Leon Benoit

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has raised a question of privilege claiming that I brought up issues in public which should have been left under the auspices of the committee and dealt with by committee. The fact is that this debate was already in the public domain.

The charges against the minister are widespread and have been openly discussed in public and had been at the time we put out our press release. They have been in televised meetings of the procedure and House affairs committee. They have been talked about in scrums and in the media in quite a wide way. I have said nothing that can be considered new that has not first been said at either the procedure committee or even discussed by the minister himself outside the confines of the House of Commons. What did I say that had not been said before by someone else? I think the answer to that is nothing.

We have not said anything that differs from what was said inside or outside the House by the government itself in fact. We are simply stating the obvious and what the minister himself has already admitted to in some detail and very clearly in fact. Several major newspaper editorial boards have also come to the same obvious conclusion. I think almost everyone in the country has come to the same conclusion except the government members on the committee.

As well, I personally have heard government members say in scrums and in media interviews that there is nothing they have heard yet which constitutes contempt. In other words, they themselves outside committee have been saying that from what they have heard at committee, there is no reason to find the minister in contempt. The hon. parliamentary secretary has come to the House and has claimed that because members of the opposition have gone outside the House that somehow they are in breach of his privilege. Why on the one hand is it wrong, but when it is government members doing exactly the same thing it is not wrong? I cannot understand that.

The parliamentary secretary is simply trying to stifle open debate on this important issue. That is exactly what is going on. We have seen this type of goonish bullying lately by the government whip. This type of intimidation may work with frightened timid Liberal backbenchers but I can tell the House that it will not work with me and it will not work with my colleagues on this side, nor should it work. We will not be intimidated.

I will fight to the end for my right as a member of parliament to free speech regardless of whether or not it offends the government or that particular member. It is important that I can speak on behalf of myself and on behalf of my constituents without coming under this type of attack that I find myself under right now.

It is important to read the press release the member was referring to in his presentation to the House when he claimed this breach of privilege. It is important that the press release he referred to be read into the record. I hope everyone understands that when I read this, of course I cannot use the names as they are in the press release. What I will do is change those names to the name of the riding as is appropriate in the House. It is critical that we have all of this on the record for the public to see, for members of the House to see, and for you to see, Mr. Speaker.

The title of the press release is “Eggleton's Excuses Contradicted”.

[National Defence, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was the wrong answer. The Prime Minister was incorrect when he said it was only the United Kingdom and the United States that have strategic airlift, so do Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine and others. No wonder the Americans are now saying that the Prime Minister does not quite get it. Canadians have been saying that for years.

The current U.S. ambassador to Canada has suggested that Canadians start finding its own ride to get its troops places. Unbelievably, it is the Americans who had to lift our troops from western Canada to eastern Canada during the ice storm. It was the Americans we had to depend on to respond to the Manitoba floods in 1997.

How can this Prime Minister possibly justify this--

[National Defence, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian troops continue to do a great job in spite of this government not because of it. The Prime Minister has left the military with a wounded minister of defence. General Fitch says that the army is on starvation rations. General Jeffery says that the military is living on borrowed time. We have 30 year old helicopters and planes with no sign of replacements in the near future. We have to rely on the Americans to get our troops around and the Prime Minister says that he is happy with that.

Has the Prime Minister now closed the door on purchasing strategic airlift for our Canadian forces?

[Points of Order, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of a decision you made in question period to rule my question out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I hold you in high esteem and I have a great deal of respect for you. You have served the House extremely well. However I would like to ask you to review the decision you made on my question based on the following information.

In the committee, which is dealing with whether the minister deliberately misled the House, the chair has said again and again that the issue before committee is whether the minister deliberately misled the House. It is not whether he misled the House. The minister has in fact admitted that in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to review the mandate given to the committee and review the question that I asked today. I deliberately stayed away from saying that the minister had deliberately misled the House. If after that review you find that my question was in order, could you give me an opportunity to ask my question again next Thursday?

[Minister of National Defence, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence admitted to reporters that he clearly knew about the capturing of prisoners by the JTF2 in Afghanistan the first time he was briefed, which was on January 21. Yet in spite of that, he still told the House that he first learned of this information on January 25. It is clear now that the minister misled the House of Commons and the Canadian people.

I ask the Prime Minister, which one of the many versions that his Minister of National Defence has given on this issue does he expect Canadians to believe?

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5. I must say it has been many years in the making and the end result is not a good product.

Similar legislation first came forth in 1996. The Canadian Alliance worked diligently on this issue starting back when the legislation first came to the House and to committee. We offered substantial recommendations for change. Interestingly, many of the proposals that we made for change were promoted by environmental groups across the country. They were practical and worthwhile changes. Had they been included they would have made the legislation something that could have been supported. Unfortunately, those changes were not included in the legislation and the end result has left us with some serious problems.

I will speak to the amendments put forth by the Canadian Alliance regarding the issue of intent when it comes to damaging an endangered species. It is important to tie this issue with some of the other key issues when we are looking at whether or not these amendments are supportable.

The Canadian Alliance, by offering practical suggestions, demonstrated clearly that it wanted endangered species legislation which would protect endangered species. Our current critic, the hon. member for Red Deer, made that clear in his presentations on this issue and with his hard work in committee.

The Canadian Alliance understands that for the legislation to work we must look at what the practical impact would be on the people who are most likely to be affected, that is, farmers, resource owners and resource users. It would also include recreational property owners and users. Beyond that, almost everyone in the country could be affected by the legislation in a very negative way from two points of view.

First, if the legislation will not allow landowners and land users to deal with the legislation in a practical way then it could be counterproductive. That must be examined carefully. The issue of fair compensation has to be tied in. Landowners or resource users may find an endangered species on their property. For the legislation to work at all they must know that they would be compensated for the cost of protecting the species, whether it is the cost of some of their land being taken out of production or the cost of doing something to help protect the species. Unfortunately, that was not included in the legislation ensuring that it would not work. It is the first thing that would ensure that.

The second issue relates directly to the amendments that I am speaking to today, which is that criminal liability must require intent. The act would make criminals out of people who may inadvertently or unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat.

Many farmers now leave a long stubble in their fields. The eventual growth there in the spring is an ideal habitat for a lot of species. Farmers work with these species every year. There is a provision where farmers would be expected to hire someone to do an environmental assessment so they can determine with some certainty that there are no endangered species in their field so that they are free to work and feel safe in working their field. That is something that just cannot be done.

The legislation would fail with that provision. I guarantee it. If the legislation passes as it is, it would fail and endangered species would be harmed more than they would be helped by the legislation. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind about that.

Members should put themselves in the position of farmers. It could be in another resource industry. It could be anyone. It could be people who own cottages out at a lake. If an endangered species were to be found on a farmer's property there would be no fair compensation for the costs of protecting that species or for taking the land out of production.

The legislation would put that in place and jeopardize the livelihood of farmers. If that is the case in some situations, what will they do? These people have been good stewards of the land. They have done everything to protect species. They provide a good environment for all kinds of wildlife and all kinds of species. These same people, because of the legislation, may be driven to making sure that no one ever finds out that there was an endangered species on their property. They will do that through whatever means is necessary. Is that what we want to do to our farmers and to others in resource industries across the country?

Is that what the government wants to do with the legislation? I do not believe that at all. It feels that it has to put forth some legislation that might help protect endangered species but it knows, because of what went on in committee, as do environmentalists across the country, that it will be in reality the impact of the legislation if it passes as it is now.

In the name of fairness I ask the government, if it thinks it is right to put farmers, people in the other resource industries and people who have cottages at the lake who have invested large amounts of money in their properties so they can enjoy them, is it proper for any government to put them in a position where to protect their property they have to break the law to ensure that nobody would find out that there was an endangered species on their property? I do not believe that is right. It is wrong.

The Canadian Alliance proposals would at least give farmers and others the comfort that if they did not know there was an endangered species on their property they would not have to prove they did not know and they would not be held legally responsible for what they did unknowingly.

Bill C-5 would make it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass one of any number of endangered species. The bill would ignore one of the fundamental tenets of western legal history, that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal mind. Mens rea is the latin legal term for it. That would be ignored in the way the government has written the legislation. Normal protection would be ignored. A farmer or someone else who completely unknowingly destroys a habitat or an endangered species could receive penalties of up to $1 million and five years in jail.

I am sure that is not the intent of the legislation. Let us get it fixed, get it back to the drawing board and ensure that the product we put out would help protect endangered species.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The member of the Conservative Party said that because the Alliance member did not speak when it was his place on the list we should therefore move to the next in line.

No one in the House stood so we should continue with the rotation as it was before.

[Foreign Affairs, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, why does the Prime Minister refuse to answer a direct question on this issue? It just does not make any sense unless he is trying to hide something.

The principle of ministerial accountability means that ministers are accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff and departments. If someone in the Prime Minister's Office or the PCO knew about the handover of captives two weeks ago, then the Prime Minister and no one else is responsible for that.

Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the actions of his own subordinates who deliberately kept him in the dark?

[Foreign Affairs, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister refused to answer straight questions as to whether his staff or the privy council had been informed of the capture of al-Qaeda terrorists and their handover to the United States. This suggests that someone in his office or in the PCO was informed but failed to tell the Prime Minister.

Did someone in the Prime Minister's Office or the PCO know about the incident but deliberately kept it from the Prime Minister?

[Minister of National Defence, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we got an answer on that. The minister said that he signed off on the rules of engagement. The minister has also said that the Prime Minister has to sign off on any mission that the JTF2 goes on overseas.

When the Prime Minister signs off on those missions, does he also sign off on the rules of engagement?