Leon Benoit

[First Nations Governance Act, June 17th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate. It is not very common for the debate to take place before second reading stage.

We support sending the bill to committee before second reading, although we do have some concerns about that. When this procedure was first tried as a result of some prodding on our part, we thought it would be productive, that changes would be made before a bill went to committee and there would be more input from all parties in the House. We were quite hopeful that would happen. That is not what has happened. However we still support sending the bill to committee before second reading. We hope we will be listened to today and that the input we give in other ways will be heard. We are supporting that.

We do have concerns about the legislation as it has been presented to date. I want to take some time today to compare the legislation that has been brought forth to some work I did back in 1997-98, mostly throughout 1998 shortly after I was elected to the new constituency of Lakeland.

I was elected in 1993 to the Vegreville constituency. In 1997 the boundaries were changed and Beaver River and Lakeland, about two-thirds of each, went together into one constituency. With that constituency came eight Indian reserves and four Metis settlements.

As the elected representative I got lots of calls from reserves, from aboriginal people living in communities near reserves and from Metis settlements. Some very serious issues came up. They were issues that are dealt with in the legislation, or at least are mentioned in the legislation, although I am not convinced the solutions are there. That is why a lot of changes are needed before the bill actually becomes legislation which will be debated and passed by the House.

When these calls came in I dealt with them individually. Then there were so many of them that I got together with some aboriginal people in a town in the constituency and we set up the Lakeland aboriginal task force. I have talked about that task force, its results and the report that was produced on several occasions since 1998 when the report was completed. When the report was completed members of the task force and I met with the minister of Indian affairs at that time. The current human resources development minister was the minister at that time. We took some time to sit down with her and talk about the report.

The issues that came up from the report are worth talking about today. I want to go through them and make some comments on whether they have been dealt with effectively from what we can see at first glance in Bill C-61.

The first group of recommendations that came from the task force were not recommendations of the Reform Party which has since become the Alliance Party. They are not necessarily Alliance supported recommendations, although in some cases they are, but they are issues that have to be dealt with and recommendations which could be productive.

The first group called for more transparency in financial reporting on reserves and in settlements. It goes beyond the scope of the federal government in some cases, but the problems were very similar. The legislation talks about that. There is a start in that it talks about that, but the bill has to go to committee. The legislation that comes from committee has to ensure open financial transparency. Until that happens there really is very little meaningful change that can take place.

The second group of recommendations involves democratic reform on Indian reserves and settlements but settlements are outside the purview of the federal government.

The second group recommended the use of a third party monitor, such as Elections Canada, to monitor elections on reserve. I presented private members' bills and motions on the issue and at least one has been debated. I do not remember whether it was a bill or a motion but unfortunately, the item was not made votable so we could not even determine the will of the House when it came to having Elections Canada monitor elections on Indian reserves. It makes sense that it would. Indian reserves are the responsibility of the federal government.

The aboriginal grassroots people have expressed concerns about the way elections are conducted on reserves. They asked for some independent monitors. From what I can see in the bill, that is not dealt with. Certainly, let us take it to committee and have all parties involved in some serious discussions on the democratic reform issues.

The next group of recommendations that were made were very interesting. I had a process in place to gather information from aboriginal people which involved one on one private meetings. These took place with members of the task force over a period of five days in a time span of about two or three months. We heard from a lot of individuals at these meetings.

We put out a questionnaire to anyone who wanted to give input on any issue they wanted. It was a directed questionnaire. We mentioned certain issues which were brought forth by the task force. Others were brought forth by individuals who filled out the questionnaires. We put the results of the questionnaires together. The final part of the process was public meetings.

At one public meeting there were about 70 or 80 aboriginal individuals. Some came from reserves, others from communities near reserves. They expressed concern about moving too quickly to some type of self-government. There was a vote put forth by one member at one of the meetings just to see what the response would be from the attendees as to whether the group supported moving to self-government as the Liberal government and the leadership had been presenting it in quite a few cases.

The vote was almost unanimous against self-government. People said they were not ready for it. The accountability would have to be in place. The electoral reform would have to be in place so the elections would be fair. An ombudsman would have to be in place. I put forth a motion or a bill which was debated in the House on putting in place an effective ombudsman, not one who reported to the very people who hired him but one who was independent.

We know what there is in the government. In spite of what the Liberals promised in 1993, to put in place an independent ethics commissioner, the government chose to put in place a counsellor who answers to the Prime Minister. They are two different things entirely.

It is that kind of corruption and lack of ethics that we are seeing the results of, with all the various corruption that comes up in the House every day, one day after another. It seems to be only the tip of the iceberg because we keep finding more and more. It gets broader and deeper. Certainly it could not be solved by putting an independent ethics commissioner in place but it would be a start.

Corruption in government or anywhere can only be ended by having people who are determined not to take part in it. No amount of law can completely eliminate corruption. There has to be ethics in the group before corruption can be ended. I digress in talking about the government. I want to get back to the bill that we are sending to committee.

What was clear is that none of this can effectively be put in place until fiscal accountability is dealt with in an effective way. It has to be open. We have to put in place a democratic system. Part of making it democratic certainly is to have Elections Canada monitor elections on reserves as it does across the country. That is what the Lakeland aboriginal task force recommended.

When the checks and balances are in place, then and only then can we talk about an effective type of self-government beyond what is in place already. That is what the ultimate goal has to be but we cannot jump from where we are now to that without ensuring that these other things are in place. I look forward to my colleagues dealing with this issue in committee.

[Government Contracts, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if it is not millions of dollars for luxury jets, it is millions of dollars for Liberal friends. If the government had properly supported our military, it would not have to worry about recruiting at all. First, $15 million was wasted on Groupe Everest and then was $17 million spent on Liberal friends in Groupaction.

How can the government continue to put Liberal friends ahead of our serving members in the Canadian forces?

[Government Contracts, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have copies of contracts that show that over a two year period Media IDA Vision Inc., a subsidiary of Groupe Everest, received $15 million from the federal government to run a recruiting campaign for the Department of National Defence. The results of the $15 million were that recruiting levels went down. Despite that, the government shovelled another $17 million into the Groupaction black hole the following year.

How can the government justify this kind of wasted spending on Liberal friends?

[Canadian Flag, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an awkward and difficult situation. I asked for my motion to be made votable so it could go to a committee where appropriate form could be put in place and it could be instituted into law. However unanimous consent was denied.

The motion is as innocuous as it could possibly be. It proposes:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

In spite of this the only member of the governing party who spoke to the motion, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister and hon. member for Northumberland, stood and said the flag represents the fundamental values of our country but we should not do anything about it. It seems the government believes there is no place for values in law or in the House. Many of the laws presented by the government reflect that.

It is disappointing that resistance to the idea of allowing values to guide law in this place is leading members of the governing party to deny unanimous consent to my motion. I find myself in an awkward situation. I will ask for unanimous consent once again a little later. I hope the members of the governing party who denied unanimous consent the last time will reconsider.

I would remind the government of a time a month ago when one of its own members asked for unanimous consent to make a private members' bill votable that would have recognized Canadian forces day. It was not made votable by the private members' committee so he asked for it to be made votable in the House.

A member of the opposition denied unanimous consent. He said he would be happy to vote for the motion if the government provided unanimous consent for his own patriotic motion which would have had parliament recommend two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. Members of the government and another opposition party railed against the hon. opposition member for denying unanimous consent to an innocuous and important motion that would have recognized Canadian forces day. The important motion of the opposition member regarding two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day was also denied.

Today we are debating my motion. The government has spoken against it. It says it is important but it does not want to do anything about it. The only argument I heard was that it would somehow go against the charter of rights and freedoms. That is total and utter nonsense. It is an absolutely nonsensical argument.

I am therefore in an awkward situation because I am tempted to threaten any member who speaks out and denies unanimous consent. I am tempted to make that kind of threat because it seems unfair that government members would show so little respect for this place by denying my motion unanimous consent.

However I will not do that. I will instead ask all members in the House, particularly members opposite who do not support my motion, to at least recognize the importance of respecting democracy and allow the motion to be debated in the House and voted on. That way all members in the House could decide whether or not they wanted to support it.

I ask members to be reasonable and grant unanimous consent for the motion to be made votable.

[Canadian Flag, June 12th, 2002]

moved:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

Mr. Speaker, I take a lot of pride in rising to speak to the motion which is about the Canadian flag. It has a lot to do with the patriotism that most Canadians feel toward our flag. I would like to read the motion again for the record and then talk a bit about why I put the motion forth in such general terms. Motion No. 216 states:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

It is a general motion and there are good reasons for that.

We have had motions brought forth to the House before on the desecration of the flag. These were motions that presented positions against Canadians wilfully desecrating our flag. When I was putting my motion together I was careful not to put anything in the motion that would give anyone a reason not to support it.

Some members in previous debates on the flag, and there have been a couple I know about, have said they could not support it because the penalties laid out were not appropriate. The penalties were either too tough or too weak. For that reason I put no specific penalties in my motion on the desecration of the flag. I did that so that there would be no reason for anyone in the House not to support the motion. That should be left to the committee.

If the motion is passed on to a committee members from all political parties in the House and a majority of members from the governing party, with input from Canadians, would have an opportunity to determine what penalties would be appropriate in the event that a Canadian or anyone else wilfully desecrated the Canadian flag. That is why I have left this so general and so open. It makes it really inappropriate for anyone not to support the motion.

In the past other members have tabled similar motions. The member for Souris--Moose Mountain, from the Canadian Alliance, has tabled a motion. It has not yet been selected. The member's name has not been drawn but it is there waiting.

The Liberal member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant presented a motion that was debated just a couple of months ago. His motion did actually present and recommend specific fines that should be put in place. In that motion the member recommended that for a first offence there be a fine of $500 and for a second offence or any subsequent offence there be a fine of a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $15,000. I heard some people in debating the member's motion complain that the fines were not appropriate. For that reason I have left this open.

The member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, in his presentation of Bill C-330, made it clear that his bill was not aimed at those people who destroyed a flag when it became tattered or when it came to the end of its life, whether it was badly faded, tattered or somehow damaged. He made it clear that his motion would in no way impact on people who destroyed the flag under those circumstances. That of course is a completely acceptable thing to do. It is a recommended course for people to take under those circumstances where a flag can no longer be flown because of the condition it is in. There is no intent to aim the motion at anyone who would destroy a flag simply because it is inappropriate to fly because of the condition it is in.

Why did I choose this motion? When my name was drawn I could have chosen from several motions and bills that I had in the pot. They were there for my choosing when my name was drawn. From all those motions and bills I decided to debate this one. Why was that? The reason is that the flag is an important symbol of our country.

Most Canadian olympic teams for some time have had a stylized version of the Canadian flag on their uniforms. It is something that Canadians take instant pride in. They take ownership of those athletes as being Canadian athletes when they see the stylized version of the flag on their uniforms.

When athletes march in or out of the arena during the start and end of the Olympics, Canadians take great pride when they see our flag. When any of our athletes are on the podium after winning a medal and our flag flies and our national anthem plays, all Canadians feel great pride under those circumstances. It is because of this type of pride that we should have in Canada some law with appropriate penalties to deal with people who would wilfully desecrate our flag. We saw Team Canada, our hockey teams and other teams playing teams from around the world and we know the pride we feel.

Even as elected representatives, how many of us in the House, on our business cards, letterheads or on other information we put out before the public, have a symbol of the Canadian flag on those pieces of information? The member for Red Deer is showing me his business card proudly. He has a picture of our Canadian flag on his card, as do so many of us. We take that kind of pride in our card. When we pass our card to people we want them to know that we are proud and loyal Canadians. That is why we do that.

When we respond to an important issue from constituents, we want them to know that we are proud and loyal Canadians, proud to be serving them. We do that because of how we feel about our flag and because it is truly the most important and best recognized symbol of our country. For that reason I brought this motion forward.

We take pride in members of our Canadian civil service serving in the various departments, serving us and our country so well in most cases. We take a lot of pride in that. Their letterhead and even the buildings they work in have our Canadian flag on them and that is important because they are serving our country and are proud to do so. The symbols are there to show that they are proud to do that.

Almost all products made in Canada proudly present the Canadian flag to show that the product was made in Canada. Business people, companies and corporations from across the country are proud of that because it is a symbol of Canadian made excellence. Our flag is presented on almost all products made in our country. All of these products and the different items I have mentioned have the Canadian flag on them for good reason, because it is the most outstanding and best recognized symbol of the pride we have in our country.

In particular since September 11 Canadians have felt a renewed pride in our country. Most Canadians have recognized since September 11 the importance of the Canadian military.

Of course I, as the official opposition critic for defence, know as well as anyone the pride Canadians take in the service provided by the Canadian military. The Canadian armed forces serve under the Canadian flag and fight under the Canadian flag. We take great pride in that as Canadians.

A large part of the reason I brought this motion forward is because I have had citizens from across the country who formerly served in the Canadian forces. Many are currently serving in the Canadian forces. Many are members of the Canadian legion. They either have formerly served or they take a particular interest in the Canadian military.

Those people in particular are recognized in conjunction with the Canadian flag. Many have died serving under the Canadian flag. Their comrades who live on, who have put pressure on me, and rightly so, to bring this motion forward, have said they want to have in place a law which will punish those who would desecrate that same flag or even the former flag under which their comrades served. They want that special recognition that they felt could come only from having such a law in place.

Before I get into the closing of my presentation, I want to read a couple of poems. I have taken them from another Canadian Alliance member who spoke on this issue before in the House of Commons. They are excellent poems about the pride that Canadians take in the flag. I will read parts of two poems presented by the Canadian Alliance member for Souris--Moose Mountain. I know that he is a proud Canadian and that he feels it is extremely important that we protect the Canadian flag as a symbol of our country.

The first verse that I will read is part of a poem, or an old patriotic song as he has presented it, read:

At Queenston Heights in Lundy's Lane, Our brave fathers side by side For freedom's home and loved ones dear, Firmly stood and nobly died. And those dear rights which they maintained, We swear to yield them never. Our watchword ever more shall be, The Maple Leaf forever.

Of course, the maple leaf is our Canadian flag. The last verse that he read and that I want to read today is a short part of a poem on our emblem of liberty, and it reads:

It's only an old piece of bunting It's only an old coloured rag But there are thousands who died for its honor And fell in defence of our flag.

I think these two verses from songs and poems from our past really present the pride that Canadians take in the flag, particularly our men and women who serve this country in our armed forces and military.

I would encourage everyone in the House to support this motion. It is presented in a way that allows the committee to do what it wants with it.

I would now like to ask for unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

[National Defence, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the defence minister's last seven minutes, here is another case of the government using phoney companies to rip off taxpayers.

An audit of the defence department shows that millions of tax dollars have been squandered through irregularities and inappropriate sole sourcing of contracts. The audit is also critical of professional help brokers saying that they cost a lot but add little value. In one year alone this government gave these firms $220 million, an increase of 500% since this government took office.

Is this not just another way of using taxpayer dollars to pay off Liberal friends?

[World War II, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, D-Day, June 6, 1944, the Allies launched the largest invasion force ever assembled in history. Landing on the coast of Normandy, France alongside British and American forces were 14,000 young Canadian men.

Making way for the assault, the Royal Canadian Air Force dropped tons of explosives on German coastal defences and Canadian fighter pilots took to the sky to battle the German Luftwaffe. The Royal Canadian Navy provided 109 ships and 10,000 sailors. Guns from the Canadian destroyers pounded the shoreline to clear the way for the advance. On the ground Canadian soldiers fought their way along Juno Beach at the centre of the British front. Thousands were killed and wounded that day fighting against evil for the freedom that each of us enjoys today.

Lest we forget.

[National Defence, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty disappointing that the new Minister of National Defence, in his response to the very first question and a serious question about the crisis in the military, gave a cutesy, flippant response that was not appropriate. This issue is too serious.

I would like to ask the minister this. Is he going to respond to the committee report and is he going to respond to that first recommendation?

[National Defence, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian military is in crisis. The defence committee, after taking more than a year to examine the operational readiness of our Canadian forces, came out with its report last week. The conclusion was that the military was in crisis and it had to be acted on immediately.

The minister has had a week to read the report. Is he prepared to act upon the first recommendation?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A little earlier today we heard the government House leader saying all the speeches that needed to be given regarding the legislation had already been given. Why then are government members are still giving speeches and denying us the opportunity to give ours?