Peter Goldring

[National Defence, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister claimed that Canadian doctors tested and retested suspect American anthrax vaccines.

Health Canada then said this was not true and that it grudgingly only issued a permit approving the vaccine with a warning to take at your own risk.

Why did the minister say it was tested here in Canada when it was not?

[Return To Ortona, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week the CBC Newsmagazine broadcast “Return to Ortona”, in memory of the 1943 Canadian victory in which so many lives were lost. I commend this program to all who respect our veterans and appreciate the glory and sorrow of war.

However, there was one glaring omission in both the television program and in CBC website coverage. Who paid for the veterans' trip to Ortona? The government let these veterans down. Average people made this event happen.

Thirty thousand names are missing from this story. Thirty thousand contributors opened their hearts and wallets to give all they could to send their boys to Ortona. This trip, this event and this report would not have been possible without them.

Let us remember that these veterans travelled courtesy of the generosity of 30,000 contributors. The CBC should have given some recognition to the magnificent efforts of these 30,000 contributors.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all contributors now. Their generosity allowed a wonderful event to take place.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish today to present to the House two petitions signed by many Canadians.

The petitions call for our government to give fair and equitable recognition to Canada's merchant navy veterans of World War II. The concerns of these veterans can be summarized as four points. They are seeking war veteran status, prisoner of war benefits, recompense for years of inequality and ceremonial day recognition. I ask for everyone to listen to their call.

[National Defence, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, veterinarians say they will not even give expired anthrax vaccines to animals. Yesterday the minister admitted he knew that expired vaccines were given to Canada's soldiers.

Why did the Minister of National Defence knowingly order Canada's soldiers to take expired vaccines that veterinarians will not even give to animals?

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. My colleague from another party said earlier that Reform was approaching this bill with a double standard. I think not. I think we are approaching this with a single standard for enjoyment of property and opportunity for all fairly. That is the reason we object to this.

I have heard a number of opinions on this bill and I think it is important to keep the focus on how we can improve the legislation. Our aboriginal people have been marginalized for far too long and the government has rarely done something to improve that for them. Hopefully we can change that this time.

There were a lot of problems and obstacles encountered by rank and file band members during formulation of this bill. Many have not been involved and they are concerned that their interests are not being met in this lack of grassroots consultation.

The band councils have a responsibility to involve and include all aboriginals in the process. There are a lot of grassroots concerns when it comes to dealing with section 28 and the issues surrounding expropriation. Some band members are even afraid their own people will drive them out of their homes.

Section 28 also leaves many unanswered questions about the process required when non-aboriginals are dealing with bands in land and lease negotiations. The uncertainty is leading to dramatic decreases in the value of the land in the disputed areas.

Bill C-49 may only expedite land expropriations and escalate tensions unnecessarily. It is important to remember that I am referring only to a small number here.

Unless there is grassroots consultation there is a great chance that development will not match the aspirations of the community. This would be permanently divisive.

My family has had experience in the eastern part of the country where they too leased from aboriginal people 15 years ago. When they leased to develop their property, the lease rates were low and attractive enough for them to move there and to develop property. After 15 years the lease rates escalated to such heights that it lost the viability of having the property. They sold it.

The problem was that when they sold it, they could not sell the property for what they paid because the lease rates were too high. There are dangers and risks of that happening.

Many problems already exist for the current government systems on reserves. How could a proud people who receive a decent amount of money each year end up in poverty? It is because so much of the money does not get to the grassroots members. We can understand their fears for granting chiefs additional power.

Some bands have millions of dollars in the bank but their members are relying on outside charity assistance to fill the gap left between the transfers to the councils and the transfers from the councils. Many believe this legislation will only concentrate that power further.

Section 28 is not the only problem area. There are also growing concerns that the treatment of women under Bill C-49 would be a big problem. There are not adequate provisions to govern situations of marital break-up. The division of property, possessions and use thereof are not adequately addressed in this legislation.

Bill C-49 contains two provisions that are particularly worrisome for native women. First, it states that rules and procedures regarding the use, occupation and possession of land upon the breakdown of marriage will be determined by the land codes at each signatory band. There is little assurance that these future provisions will be any less tilted against the interests of women and their children than the results of the current system.

The minister of Indian affairs must get her head above the sand. The very people she is claiming to assist are the ones who are being left in the cold. She must develop a clear communications network between all participants, particularly the grassroots members. This is the only way we are going to develop trust between the parties. An open and honest consultation process is essential. Currently this is not the case. Many of the existing problems can be traced back to these fundamental communication breakdowns.

A communication network is essential outside the bands too. There are a lot of communities that deal with the band councils daily on a business level. They need to be assured that there will not be confrontational styles of relationships.

Bill C-49 will not provide enough assurances to outside communities that land codes will be consistent and in harmony. We could end up by having the new industrial area right next to the newest park. We could have homes placed in the path of pollution. I am sure we could think of many other examples. It is important to co-ordinate these efforts with the surrounding communities. We must remember that people who live together must work together too.

There are also concerns that one level of government with powers restricted from others will cause problems and inhibit the co-operation I have been promoting. There is a concern long before lawyers get hold of C-49. After lawyers get hold of C-49 we could be in for the ride of a lifetime, especially when dealing with clauses 20 to 24.

How can lawmaking powers associated with criminal law be given to band councils? Is this not the role of parliament? Is that not unconstitutional? There are many, many questions that have to be asked about this bill.

I fully recognize the good intentions underlying this bill and I know a great deal of work has been done in developing it. However, we cannot pass legislation that opens a legal can of worms.

I support development on the reserves. It is important that aboriginals be free to contribute to their immediate and surrounding communities as they see fit. If C-49 passes, we will see disputes and mistrust long before we will see co-operation and harmony. We must remember that it has historically been these disputes and mistrusts that have prevented many bands from proceeding with development long before now.

This bill is not right and in my humble opinion it should not pass.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, naive, I think not.

I would like to speak on behalf of victims. I have been a victim of vehicle theft, as have other members I am sure. I will relate my story and its outcome to show one of my difficulties in trying to understand how our legal system works.

It is noon. My company vehicle, filled with stock and equipment, is stolen. Not just the stock and equipment, but the vehicle to go with it. The police are called. After five hours and no action, I went out looking for the vehicle myself. Where did I find it? It drove right by me, right in front of my office. I found the vehicle myself. With a cell phone and modern communications I had the police there within minutes.

The point of this story is not that the vehicle or the stock and material were gone but it is about the person who did it. When he was captured and collared by the police he said “Whoa, three months, I need a rest, and I will be out of there”.

He stole a vehicle with some $10,000 worth of test equipment and expensive gear inside it and he was out running around peddling it. By the time I caught him, half of the equipment was gone. Besides doing that, he ran from the police, rammed a police car and two other vehicles and this individual is going to be out in three months. Why? Because we have a legal system that packages everything together.

I really think this is a perfect example for the bill from the member for Wild Rose. It is absolutely spot on. Give him one year—

[Hong Kong Veteran Prisoner Compensation Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, an act to provide for compensation to those Canadian veterans who were taken prisoner by the Japanese in 1941 in Hong Kong and forced to work in labour camps.

Mr. Speaker, Christmas Day 1941 started a despicable period of time when 2,000 Canadian soldiers who defended Hong Kong were interned by the Japanese and put into forced labour in Japanese industries.

Since that period of incarceration, Japan made a settlement of $1 a day in the early 1950s which was not a settlement in kind. The Canadian government went on in 1955 to conspire against further compensation to these same war veterans.

This bill is to set right a gross wrong that occurred many years ago. It is long overdue. It is fair, right and has all-party support. I must be done.

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

[Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs compared Canada's merchant navy war veterans to convicted kidnappers Lamont and Spencer. Other comments were made such as undemocratic, blackmailers and un-Canadian.

Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs please explain this outrageous slander of Canada's proud war veterans and apologize now for the hurt that these comments have caused?

[Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's merchant navy veterans have suffered imposed poverty since World War II. The minister says no to retroactivity for merchant navy war veterans but ex gratia lump sum payments have been made in the past. Stonewalling on terminology is disgraceful. Merchant navy veterans are not seeking great wealth, just equality.

The merchant navy concerns are to be recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for years of inequality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial days.

A motion in committee asked the minister to address these four concerns. Not one, two or three of them but all four. The motion has support from all opposition parties. Will the government not finally add its support and end this sordid affair?

[Motions For Papers, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-46 to be called.

Motion P-46

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and correspondence regarding all aspects of what is known as the Gulf War Syndrome.