Canada deliver on the renewal of this commitment for six months and beyond?

Second, what will the price be if this becomes a very long term sustained commitment in Bosnia? What will the price be to the forces and to the men and women who serve?

Third, what must change so that Canada can deliver should Canadians choose to support it over the long term? That is what I will deal with in my presentation today.

I would like to comment on the debate itself and the fact that the debate is happening under these circumstances.

The first question is can Canada deliver. The answer is yes. Looking at a six month commitment, which is what this motion is about, and a force of 1,200 men and women then yes, Canada can deliver and it will deliver. We have men and women in Petawawa right now who have been training and preparing to leave in June. They will serve serve well and Canada will meet its commitment over the six month period.

If we are talking about a 10 to 20 year period which is probably what will be needed to stabilize the area then the answer is no, not with the lack of commitment the current government has shown to our forces and to the men and women who serve so well. It is no, not with the continued force of 1,200 or more which may well become what is needed if things escalate. That certainly could happen.

The answer is no, not with the current commitment Canada has in other parts of the world. The answer is no with the current lack of commitment to proper equipment that has been shown by this government. The answer is no, not with the ever reducing number of men and women in our forces.

The answer to whether Canada can deliver over the six month term, which we are debating today, is yes. It can and will. That is in spite of the level of commitment this government has to our forces, not because of it. It is because of the incredible men and women serving in our forces. That is something you learn as you travel from base to base in this country. The men and women in our forces are tremendously well equipped in terms of their personal abilities and are well trained and committed. There is no doubt about that. They will deliver because of what they are, not because of what they are given to work with.

What might the price be that our forces might pay if we end up indefinitely, six month term after six month term? Those of us who have travelled from base to base with the SCONDVA committee started to realize what the price might be.

The price is unacceptable in terms of what will happen to our forces and their ability to do what they should be doing, which is to defend the sovereignty of our nation, to be there in the case of natural disasters like the floods and the ice storms, and to be there to deal with civil unrest, which we have already seen in Oka and which we could well see in various parts of the country over the next years. I do not have the time to get into any detail on the price, but the price that we have seen manifests itself in several ways.

First, it manifests itself in terms of morale. Generally speaking, we have seen from base to base across the country that the morale of the men and women in our forces is not high. Further deterioration in morale could well be the price they pay. Families are being torn apart due to a lack of commitment, what has happened over the past years and what will happen if things do not change, if we maintain this kind of commitment overseas and here in Canada.

One thing was made clear. Men and women are happy to serve. When they are asked if they would like to go on a tour to Bosnia they say yes. They say yes for a couple of reasons. One, because they will get extra money which their families desperately need. Their pay levels are not sufficient. They say yes because they joined the forces to serve their country. This is an opportunity to do that. They say yes because they know the training they will receive in this area is second to none in making them ready to be a part of a combat-ready force which this country deserves and desperately needs to defend our sovereignty. They go for those reasons, in spite of the price that they and their families might and do pay. We have seen it.

The third concern I would like to raise is what must change so that Canada can deliver, if Canadians determine that is what should happen. Canadians have never been asked about this issue. I will talk about that when I wrap up, when I discuss this debate and the conditions under which it is taking place.

What is needed in very broad terms to change things so that Canada can deliver? Specifically, what must this government and future governments do to build a sustainable and top quality military?

First, they must show commitment to change in the structure of our forces and leadership. I am not saying that all the leadership in the Canadian forces is not good. Certainly, some of the men and women are top notch, as well as some of the leaders in our military. They must show this commitment to change, to change in leadership and to change in the structure of the forces, separating the military from the civil service branch.

Second, they must show commitment in terms of money. Spending on our forces has been reduced from about $12.5 billion, when I started looking at this in 1992, to $9.3 billion. It has been cut too much.

Third, the government must demonstrate two things. First, that it believes we need a strong combat-ready military. Second, that it believes the men and women who serve in our forces are doing a great job and that they are top quality. They must demonstrate that.

I would like to ask this question. When was the last time a prime minister in Canada said that our country, Canada, really needs our military and that the very existence of Canada depends on us having a good military?

When was the last time we heard a prime minister stand in this House or elsewhere to say that the men and women in our forces do a great job?

[Tax Freedom Day, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, each year Canadians across the country celebrate tax freedom day. This is the day when an average wage earner has earned enough to pay taxes for the year.

This year tax freedom day will occur in July and later than ever.

By contrast, as a result of the efforts of Canadian farmers we have a much more encouraging date to celebrate: food checkout day. This is the day when the average wage earner has earned enough to pay for food for the year.

Unlike tax freedom day which occurs in July, Canadians can celebrate food checkout day in February. It takes less and less of our income to pay for our food each and every year.

It is time the government learned a thing or two from farmers. If farmers mismanaged food production the way the government mismanages taxes, Canadians would all be starving.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a bushel of questions for this hon. member. I will start with a few.

At the close of his presentation, the hon. member talked about the opportunity presented through this legislation. I agree with the hon. member in a way that this is the time of opportunity in terms of reforming the military. We have had calls from many different places for major and positive reform to the military. We have had the Dickson report. We have also had the Somalia inquiry with a report that recommended substantive change, including the establishment of the office of an independent inspector general, which is not in this legislation.

The hon. member listed one after another after another new bureaucratic bodies that are being created by this legislation. I know the hon. member has a background in the military or certainly a background knowledge of the military. I will ask him a straight question. Does he believe the Department of National Defence needs more bureaucracy? Does the Department of National Defence need more bodies, more places to make patronage appointments, more complexity? Does the hon. member really believe that is what the Department of National Defence needs?