36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 152
CONTENTS
Monday, November 16, 1998
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1120
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1125
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1140
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1145
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1150
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of Sitting
|
1200
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting Resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-42. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
1205
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1230
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-48. Second reading
|
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1315
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1350
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1355
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JEAN VANIER
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1400
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR WEAPONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR DAUPHIN—SWAN RIVER
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GASOLINE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MICHEL TRUDEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOUIS RIEL
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC FINANCES
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHT HON. JOE CLARK
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MISSISSAUGA WEST
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET SURPLUS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET SURPLUS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET SURPLUS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACOA
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AID
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICEBREAKING POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTRAL AMERICA
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Athabasca
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1505
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1510
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1520
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1525
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1530
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Merchant Navy Veterans
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
1535
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANITOBA CLAIM SETTLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-56. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1625
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1630
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1645
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1650
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1655
1700
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1725
1730
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1755
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1800
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1815
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1820
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1825
1830
1850
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
1900
(Division 258)
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208. Third reading
|
1910
(Division 259)
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARITABLE DONATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1915
(Division 260)
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-42. Report stage
|
1920
(Division 261)
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-48. Second reading
|
1925
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
(Division 262)
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1930
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1935
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-13
|
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1940
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 152
![](/web/20061116191443im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 16, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
The House resumed from October 1 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank members for giving me the opportunity to
speak to this motion. I know that my colleague opposite had six
minutes remaining, but since he is not here I will take the
opportunity.
I want to commend the hon. the member for Fraser Valley for
introducing this motion, which suggests that the government bring
in legislation to make the tax deduction for contributions to
charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for
contributions to political parties.
On the surface, if one were to look at this motion they would
say it is great. For myself, as someone who represents a
constituency that is urban in nature, I have thousands of
organizations and community groups who on a daily basis are doing
good work in the community. I do not want to name these
organizations, but I can tell members that they range from
hospitals to educational institutions to children's organizations
to health and social service organizations to housing groups and
so on.
These men, women, young boys and girls are out in their
community on a daily basis, reaching out, trying to help those
who are in need of help. Frankly, if we want to address the
issue of charities and charitable work, it is these individuals
and organizations that we have to acknowledge with regard to the
well-being of our society and our community.
These individuals volunteer because they want to do good. These
people contribute thousands of hours on an annual basis. They
contribute their time and energy, not because they want to be
rewarded, not because they want to be recognized, but because
they want to do something good for the community. These
individuals volunteer because it makes them feel that much better
about themselves and about the society in which they live, and
they feel good about supporting and helping others.
At no time have I ever heard an individual tell me that he or
she was not going to support an organization or a cause because
there were no financial incentives. These people volunteer
because they want to. They do it because they know that they
live in a compassionate and caring community.
I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary secretary for finance
for speaking on this issue. He clearly stated to the House that
what we require in this society is a balance.
We have a system which treats political contributions
differently than charitable contributions. I will tell members
how.
1110
If I was to give $100 to a political organization, then at the
end of the year I would be able to claim a tax credit of $75.
However, if I was to give a charitable organization $100, at the
end of the year I would only be able to claim $30.
On the surface anyone would say that is unfair and that we have
to correct this situation. But that is not the whole issue.
The vast majority of Canadians give more than $300 a year,
especially those who give to charities. As a result, the
government has recognized the need to provide incentives to those
who want to give to charities. Therefore, the government created
a balance. It created a sliding scale. Those who contribute
$250 or more to charities will get more of a tax rebate or more
of a tax credit. For those who give to political organizations
the government has created a sliding scale that decreases in
terms of a tax credit.
In a sense it is not fair for us to judge the system on the
first $10, $20 or $30 that my colleague was talking about. This
is not what all of these men and women are giving to charities.
What they are giving to charities over a period of a whole year,
which in most cases is over $250, is where we see the beauty of
our tax treatment and the beauty of our system when it comes to
recognizing those who are giving to charities.
It becomes clear at $1,150. Say, for example, that an
individual Canadian is giving $1,160 to a charity and is giving
$1,160 to a political party. He will get more credit for his
contribution to the charity than to the political organization.
If somebody gives a charitable organization $2,000 he will get a
lot more in tax credits than if he was to give that $2,000 to a
political party. If he gave $1,180, for the additional $30 he
will get no tax credit. If he gave $2,000 he will get no tax
credit for the additional $850.
To that extent the tax system is fair when one looks at the
outer end, at those amounts above $250 or $300.
If we were to make large contributions like many organizations
and individual Canadians do, for example to a hospital or to a
university, if $10,000 or $20,000 was given, a tax credit of up
to 75% would apply. However, if $10,000 or $20,000 was given to
a political party there would not be a tax credit.
We have to look at the whole spectrum rather than simply looking
at one small piece of the pie. If we were to look at the whole
spectrum I would say we have gone a long way in trying to address
the inequity in the system.
The government, since taking office, has introduced a number of
initiatives and I would like to list only three. First, the
government adopted measures that will lower the threshold for
eligibility for the 29% tax credit to $200 from $250. Second, it
adopted measures that will raise the annual income limit for the
use of charitable donations to most charities from 20% to 75%.
Third, it has reduced the income inclusion rate for capital gains
arising from donations of appreciated publicly traded securities
to 37.5%.
I would say that the measures which have been taken by the
government are fair. Are they the best things we can do for
charities? No. We can do a lot more. Are we doing more for
charities? Yes. Should we do more for charities? Yes.
There are over 80,000 charitable organizations across the land.
Collectively their voluntary contribution in terms of manpower,
in terms of men and women contributing through charities, is in
excess of $12 billion a year. These are the issues that need to
be addressed if we want to look at the fairness of the system and
at the equity of the system.
1115
The motion as proposed by my colleague would not solve the
problem at all. It would be a complicating factor rather than
solve the problem. What we have before us is a balancing act.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. M-318.
I will add a few contextual comments and note that we live in a
time that is unparalleled in human history. Information is
flooding our senses. New developments occur monthly that in the
past took decades, if not longer.
I remember the comments of a leading social scientists who put
it somewhat in perspective. He said that a 70 year old person
living today has seen more technological and related social
change in his or her lifetime than occurred in the entire human
history prior to his or her birth.
Business communities and social communities form, thrive, mature
and decline in much shorter cycles than ever before. Boom and
bust cycles are shorter. We live in a time of dynamic and
exciting change all around us. To attempt to hold to the old
paradigm of a top down, centralist approach that says we will
meet all needs just cannot do the optimal job in a dynamically
changing nation made up of the communities in which we live.
Reform has long recognized this point. It is one of the reasons
we advocate that the first order of government should be that
which is closest to the people: municipal government first and
then provincial government. The federal government should only
address key national issues. Government close to the people will
serve them best.
I appreciate Motion No. M-318 because it parallels this
philosophy. The motion provides an opportunity to empower local
communities to best tailor solutions which meet the needs within
their communities. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to
charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for
contributions to political parties.
If we can provide a strong funding incentive to political
parties through the tax act, why not charitable organizations
that work for the good in our communities? Charitable
organizations usually combine volunteer or contributed service
with the dollars they receive, thereby increasing the
contribution of each dollar in the community.
Charities usually manage their money carefully as it is
dependent upon charitable giving. It is not a limitless supply.
They must demonstrate effective management and results if
contributions are to continue. The needs of the community vary.
Individuals giving to the charities of their choice express the
needs within the community. Their choices allow for the matching
of givings to the preferences of the givers and the priorized
needs of the community.
Large scale government programs funded by tax dollars do not
allow the giver to choose and do not allow for variations in
community needs. They are more likely to cost more and deliver
less. In short the community approach hits the mark. The
government approach is less than the best and often misses the
mark.
In light of the efficient way in which charities contribute to
the quality of life in our communities, especially considering
the dynamics of the times we live in and the need to improve the
effectiveness of government social programs, it is time consider
changing the tax act to address the inequitable tax treatment of
charities versus political parties.
We can pose this question in our ridings “Do you think a dollar
given to a charity does at least as much if not more for the
quality of life in your community than a dollar given to a
political party?” I know what the answer would be in my riding.
I think we all do. It is time to support the motion.
Calgary Centre is a thriving entrepreneurial business capital
with more than 103 corporate head offices.
Calgary is second only to Toronto in the number of head offices.
Yet contrary to the heartless image of the entrepreneurial profit
making business people, which is a picture some in the House like
to paint, Calgary thrives with volunteers and charities that make
for a rich quality of life in a very caring community.
1120
Calgary's rate of volunteerism is one of the highest in Canada.
Charities such as CUPS work with street people in the inner city,
drug addicts and prostitutes. They train, coach, counsel and
care for people effectively. Through the efforts of this charity
Calgarians have seen many gain victory over their past and find
joyful purpose again through the work of the dedicated volunteers
in that charity.
We could take the example of the Calgary street teens program
run by a retired vice-squad Detective Ross McInnis who together
with his volunteers give many hours and often risk their personal
safety to save the lives of young teenagers who have become
enticed and trapped in the drug and prostitution activities that
sometimes occur in the inner city. Families have been restored
through this program. Some of the troubled youth who have been
helped now work to help others ensnared in teen prostitution.
The Youth Immigration Support Society of Calgary is run by a
Calgary doctor. The purpose of this charity is to help integrate
immigrant second language youth in a healthy way into our Calgary
community. I met many of these teens and saw their joyful faces.
This is work that no other group could do in the same way.
For close to 15 years now Jubilee Christian Centre has provided
a Christmas banquet for the homeless and disadvantaged in
Calgary. Over the years, thanks to donations of many corporate
and private sponsors, this event has grown. Hundreds of
volunteers now provide an all you can eat five course meal,
clothing and gifts for 1,500 people at a massive Christmas party.
The volunteers have as much fun as the guests.
These and hundreds more that I could list are examples of the
vibrant contributions to the quality of life that charities
provide to the Calgary community. Government programs cannot
duplicate the sense of community, caring and joy giving that
charity work brings. If giving to a political party has benefit,
giving to a charity has no less benefit. Some would reasonably
argue that giving to a charity adds far more to the quality of
life in our communities.
I also note that this idea is not foreign to the House. It was
a suggestion made by the finance committee in 1996 which
recommended:
Two years ago the finance committee recommended the change we
are debating in the motion today. I hope now is the time to move
ahead.
For sake of time I move to my summary and note that change is
everywhere. Let us empower the charities on the frontline in
Canada and in Canadian communities to meet the needs of those
communities. They are closer to the community. They add value
to the dollars they are given through flexible volunteerism. They
have heart and caring that government programs can never match.
The finance committee recommended it two years ago. In a
post-deficit world it is right to give these charities that are
giving time and effort to Canadians fair treatment. Let us give
this process fair consideration and unanimously support Motion
No. M-318.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Motion No. M-318. The
PC Party is willing to support the motion on behalf of charities
across Canada.
With the latest round of government downsizing charities across
the country have been placed under even more pressure and perform
wider ranging activities. A perfect example of this is the
Victorian Order of Nurses. The VON is a national organization
with branches reaching across the country.
In recent years the role of the VON has been forced to expand
exponentially as our health care services have been cut by the
Liberal government. Many branches have been forced to increase
their fundraising efforts to make up for the decline in funding
resulting from higher cuts at the federal and subsequently
provincial levels.
1125
The VON branch in my riding of West Nova and those in many other
areas have suffered severe funding cuts from the municipalities
as the counties struggle to deal with cuts from provincial and
federal governments.
A charity organization like the VON offers essential health
services to the elderly in my riding. Programs like PEP,
promoting elderly participation, which was initiated with the
help of Health Canada during the Conservative government, help to
keep seniors active and involved with other citizens in their
community. These are programs that no longer receive government
funding. The charities have had to find alternative funding
arrangements to continue their services.
Meanwhile VON groups are also forced to fundraise to subsidize
visiting nurses programs to individuals who need to be checked at
home. For the elderly who cannot afford to pay for home visits,
these services are essential to their health care. These visiting
nurses programs combined with PEP, respite care and Meals on
Wheels would not exist if it were not for the dedication and
perseverance of volunteers and the generosity of donors.
When a person representing a political party in Canada can offer
a potential donor a greater tax incentive to donate to a
political party than an individual canvassing for a group like
the VON, or many other worthwhile charities that provide
essential health services, it uncovers an injustice in our tax
system. It also highlights a larger problem: the complexity of
Canada's tax code.
If I had a complete copy of our tax code today it would stand
nearly the same height as I am from the floor. Filing a tax
return should not require an individual to hire a tax lawyer or
an accountant. We are talking about dealing with our own
government and having to hire someone to do it for us.
When I stand in the House to discuss tax relief for low income
Canadians it should be remembered that tax reform should not make
tax more complex. The guiding principle behind tax reform should
be tax simplification. Even the finance committee recognizes the
need to assist our charities in their efforts to expand their
fundraising activities.
During prebudget consultations last year witnesses before the
committee suggested the exact motion we are debating today. The
finance committee included it as a recommendation in its report
to the Minister of Finance.
In conclusion, charities like the VON and many others should not
be at a disadvantage compared to political parties when
canvassing for donations. If we were to increase the charitable
donations to be in line with the political system, charities
across the country would receive enormous benefit. These
charitable organizations offer essential services to society and
should be encouraged, not discouraged, from continuing their
activities.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the government
thinks it is very important to make sure all charitable
organizations obtain contributions and recognition for the work
they do. I and everyone else in the House would certainly
support measures to make sure that political contributions and
the work done by charitable organizations are recognized.
This is a motherhood issue when we stop to think about it. On
the one side we can say that charitable organizations fill many
gaps that government can no longer afford to pay. Charitable
organizations can broaden the spectrum and add to the quality of
life of many people. That is a given and is very true. Every
one of us sees it in our communities.
1130
I commend all charitable organizations and all the work they do.
This bill however brings bring into existence a change in tax
policy and suggests that whatever we do on the political
contribution side should be matched equally on the charitable
side. In that kind of scenario I question whether both of those
measures have been set up for very specific reasons.
It is my belief that charitable organizations have been treated
relatively well by this government. We have moved the agenda
forward. We have increased the tax forgiveness for charitable
organizations over the last four years even though we have had
very tough times. The government is no longer spending $42
billion more than it is taking in. The direction has been to
make sure that there is a balanced approach to this question.
Talking against a tax structure for charitable donations might
be like talking against apple pie. The reality is that for the
first $200 of charitable donations, the dollar amount people can
have as a tax deduction is in the neighbourhood of 30% whereas
for the first $200 of donations to a political party, the amount
is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60%.
There is a little better tax break for very small amounts given
to a political party. However, as the tax structure is built,
those people who give larger amounts to charitable organizations
receive a far better tax break. After that magic figure of $200,
people who give for example $100 to the heart association, $100
to the cancer association, $100 to a walkathon or some other
local fundraiser, will get a better tax break after they have
given $200 than before.
The point is that this government cannot afford to chop money
out of its operating budgets because we would be placed in a
position of reducing service to the Canadian population. In
talking about the cost of this motion, without taking into
account all of the donations above $200, it is my understanding
on the first amount where this bill may equalize the political
contributions and the charitable donations, it would cost the
government in the neighbourhood of $125 million on that first
$200. That is a pretty hefty cost.
A lot of work has gone into every government department to make
sure that they streamline their spending, hold wage increases to
employees, make certain that all things happening in every
department to deliver the most vital services at the least
expense have been looked at. Now we hear from the opposition to
spend money here, spend more money there, give tax breaks here,
give another opportunity there. At every juncture we are being
asked to run this country using the scenario it ran on for so
many years: if there is a problem, run the wheelbarrow full of
money out and resolve the problem; if somebody wants money for a
venture or somebody is having a problem, government can solve it
by spending more money.
We came out of that. This country is doing better on the world
scene today. We are doing better on the employment initiatives.
We are doing better on delivery of service to Canadians.
We are doing better because we have not moved to a different
course of spending more money than we can, reducing taxes to buy
in many cases the favour of a few.
1135
At this point it is important that the government maintain the
course we are on. We have to do the best we can for those making
political donations. We have to make certain the rules and
opportunities are there for those offering services to Canadians
so we can help them as well as we can. However, I am frightened
because day after day I hear more people suggesting in the House
that we have money to spend and to give away, that we do not need
to take in as much revenue. All those arguments are there, but
that will inevitably lead us to our own defeat.
We must maintain a course of being as prudent as we can be. We
must maintain a course of making sure we deliver services as
efficiently as we can. We must make sure we maintain what
Canadians have elected us to do, to be prudent in the decisions
we make in the House and to make certain we get this economy back
on track.
Some people say that since we have $3 billion to $6 billion more
income than what we are spending, we should spend that $3 billion
to $6 billion. I remind everybody in this House that there is a
debt of $600 billion which must be paid for either by people
today or by future generations. We cannot and should not get
into a situation where we do anything except stay the course and
try to be as fair with every organization and citizen as we can
be.
Although it is a motherhood and apple pie issue in many ways
where some say we should give them a better break, the other side
of the coin suggests that if we continue to move in that
direction we will be going back to old ways which inevitably will
be bad for Canadians.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of my
colleague's motion. The timing is certainly right. We are in
the middle of prebudget consultations. It has been looked at a
couple of times already, but this year it may have a little more
credibility when it comes to the floor.
For the record the motion is “That, in the opinion of this
House, the government should bring in legislation making the tax
deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no
less”—and I stress no less—“than the tax deduction for
contributions to political parties”.
Examples have been stated before. Someone giving a $100
donation to a political party will receive a $75 federal tax
credit, while a $100 charitable donation, which is the average
donation given to a charity or less than that, only garners $17.
There is quite a disparity. Motion No. M-318 sets out to change
that and to make it better for everyone.
I would like to make it clear that we are not calling for more
more complexity to the tax code or for more government
expenditures. Motion No. M-318 urges the government to make the
charitable tax credit no less than the political tax credit. The
words “no less” give the government flexibility to change the
tax credit in any way it likes. It can lower the political
donation tax credit, increase the charitable donation tax credit,
or have the credit amounts meet somewhere in the middle, as long
as the charitable donation tax credit is no less than the
political donation tax credit.
This means the costs of implementing Motion No. M-318 could be
as little or as extensive as the parliamentary committee decides.
The last member spoke to this issue and said that it would cost
$125 million to implement this type of system. It is not really
a cost but an investment in communities. Charities certainly do
pick up the slack when governments at all levels pull back. We
have seen tremendous lines at soup kitchens and so on. Charitable
organizations are picking up that slack, not governments.
Governments are actually helping to create the problem.
If the government looks at the value charities bring to society,
it has to admit that giving a huge break for political
contributions represents misplaced priorities when compared to
the meagre credit it gives to the efforts of Canadians to support
the poor and the vulnerable. As the member for Ottawa Centre
talked about, despite its efforts the federal government still
must do more to help charities.
1140
For instance, the Ottawa Citizen reported last year that
Michael Hall, the director of research at the Canadian Centre for
Philanthropy doubted “the shortfall left by government cuts is
being covered by increased donations. That is a huge gap to
fill”, he said.
To counter this negative trend and help charities meet the
increased demands on their resources, Motion No. M-318 recommends
that the tax deduction for contributions to charitable
organizations again be no less than political ones. The
government can play with the numbers and make them fit as it sees
fit.
Government members have recognized this disparity in the past.
In the 1996 prebudget report by the Standing Committee on Finance
and again in 1997 it was recommended that the government enhance
the charitable tax credit for donations to charities currently
funded by governments to make it as generous as the current
political tax credit for small donations to political parties.
Not for the first time, the Minister of Finance ignored the
recommendations. By the rhetoric we are hearing this morning, it
seems as though the Liberals have already determined that this
prebudget consultation is finished and again there will be no
charitable status changes. That prebudget consultation is not yet
done so they are a little bit ahead of themselves in that regard.
One can only assume that the federal government ignored the
recommendation in the 1996 and subsequent budgets because of, as
it says, public financial costs. As Canada moves into this
post-deficit world however, levelling the playing field between
political parties and charities that leverage more money to do
their good works in the community is a very timely idea. It has
become more affordable to the government and as such deserves
broader public debate and discussion. That is what we are doing
here today.
I find it interesting that the report specifies charities
currently funded by government. I take that to mean members
recognize the taxpayers' dollars doled out by government
generosity could be replaced by money doled out by the taxpayers
themselves, that big brother knows best. We are saying get that
money back to the communities where it came from to begin with.
The report also uses the phrase “to make it as generous as the
current political tax credits”. This is one option, but as I
mentioned earlier, we are not trying to push the government to
commit to more expenditures, only to examine how it has skewed
the present tax structure. I am interested in promoting two
things here today, simplicity and fairness in the tax system and
that this government has an obligation to recognize that
contributions to worthy charities should be as valuable as
contributions to political parties.
Volunteers are the backbone of charitable donations to the
groups that they serve and also form the fabric of the
communities they seek to make better. We as legislators must be
aware of that and continue to support their efforts.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to speak to this issue. I
have been very interested in charities for some years and have
done quite a study of them.
Motion No. M-318 operates on the premise that less governance is
better and to devolve government social services to independent
organizations is a better thing. If Motion No. M-318 were acted
upon, billions of dollars would go into charities as opposed to
government services. We would notice immediately the effects of
changing the tax credit structure with respect to charities.
Motion No. M-318 operates on the premise that if more money is
given to charities, the charities will provide the services
better than government. It ignores the reality that charities
operate with the least level of transparency and accountability
of any organizations in Canadian society today. At least when
government provides services, government bureaucracies are
accountable. Various legislation controls the transparency of how
government bureaucracies operate. In the case of charities, this
is not so, as it applies to all non-profit organizations.
An illustration of that is the Canada Corporations Act which
provides standards of corporate governance and transparency and
accountability to for-profit organizations. It provides nothing
for non-profit organizations. Charities and non-profit
organizations can operate and have no requirement under law to be
transparent and accountable.
Members opposite propose that what is necessary in society is to
give more power over social services to organizations that are
not accountable to the people. These organizations are
accountable to their board of directors, but there is no
legislation that guarantees that the executive members of the
charity actually have to report the truth to the board of
directors. Therefore we have a situation where many charities
operate at a high level of inefficiency.
1145
I will give a classic example. In Ontario the Harris government
has been cutting back on hospitals. It is causing all kinds of
problems in health care. The hospitals have been ordered to cut
20% from their total spending. Lost are the nurses, the medical
care and the beds. The administrators stay on. The
administrators are not hurt. The administrators actually raise
their salary.
Increasingly, talking to my Ontario colleagues, I find the
Ontario government is becoming aware that it is not good enough
just to cut a charity. If someone cannot control how that
charity actually spends its money, if there is a cut like that,
the administrators of those charities are the ones who will
benefit. So in Ontario we have a very severe problem. I suggest
it is because hospitals are charities.
The anecdotal evidence of the directors of hospitals not being
informed by their own executive, the administrators of those
hospitals, of the operation of the hospital is everywhere.
Anyone who has ever served on the board of directors of a
hospital realizes that as a director they cannot get good
information on how that hospital operates. We are talking about
charities just in the hospital sector involving billions and
billions of dollars.
The Reform Party motion operates on the premise of getting
government out of the supplying of social services, returning it
to the community.
If we do not have rules, if we do not have legislation in place
that governs how our organizations spend money, then we are
abrogating our very responsibility as politicians. We are here
to serve the people of Canada who pay taxes to make sure those
taxes are spent efficiently and well.
If we abrogate that responsibility, if we give it down the line
to organizations that are not connected to the government and we
do not set rules and legislation in place that govern those
organizations, we are absolutely betraying the trust of the
people of Canada.
I suggest Motion No. 318 is certainly a motherhood and apple pie
issue. I also suggest that it is a politically correct issue
because the people putting the motion forward think across Canada
people everywhere will automatically support charities. One
member opposite said that all he had to do was check in his
constituency and he would find that everyone supports charity.
I suggest to members opposite that they do that. They will find
that in Canadian society today, for very good reason people are
more and more suspicious that the charities supposed to be doing
the good work are, in many instances, extremely self-serving.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the chance to wrap up on Motion No. 318 which I brought
forward some months ago.
There has been some consultation. I wonder if you would find
unanimous consent that if a recorded division is asked for at the
conclusion of this debate, the vote will be deferred to the end
of Government Orders today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure
to bring forward this motion. It has been described various
ways, as apple pie and motherhood and a few other things.
However, the intend of the motion was much more serious than
that.
Had the member for Wentworth—Burlington read my initial speech,
he would have realized I mentioned him in my speech. I mentioned
that the accountability of charitable organizations is a good
issue, one he has championed and I do not deny him that.
Everything cannot be done in this one motion. It has to do with
helping those charities I think we all agree have done a good job
of helping Canadian society. I hope that no one on either side
of the House is denying that many charities do a lot of good
work.
This motion also has come under challenge by the finance
minister who said it would deny larger donors to charitable
organizations the right to contribute large sums of money. That
is just not true.
1150
The reason the motion is crafted this way is to encourage
the small giver, the ones who are probably typical of an average
Canadian giver who gives a few hundred dollars to charity, and to
help those people do more with their money. This motion is not
asking the government to give more money to charities. It is
allowing those individuals to contribute more and be recognized
for it.
Regarding the other rules the finance minister has brought in to
encourage other donors to contribute large amounts to charitable
organizations, in my first speech I acknowledge that was also a
good idea. I appreciate the initiative of the finance minister
in that area. However, I wish the finance minister would not try
to mix apples and oranges together because we are talking about
two totally different issues.
The motion I think does have wide support. It also has the
moral suasion behind it that we in political parties would argue
do some good in society or we think we do at times, but we do not
have more of a moral bat to swing than charities. That is for
sure. The accountability is no more stricter here than it is for
charities.
The finance committee has already brought forward an idea and
this is a takeoff on that. It is high time we recognize charities
do good work in this country. We want to encourage more people.
We want to become a culture of giving. That culture can be helped
by a government policy that says political contributions will not
be considered more favourably than charitable donations.
The motion is very timely in view of the current budgetary
situation in Canada. It is very doable. For a modest fee we can
create something I think we all support, looking after our
neighbour as we would look after our own.
For that reason I am pleased that this motion has come forward.
I look forward to the vote tonight. I ask members on all sides
of the House to vote yea in favour of Motion No. 318.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 11.52 a.m., the
time provided for debate has expired.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
Pursuant to agreement made earlier, the recorded division on the
motion stands deferred until the end of Government Orders today.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there
is unanimous consent to suspend the House until noon.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.53 a.m.)
1200
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-42, an act to
amend the Tobacco Act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There is one motion in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-42,
an act to amend the Tobacco Act.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
[Translation]
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27
and 28 on page 1 with the following:
She said: Mr. Speaker, I very pleased to have the opportunity
to address Bill C-42 at report stage and to discuss the amendment
to the amended bill before us.
It is important for the record to say that the speed with which
the bill is being put through the various stages of the
legislative process is remarkable. The opportunities for public
participation have been limited and the significance with which
amendments have been treated is of deep concern to all of us.
Bill C-42 waters down, weakens or dilutes many of the provisions
under Bill C-71 passed by the House in April 1997. Its tobacco
sponsorship restrictions would have come into effect on October 1
of this year but for the amendments to Bill C-42 before us today.
We have been concerned throughout the process and will continue
to register concerns about the dilution of the tobacco
sponsorship restrictions which creates more opportunities for
young people to be influenced by tobacco advertising, by
lifestyle advertising, as opposed to the kind of leadership we
expect the government to offer in terms of being as proactive as
possible in ensuring that young people are not influenced in any
way to take up smoking.
My amendment deals with a very significant issue in the package
before members this morning. It should be noted that during
committee stage members of the government on the health committee
included a weakening amendment that they did not explain at all.
The original bill grandparented sponsored permanent facilities,
for example a theatre having tobacco signs, as of the date of
first reading of the bill. The amendment has the grandparenting
effective as of the date the bill receives royal assent.
It is very clear from this change that the government is
prepared to allow newly sponsored permanent facilities which
engage in tobacco advertising between June 3, 1998, when the bill
was first introduced to the House, and the time when the bill
gets royal assent—there is no specific date for the royal
assent; no one can be assured of just how fast it will happen—to
sponsor advertising and the display of tobacco promotions for
five years.
It is a significant development. It slipped through committee.
There was no justification. There was no explanation. It is our
firm belief that as a minimum the government should be changing
the bill back to the original intention so that the date of June
3, 1998 comes into effect. This would at least be a minimal step
toward restricting the amount of tobacco sponsorship advertising
that is taking place. It would also be a tiny step toward
limiting the exposure of young people to lifestyle advertising.
1205
We have tried through every way possible to convince the
government to accept some amendments that would take us back to
the original intentions of Bill C-21, which is about protecting
the health of Canadians. We have reacted strongly and
consistently to the amendments before us today which put the
whole thing off and allows for a greater period of unfettered
advertising by tobacco companies at events attended very heavily
by young people who are influenced greatly by the advertising
that takes place.
In conjunction with the amendment we put forward it is important
to remind all members of the House that we are dealing with a
very grave and growing public health problem. Although I do not
need to remind members, I will remind them that we are dealing
with at least 40,000 deaths per year, if not more, as a result of
tobacco related illnesses. We know that every year 250,000 young
people get hooked on smoking. We also know that 85% of adults
today who smoke are addicted because they started before the age
of 18. We know that there is a high rate of smoking among young
people between the ages of 15 and 19.
We know we have a serious problem which will lead to enormous
health costs down the road. Yet on every occasion the government
has taken the most feeble, cautionary approach possible. It is
an approach which flies in the face of everything we know about
the seriousness of the issue. It also flies in the face of what
other jurisdictions are doing.
It is shameful that the government is so unwilling to act and
show political courage to deal head on with the tobacco industry
at a time when jurisdictions like British Columbia are prepared
to take serious steps toward making the tobacco industry
accountable for the damage it has caused among young people.
It is time for the government to show leadership. Whether we
are talking about Bill C-42 and the attempts by the government to
dilute and weaken the Tobacco Act; whether we are talking about
resistance to Bill S-13, the Tobacco Industry Responsibility Act;
or whether we are talking about the government's refusal to
expend money it promised in the last election for tobacco
prevention and education among young people, we must keep in mind
that the government promised $100 million over five years. It
has spent about 2% of that and has shown no sign of moving
rapidly and quickly to put in place the kinds of programs which
actually deter young people from getting started and becoming
hooked on cigarettes.
Our concern is for the government to show leadership and not to
run away and hide from the serious issues before us. We would
urge the government and all members to support our amendment so
that Bill C-42 is not diluted any further and the true intentions
of Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, are adhered to and held up as a
starting point for Canadians.
We implore the government to continue working with parliament
and the many health organizations that want stronger tobacco laws
for the sake of our health and for the sake of our kids.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-42. We had a
good and thorough discussion at committee. The government
proposed several amendments. I thought I would like to use my
time today to repeat for all members of the House and those
watching this important debate the government's position, the
government's intention and the government's commitment.
I am pleased to be here today with the support of the Minister
of Health on this important initiative. Bill C-42 amends the
Tobacco Act. I reiterate the government's view that Bill C-42
will toughen the existing Tobacco Act.
It is another step forward in our work to control a substance
that we recognize is a killer. It is at the root of about 40,000
premature deaths each year in Canada.
1210
Bill C-42 places us consistently among international leaders in
controlling the promotion of tobacco. I hope all people watching
the debate and those in the House know that the primary focus of
the bill is a five year timetable to end the marketing of tobacco
products through event sponsorship. That is a very significant
and important component of Bill C-42.
At the end of five years there will be a complete ban on tobacco
sponsorship. We propose to accomplish this through a
transitional process. Sports and cultural events that were in
place with tobacco sponsorship prior to April 25, 1997 would have
a two year period without new sponsorship restrictions but only
during that period. During the following three years we want to
tighten the limits significantly.
Onsite promotion of tobacco sponsorships would be able to
continue. Offsite promotions would have to meet the 90:10 rules
of the existing Tobacco Act. We would place stringent conditions
on these offsite promotions to limit the exposure of young people
to the marketing of tobacco products. In five years there would
be no more promotions of tobacco sponsorship. Event names and
facilities would not longer serve as a none too subtle reminder
of tobacco and tobacco products.
Bill C-42 came after substantial discussions and consultations
with all interested parties. We heard from the arts, sports and
other groups that would be affected these changes. They
indicated that they needed appropriate time frames to line up new
sponsors. Bill C-42 recognizes that reality.
We also heard from the health community. Health organizations
have been front and centre in the important work of the
Government of Canada to help make Canada tobacco free and to
ensure tobacco strategies and smoking cessation policies are in
place. The Government of Canada acknowledges and supports the
important work of the health community.
In particular I mention the work of the Canadian Cancer Society,
Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada and the Non-Smokers Rights
Association in the broader effort. Many health groups have been
a part of pushing appropriately for tobacco reduction strategies
and strong anti-tobacco policies and legislation. They have been
the leaders in the action overtime to get the anti-smoking
message out to Canadians. They have been powerful forces in
encouraging Canadians to keep moving the tobacco agenda ahead and
ensuring that Canada remains among world leaders.
Health organizations look at what we were doing in the bill.
Most understand where we want to go and how we want to get there.
Most support the directions we are taking in Bill C-42 toward the
prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions. We recognize that
most have concerns, and we are aware of those concerns.
They understand that the tobacco industry has constantly sought
new ways to market its products. As we in government and
previous governments have closed off old channel bylaws such as
this one, we know the tobacco industry has found new channels.
For example, tobacco companies have begun to use the Internet to
support events marketing in Canada, something many could not have
foreseen three or four years ago.
1215
With that in mind, the Canadian Cancer Society identified
amendments that it wanted to see in Bill C-42. During second
reading debate many members of the opposition indicated support
for those amendments. Many opposition members and I can tell the
House that many members on the government benches also supported
the amendments proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society.
Therefore, at committee, during the second reading clause by
clause debate, we announced that we were not only intending to
amend the bill, but we brought forward three particular
amendments which were supportive of the proposals that had been
made by the Canadian Cancer Society and supported by many, many
others in the House and outside the House.
First, we proposed that October 1, 1998 would specifically be
identified as the start date for the transition under this bill.
In effect, that means that the five year clock has already begun
to tick down on sponsorship promotions. If that amendment
passes, as it did at committee, and this bill passes in the
House, the clock has already begun to tick and the original
intent of the timeline is firmly in place, being October 1, 1998.
Second, we proposed that the only events that could be
grandfathered would be those that were already promoted in
Canada. Although we never intended that it would be otherwise,
this change makes it crystal clear that an event cannot be moved
from the United States or Australia or wherever into Canada and
be treated as if it had already been here.
Third, we proposed that only events that had been held in Canada
during the 15 months prior to April 25, 1997 could be
grandfathered. Once again it was never the intention of the
government to allow events to be resurrected solely for their
value as tobacco marketing vehicles. However, this amendment,
which was agreed to by the committee and is presently before the
House in the amended format of this bill, formalizes that intent
and makes it absolutely clear as to the way this bill will
function and operate.
The Canadian Cancer Society, as I said at committee, proposed
two other amendments. One would ban point of sale advertising
and the other would set a ceiling on sponsorship spending. We
looked at these very seriously and, after review, we believed
that both raised questions of feasibility and enforceability.
For those reasons we listened very carefully to what witnesses
had to say at committee. Today we have a bill before us that
does not reflect moving on anything that we do not believe is
either feasible or enforceable.
We launched the tobacco control initiative in 1996. We started
by setting aside $50 million a year over five years. We have
made a commitment to public education, another key component of
our strategy, one that we believe is critical, and we committed
yet another $50 million.
From the very beginning we knew that getting the greatest impact
out of these resources would take co-operation with the
provinces, territories, communities and non-governmental
organizations. We will be designing and are designing and
implementing the elements of the strategy in conjunction with all
of those stakeholders who share with us the determination to move
the yardstick.
Many years of anti-tobacco programming have given us a great
deal of information about what seems to work. Those years have
taught us that to battle against tobacco is a step by step
process and that it requires action in many areas.
Bill C-42 is one of the many valuable contributions to that work
and I look forward to the debate and the passage in the House of
the next step forward, a step that will lead to a complete ban in
tobacco sponsorship within five years.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here we have
good old Bill C-42. I listened to the words of the parliamentary
secretary carefully. Her words are that Bill C-42 will toughen
the Tobacco Act.
I do not believe we should always listen to politicians as to
whether or not a bill will in fact toughen legislation.
I believe in asking the groups which are affected and I took the
opportunity to do that. I asked the Canadian Cancer Society, the
Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, physicians' groups and
nursing groups throughout Canada whether or not Bill C-42 would
in fact toughen the Tobacco Act. The answer was universal. No,
it would not.
1220
The answer was really quite specific. They all said that in the
short term this would significantly weaken the Tobacco Act.
Interestingly enough, if this bill does come into full force it
will be after another election.
It is fascinating for me to have viewed the tobacco debate from
my perspective, which I must say is clouded. I am very biased in
this area because of my first patient as a medical student. The
patient was a veteran, a fellow who had emphysema from smoking.
As I got to know him well and spent quite a bit of time with him,
he ended his life virtually before my eyes. The last thing he
said to me was “Doctor, please don't let the kids smoke.”
I admit to having a very strenuous bias in this area. I look
for bills that will do exactly what that first patient asked me
to do, which was to prevent kids from smoking. I look for bills
that will help my kids, my own children, not to smoke.
I am afraid that I find Bill C-42 a weakening of the Tobacco
Act. There is no other way to say it.
I also found it fascinating that the Minister of Health, who was
here to debate Bill C-71, has not been present for the debate on
Bill C-42. It is interesting that he presented something just
prior to the last election that I do not believe he himself
believes in.
The Tobacco Act was really a pretty good act. It allowed
advertising in adult publications and bars where kids could not
go and it prevented advertising and sponsorship directed at
children.
I took the opportunity to ask the head of one of the pro-smoking
groups a question about advertising for a mountain bike
championship in Quebec which was held during the summer. The ads
were still running today in Alberta. I saw them in my home
province of Alberta this week. I asked him if he felt that
advertisement did not relate to kids.
My own teenagers are keen mountain bike enthusiasts. I do not
know anybody older than the age at which we can legally smoke who
is that keen on mountain biking. This is a youthful activity, an
activity that is directed at kids. Of course if the advertising
was just to get people to go to an event in Quebec, the
advertising would be stopped immediately after the event was
over, but the ads are still running months later.
His response was very illustrative. He said that it is very
difficult to design a program that does not have a broad overlap
with youth. In terms of sponsorship and advertising, that is the
only thing he said that I agree with. It is very difficult. The
overspill is immense.
Where does Bill C-42 place us in terms of international tobacco
interdiction? I asked a presenter from Quebec where this bill
places us in relationship to Quebec.
[Translation]
Quebec's tobacco legislation is stronger than Canada's. The
legislation in Quebec is very strong, which is not the case for
the Canadian legislation. Bill C-42 is weaker than the law in
Quebec.
1225
[English]
Formula 1 racing was the issue that pushed this bill into
position. Germany, France, Belgium and Britain took a very
specific stand against sponsorship in Formula 1.
I have had officials say to me that Canada could not do that
because we do not have as much strength and that Formula 1 will
disappear from Canada. It is fascinating to note that Air Canada
is now the title sponsor for Canadian Formula 1, so we have a
non-tobacco sponsor.
It is also fascinating to note that Australia, a country very
similar to Canada in terms of a unique Formula 1 environment, has
given tobacco a specific exemption from sponsorship laws and that
has to be done each year. Australia is moving toward the
complete ban of tobacco sponsorship in Formula 1. Canada is
weaker than Australia.
The specific amendment that has been placed on the table today I
support and I would expect that most of my colleagues will
support it. But might I finish this short discourse today by
saying that Bill C-42 does not toughen the Tobacco Act. It
weakens the Tobacco Act. I trust the health groups in Canada and
their judgment on this bill far more than I trust the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this afternoon on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois
in the debate made necessary by the amendment introduced by our
colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
I am even more pleased because my riding—the people of which I
take this opportunity to greet—is the home not only of well
organized anti-tobacco groups raising awareness in the schools
about the dangers of smoking, but also of the organizers of
major sporting events, like the Valleyfield Regatta, which the
Bloc Quebecois has always wanted to see protected to some
extent, at least for a transition period to be included in any
anti-tobacco legislation.
The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party reads as
follows:
That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 and
28 on page 1 with the following:
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the grace period
during which permanent facilities already using a name referring
to a tobacco company may retain it until the total ban scheduled
for the year 2003.
It will be recalled, moreover, that the current Tobacco Act
allows a tobacco product-related brand element or the name of a
manufacturer to be used on such facilities.
Bill C-42 goes much further than the present legislation in a
number of aspects.
For example, clause 2 prohibits the use of a tobacco
product-related brand element or the name of a tobacco
manufacturer on promotional material, whether the promotion is
of an individual, an entity, an event, an activity or a
permanent facility.
This clause will take full effect, under the current bill, in
October 2003. In the meantime, Bill C-42 provides that permanent
facilities already using a name containing a reference to
tobacco companies can keep it, on condition that the name be in
use when Bill C-42 is passed. This is where the amendment under
consideration comes in.
In order to benefit from the grace period, permanent facilities
should already be using the reference to tobacco companies, not
when Bill C-42 takes effect, as provided, but in fact when it was
tabled for first reading—on June 3.
1230
The amendment would therefore reduce the grandfathering period
for permanent facilities by a little less than six months.
Overall, Bill C-42 delays the implementation of certain sections
of the Tobacco Act, Bill C-71, concerning tobacco sponsorships.
So the amendments introduce a two-year moratorium on the
restrictions governing sponsorships by tobacco companies until
October 2000.
From the third to the fifth year, the restrictions will apply as
initially provided in Bill C-71, that is to say, the name of the
company may appear on only 10% or less of the advertising poster.
A total sponsorship ban will come into effect on October 1,
2003.
This initiative was in response to a request from the Bloc
Quebecois and promoters of sports and cultural events, asking
that these organizers be given some time to find new sources of
financing.
The measures affecting sponsorship were going to have very
serious consequences on sports and cultural events. This is why
the Bloc Quebecois called on the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to provide for financial
compensation and to act like politicians responsible for their
actions.
However, the minister at the time, David Dingwall, failed to
assume his responsibilities and refused categorically to follow
up on all such requests from the Bloc and from witnesses.
Bill C-42 is thus a little more realistic—as was strongly
suggested—in its approach to sponsorships, while being
significantly more rigid on other issues, including the use of a
manufacturer's name on permanent facilities.
However, the fight against smoking is a long term battle and the
Quebec government—as the Reform Party member pointed out—also
got involved by adopting legislation that is among the most
progressive in the world.
One wonders whether the amendment before us, which shortens the
timeframe by a few months, can make a difference. The Bloc
Quebecois doubts it will. Bill C-42 must be taken as a whole. The
fight against smoking is one that must be waged by all of
society. A habit that has been around for many generations will
not be easily changed.
However, thanks to Bill C-42 and to the Quebec legislation on
tobacco, authorities will now have better weapons against the
serious public health problem that smoking represents.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion put forward by the
member for Winnipeg North Centre. She has done a lot of work on
this bill for which I thank her on behalf of a lot of Canadians.
Bill C-42 does nothing to toughen the Tobacco Act. I agree
completely with my colleague from Macleod who just spoke. It
does nothing. It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary
is here today to speak on behalf of the minister who is out of
the country. If I were the minister with the House debating a
bill like this I would be out of the country today too.
We must remember this government was elected five years ago to
do something and it has done absolutely nothing. I remind the
Canadian people that in 1994 the government reduced taxes on
tobacco. It was the first and basically the only thing it did.
The government caved in to smugglers instead of addressing the
real concern of Canadians, in particular young Canadians who are
becoming addicted to cigarette smoking. Instead of addressing and
fighting the smuggling problem with the weapons and resources of
the Government of Canada, the government caved in to the big
tobacco companies.
As a result of that we have 40,000 Canadians a year, documented,
dying because of smoking. The government simply adds to the
problem. This bill does nothing at all to change that.
1235
The government now has an opportunity to do something but it has
done nothing. It is just a continuation of what it has done
since it was first elected, absolutely nothing, just caving in to
the interests of the big tobacco companies.
When the parliamentary secretary spoke about 20 minutes ago she
did not even consider the amendment to which we are speaking now.
Without this amendment tobacco companies would be able to put up
new sponsorships signs on buildings while the bill is still
before parliament and have those signs up for another five years.
That is bizarre. What the parliamentary secretary did to add
insult to injury when she was before the committee, when we were
going through this clause by clause, was simply read a statement
prepared by the Minister of Health to put forth an amendment
without explaining fully the rational of that amendment. That is
devious at best. We will not go into what I would call it if I
were in a real foul mood. It was not the right thing to do.
What we have is the parliamentary secretary being conned by her
own minister and his departmental people to put through that
amendment which would basically allow the companies to advertise
for another five years if they chose to put up signs between now
and when royal assent is given. This is absolutely bizarre.
I mentioned 40,000 Canadians dying every year in Canada because
of smoking. That is documented and every major health think tank
and association in Canada agrees with those figures, as does
every member of parliament, including members of the government.
They do not argue that figure.
That would be equivalent to 100 Canadians every day dying in an
airplane crash. If an airplane crashed every day in Canada and
killed 100 people on board, we would at the end of the year have
the same number of deaths, slightly less, as with smoking. That
is putting it in perspective. What would we do in the House of
Commons? What would the Canadian people think of the Minister of
Transport if we had a plane crashing every day in Canada, killing
100 people? We would have his resignation on the floor of the
House of Commons within a week. But no, this government allows
this to happen day in and day out, doing absolutely nothing about
it. That is wrong. Excuse the pun, it is dead wrong.
We just had Remembrance Day. On an annual basis we lose more
Canadians to cigarette smoking than we did in World War II.
Combine all the Canadian deaths in World War II between 1939 and
1945. They do not add up to the number of Canadians who die on a
yearly basis because of smoking.
Under any other set of circumstances this would be an outrage,
but why is it not? The cigarette manufacturers use millions of
dollars to convince us that smoking is okay. What they are
advertizing is lifestyle. They are not advertising reality. They
are advertising lifestyle and spending millions of dollars to do
it.
Coming before parliament from the other place is Bill S-13. It
was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kenny. It will be
introduced in the House by a Liberal backbencher. The bill will
be killed by the government. It is absolutely bizarre because
the bill would attack the problem the way it has to be attacked,
with real dollars to educate young Canadians about the dangers of
smoking.
1240
It would dedicate $125 million a year to educate young
Canadians about the dangers of smoking.
We will never have a tobacco bill that is worth anything unless
we attack smoking from the price point, that there is a direct
relationship between the price of the product and the consumption
of a product. That is true of any product. We need a bill that
strongly hits advertising and education at the same time.
Unless those ingredients are present in a bill, nothing will to
change. We will continue to lose 40,000-plus Canadians a year to
smoking.
Smoking kills. The only way we can win this war is to wage war
on the cigarette manufacturers. What would be wrong with placing
50 cents a carton, less than 5 cents a pack, at the manufacturing
level? Let us call that a levy. Let us be realistic. That is
what we have to do.
We need real dollars to attack these people. Some of the
biggest cigarette manufacturing companies in the world actually
own chains of drug stores. Examine who owns Shoppers Drug Mart.
Find out who owns it. I challenge every Canadian to do some
research and find out who owns some of these drug chains. They
are owned by the shareholders who happen to be the same
shareholders who own the shares of major cigarette or tobacco
companies.
Here we have the biggest of the biggest in terms of corporate
Canada, international corporate strength, day in and day out
allowing young Canadians to take up the habit.
What we have to do is fight this with every resource we have. We
have a bill that will soon be introduced here by a backbench
member of the government, to be shot down by the government
because it addresses the problem. It does something about it.
What we have is the Government of Canada being held captive by
the big boys, the big corporate giants who figure it is in their
best interests to sell a product to Canadians that actually kills
Canadians.
This amendment speaks for itself. It puts teeth in a very weak
bill and I think it is incumbent on the government to support
this amendment.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill. When
I spoke earlier to this bill, I iterated that it was a terrible
bill. The government had no start-up date at that time. This
motion gives some teeth to the bill.
I commend the member from Winnipeg North Centre. She has done a
lot of work on this bill and the members opposite, after what
they have heard about this bill and after what they know about
the tobacco industry and the statistics related to tobacco from a
health point of view, should rally the troops there, backbenchers
and all, and support the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
The question of addiction does not apply only to the users of
tobacco. This government and previous governments have been
addicted. How are they addicted? They want their hands on the
huge amount of money they can take in from the product and they
want to spend very little in educating our youth, a small
percentage. Governments all over have become addicted. They are
addicted to gambling. They are addicted to alcohol.
In my recent return home it was sad to note that the rehab
centre in my constituency has been closed down. For what reason?
Money. The region could not afford it.
1245
Looking very closely at what the hon. member has done in putting
forth this amendment, we know what the amendment is all about.
The tobacco industry must advertise. Why does anyone advertise?
Does General Motors advertise to support the advertising
industry? Nonsense. It advertises to sell more cars. Why do
tobacco companies advertise? To sell more of their products. To
whom are they advertising now? What is their target area? Their
target area is youth.
It is absolute nonsense that we would have to phase in the
advertising over a period of five years when we do not know the
start-up date. At that time we would be well into the next
millennium and hundreds of thousands more teenagers would be
addicted. Yet we find the government reluctant to give up the
addiction it has to taxes. Of course another addiction which I
mentioned earlier was the huge grants the government gets during
election time from the tobacco companies.
I ask the question as it relates to this amendment, would
members honestly not rise in this House to support the amendment
by the member for Winnipeg North Centre? This is a good
amendment. Thousands of young people would be saved from the
advertising and hopefully from becoming addicted. Is it not worth
it? That has to be worth more to Canadians from all parties than
the money the government gets. It has to be worth more to the
lives of our teenagers who become addicted. It is a question of
putting something first. To have the legislation open ended as
it originally was planned is simply not good enough.
Out west where we do a lot of curling, at one time they went to
the Brier. The big curling event was called the Brier. Who was
the Brier? The MacDonald Tobacco Company. People were going to
the Brier. Some still use that term. Then curling associations
across Canada said “No, this is a healthy lifestyle. We are not
going to have the tobacco industry involved”. Is curling going
downhill? No. It is on its way up. Interest is going up. Did
it take five years to phase in? Absolutely not.
If the government is really concerned about this country's
youth, if it is really concerned about the number of people who
die each year because of this addiction, government members will
support this amendment, as I am sure every opposition member
will. Government members should go back to their people and say
that this is a good amendment. The opposition knows what it
wants. The government should let its members have a free vote on
this. If it is a free vote, the motion by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre will carry.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1250
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The vote will be
deferred until the end of Government Orders today.
* * *
[Translation]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation
areas, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and
of the amendment.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-48, an act
respecting marine conservation areas.
This bill is to provide a legal framework for the establishment
of 28 marine conservation areas, representative of each of the
Canadian ecosystems.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area, but it will not be governed by this
legislation since it already has its own legislation.
Bill C-48 follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister of
Canada at the 1996 convention of the World Conservation Union,
held in Montreal. The United Nations have designated 1998 the
International Year of the Ocean, and the most significant
initiatives to mark this event include the World Exposition in
Lisbon, Portugal, and UNESCO's adoption of the ocean charter, in
St. John's, Newfoundland, in September 1997.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the environmental protection
measures contained in this bill.
More particularly, however, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the
government that it supported the government legislation creating
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government
is also pursuing initiatives to protect the environment and sea
floors in particular.
I am sure that, as they assess the parties and candidates
competing in the ongoing election campaign in Quebec, the people
of Quebec can appreciate what the Quebec government has achieved
in terms of environmental protection since 1994. Its re-election
on November 30 will allow the PQ government to carry on with its
environmental protection efforts.
The Quebec government is also open to working together with the
federal government, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the
two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action
plan. However, the Bloc Quebecois has to object to the bill for
a number of reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as
it did with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal
government is trying to establish marine conservation areas
regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the
environment.
1255
The second reason our party will oppose this bill is the fact
that Heritage Canada is proposing to establish a new structure,
the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate Fisheries
and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment
Canada's marine protection zones.
In short, the dominating federalism we have come to know in
recent years, has divided into three parts in order to trample
on Quebec jurisdictions.
We think that the example set by the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park should have been followed in this instance. We all
remember that, in 1997, the federal and Quebec governments
passed mirror legislation creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park.
These laws led to the creation of Canada's first marine
conservation area.
The main component of this legislation is the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park established jointly by both the federal
government and Quebec, without any transfer of land. The two
governments will continue to exercise their respective
jurisdictions. The park is entirely a marine setting. It
covers 1,138 square kilometres, and its boundaries may be
changed by mutual consent and following public consultation by
both levels of government.
In order to encourage public participation, the federal and
provincial laws confirm the creation of a co-ordinating
committee, whose makeup will be decided by the federal and
provincial ministers. The mandate of this committee is to
recommend to the ministers responsible measures that will permit
the achievement of the aims of the master plan.
The plan will be reviewed jointly by the two governments at
least once every seven years.
We think this federal Liberal government should have used this
initial co-operative achievement as a model for the creation of
other marine conservation areas.
Another reason we oppose Bill C-48 is that it does not respect
the integrity of Quebec territory, in the opinion of the Bloc
Quebecois. One of the conditions vital to the establishment of
a marine conservation area is the federal government's acquiring
ownership of the land where the marine conservation area will be
established.
Clause 5(2) of the bill stipulates that a marine conservation
area may be established:
Moreover, the Quebec legislation on lands in the public domain
applies to all lands in the public domain in Quebec, including
river and lake beds, as well as those portions of the beds of
the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence which belong
to Quebec by sovereign right.
Why, then, is Heritage Canada acting so arrogantly today? Just
looking at the minister responsible for that department, her
ongoing arrogance is obvious.
We see how she behaves in Question Period. We hear her
regularly insulting the democratically elected members of this
House. So how could we expect Heritage Canada to behave any
differently than the person in charge of it, the member for
Hamilton East?
Why is Heritage Canada acting so arrogantly today, claiming
ownership of the marine floor where it would like to establish
marine conservation areas, instead of allowing bilateral
agreements, between Quebec and Ottawa in particular, so that
Quebec may maintain its areas of jurisdiction?
In our opinion, the environment is a shared jurisdiction.
By refusing to take the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as
its example, by imposing land ownership as an essential
condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the
federal government is, as Robert Bourassa said, acting as a
centralizing government with a desire to control everything,
regardless of acknowledged areas of jurisdiction.
As far as I know, and the House will no doubt agree with me,
former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa was far from being a
leading sovereignist.
He was an avowed federalist, who did not hesitate to say that
the Canadian federal system was a centralizing system.
1300
Under the various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to
create marine conservation areas, marine protection areas and
natural marine reserves. According to Fisheries and Oceans, any
given area could be zoned in various ways and be subject to
different regulations.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees that this is bureaucratic overkill,
which will not serve the public interest. The existence of an
interdepartmental committee of these various departments is no
reassurance.
It has been our experience that, when several departments are
involved in a project, they generally do not work well together
and it ends up costing taxpayers—the people whose income tax
is collected, who are tired of paying and find they pay too much
for the services they are getting from this government—a lot
of money.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the government would have been
better advised to have a single department oversee the
protection of ecosystems, with the departments concerned signing
a framework agreement to delegate their respective
responsibilities.
I would have had much more to say, but I can see that my time is
running out and I should conclude.
For all the reasons I have stated and as a result of the work
done by our colleague and critic for Canadian heritage, the hon.
member for Rimouski—Mitis, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois
who will speak after me will reiterate the fact that, in our
opinion, the Liberal government should withdraw this bill.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to stand today on behalf of our critic in this area
and express the position of the NDP caucus on Bill C-48.
We are glad to say that we can support Bill C-48 in principle.
We look forward to further debate on this matter because there
are reservations we have that we would like to share with
the House today.
In terms of background we recognize the bill provides
legislation to establish and manage a system of national marine
conservation areas representative of 29 marine areas in Canada.
The 29 NMCAs represent unique biological and oceanographic
features and include both fresh and salt water areas. A Parks
Canada system approach has identified the 29 national marine
conservation areas within Canada's Great Lakes and the
territorial sea and exclusive economic zones, the EEZ 200 mile
limit zones.
NMCAs are not parks as such in the usual definition. They are
conservation and stewardship areas. These NMCAs are
fundamentally different from what we would term terrestrial
parks. Terrestrial parks are usually associated with a
semi-closed ecosystem and are essentially fixed in space and time
and are subject to change over relatively long periods of time.
We would argue this type of ecosystem would require a completely
different style of management as compared to the national marine
conservation areas.
Marine protected areas are associated with an open ecosystem and
are large and dynamic. The very nature of their oceanographic
base is dynamic, moving, fluid and where rates of change to the
ecosystem can occur over a relatively short time span.
Pollution impacts have to be have special consideration when we
are dealing with so sensitive an ecosystem that is vulnerable to
these quick changes. Over-exploitation of our resources is
another huge concern, in layman's terms overfishing. These are
examples of why national marine conservation areas need special
attention above and beyond that which we give our other parks
system.
Another key difference between terrestrial parks and marine
areas is the science and knowledge gap between the two.
1305
We know relatively little about our oceans and the ecosystems of
our marine areas. This came to light for me when I built a house
for a marine biologist and we were talking about what he did for
a living. He said he worked full time, year round, studying the
aging of groundfish. I thought this was remarkable because he was
studying when the best time to harvest groundfish would be and
when did they reach their maximum size and when did they
reproduce.
What really shocked me when talking to this mathematician was we
did not know that type of thing. We were in the mid-1970s and we
were just starting to study the ageing of groundfish which is a
key primary industry.
A difference between the current parks system or terrestrial
parks system and the national marine conservation areas is that
we know very little about this ecosystem. It takes a great deal
of sensitivity if we are to learn from these areas and their
natural habitat without interference and development getting in
the way of that knowledge.
The process to establish these national marine conservation
areas began in 1986 with ministerial approval to establish
national marine parks.
This decision lead to a 1987 agreement with Ontario to establish
Fathom Five in Georgian Bay and further to a 1988 agreement with
British Columbia for a marine park in South Moresby in the Queen
Charlotte Islands, the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation reserve,
and with Quebec to examine the feasibility of a
federal-provincial marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay
fiord and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park. Bill C-7 entertained this creation which received
NDP support and royal assent in 1987. The act came into force on
June 8, 1998.
In 1995 Canada and British Columbia signed a memorandum of
understanding for a shared Pacific marine heritage legacy. In
early 1997 a federal-provincial memorandum of understanding was
signed initiating feasibility studies for marine conservation
areas in the Buena Vista—Notre Dame Bay areas of Newfoundland
and the Thunder Cape of the Slate Islands area of western Lake
Superior.
Similar to the successful Saguenay—St. Lawrence project public
consultations in local communities in both regions are
progressing and public advisory committees are being established.
On completion of the feasibility and the consultation studies
leading to established agreements, a total of four marine
conservation areas and reserves would be established and six of
the twenty-nine marine regions would be represented.
At the international level efforts to develop national and
global representative systems of marine protected areas have been
underway since the fourth world wilderness congress of 1987.
In 1992 the international union for the conservation of nature,
the UCN, tabled detailed guidelines on marine protected areas at
the fourth world congress of national parks and protected areas.
The Prime Minister committed to new marine conservation areas
legislation at the IUCN world conservation congress of October
1996.
We have mixed feelings about the details regarding the
legislation and this is why our support at this time is limited
or rather guarded. We are pleased that Bill C-48 will provide
the powers, authorities and procedures required to establish and
administer a system of marine conservation areas and that
protection and conservation are fundamental specific stipulations
on management and used to ensure ecosystems remain intact. There
is clear reference to the ecosystem and precautionary approach
which has been a key NDP concern in previous bills and acts.
There are many aspects to Bill C-48 that we find beneficial,
many of which are written in such a way that they are very hard
to share. We do have some reservations and concerns, however,
with Bill C-48.
One of these concerns is that the department of fisheries will
have the exclusive jurisdiction on fisheries management concerns.
We feel that with the creation of these national marine
conservation areas we need a special consideration of the
resources that ply these waters and we wish it were other than
DFO that had input into how these ecosystems are studied and
managed.
1310
The minimum protection standards have been expanded to include
prohibition of fin fish aquaculture, bottom trawling, ballast
water dumping, intentional introduction of alien species,
outfalls, waste discharge, recreational artificial reefs and
dredging provisions. We would have liked to see all these things
limited with more specific limitations on them in Bill C-48. If
we have a national marine conservation area, all these things
will have an impact on the ecosystem and will limit our ability
to benefit from the intelligence we can glean from studying these
areas.
The allocation of sufficient resources for scientific study is
not dealt with firmly in Bill C-48. We wish it were much more
binding and that it contemplated stable funding for the study of
the ecosystems we will be looking after within these conservation
areas. I made reference to a scientist I knew who
worked at the Nanaimo biological research station off the west
coast of British Columbia.
Very little of the important research that needs to be done in
order that we may really know our ecosystem and our fisheries is
being done in the retail commercial market of fisheries under
DFO. We feel that having these national marine conservation
areas would be a huge benefit in terms of having protected areas
free of industrial development and hopefully as free as possible
from industrial waste. It is an ideal opportunity to truly study
issues like the ageing of groundfish and the impact of species,
et cetera, in the wonderful ecosystem we would have as our
laboratory.
There has been extremely slow progress in establishing the
NMCAs. We encourage government to move swiftly in this for the
29 identified areas.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the future of the fishery depends on the protection of
the marine environment. When our rivers and coastal waters cease
being a safe place for fish, we will no longer have healthy and
abundant wild stocks.
Bill C-48 would do for the marine environment what parks have
done for the buffalo: save a few. Perhaps it was never realistic
to expect buffalo to continue to roam the western prairie in vast
numbers to survive in the face of settlement, agriculture, mass
hunting and the railway.
Today our fish stocks are facing the same pressures the buffalo
faced a century ago. Cod stocks on the east coast collapsed
nearly a decade ago due to the mismanagement of the fishery by
the department of fisheries, corporate greed and the development
of new fishing methods that allowed our fishermen to catch
literally the last fish. When northern cod stocks were
devastated, my friend, the member for Gander—Grand Falls,
demanded that those who failed to protect Newfoundland's most
valuable resource be held to account. My friend no longer chairs
the fisheries committee. Apparently it is okay to call for the
creation of marine parks but it is considered threatening to
those charged with protecting those fish stocks and their marine
environment if we seek to hold them to account.
Salmon stocks on both coasts faced similar devastation to that
suffered by the cod. Salmon stocks on the east coast have
already been devastated. The Saint John River in New Brunswick
has three hydroelectric dams on its stem and one on a key
tributary. Migrating salmon are blocked. On the west coast, the
federal and provincial governments have allowed hydroelectric
dams, poor agriculture and forest practices and industrial
pollution to threaten the once mighty Fraser River and its
tributaries as well as rivers and streams on Vancouver Island.
Recently the Ottawa Citizen and the Saint John
Telegraph Journal reported on a study by scientists at the
University of Ottawa. That study reveals hydroelectric dams are
silent killers of our rivers. The study finds that dams stand
accused of being the principal stressors on rivers. Such
findings are not a surprise to fishermen and environmentalists on
the west coast where the department of fisheries and its minister
sold out to Alcan and those who would dam the Fraser. Although
it claims to be a protector of the fishery, the Government of
British Columbia has a long history of being seduced by those who
would build dams. There is no doubt the province's current
agreement with Alcan on Kemano does not adequately protect fish
habitat. Marine parks will not halt the devastation to marine
life caused by hydroelectric dams.
The Toronto Star recently carried a report on the possible
threat to wild fish stocks from fish farms on the Bay of Fundy:
The salmon slipped into vacuum sealed bags for shipment from this
brand new processing plant are manufactured, not caught. They
are a genetically manipulated species that is born in a plastic
tray, vaccinated, often treated with antibiotics, fed red dye and
doused with powerful pesticides before they go to market.
Disease is at the heart of the controversy over fish farming in
Canada. Environmentalists say the periodic epidemics that sweep
through the farms are clear evidence the industry is not healthy.
They worry the antibiotics and pesticides used to treat diseases
and parasites in fish farms are getting into the food chain.
1315
The story also quotes University of British Columbia infectious
diseases specialist, William Bowie:
The idea of pouring potent anti-infectives into the ocean strikes
terror into those who see patients we can't treat because they
have caught bugs we can't treat.
Another Toronto Star story summarized the disaster that
has befallen wild salmon in Scotland. The story quotes Scottish
fishermen who blame the disaster on fish farms that produce
multitudes of sea lice, parasites that live on the farmed fish
and kill salmon when they swim by.
It is thought that the infestation of sea lice in New Brunswick
had its origin in Norway or Scotland.
There is now a fear that these diseases or similar diseases will
spread to the west coast. Marine parks will not protect our wild
salmon from such threats. Rather than turning our federal and
provincial departments of fisheries into centres for aquaculture
promotion, their main focus must be to continue the protection of
the marine environment for wild fish. That does not mean the end
of fish farms. There is lots of room for aquaculture operations
which respect the marine environment.
In the end, a marine environment that is not safe for fish is
one that is not safe for humans.
A department of fisheries report catalogued the effect that
poorly planned urbanization and destructive agricultural and
forest practices have had on the salmon-bearing streams in the
Lower Fraser.
Of the 779 Lower Fraser Valley streams examined, 117 no longer
exist, 375 are considered endangered, 181 are considered
threatened and only 106 have retained their wild status.
Bill C-48 will not preserve the streams on the Fraser between
Abbotsford and Hope. The study classified 58 of those streams as
being threatened.
The future of fish stocks and fish habitat depend not on the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, no matter how well intentioned she
is. The future of the fishery and fish stocks depend on the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans making fish stocks his number
one priority, enforcing the habitat protection provisions of the
Fisheries Act and the avoidance of overriding the advice of
scientists in favour of the private profits of friends of the
minister.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill
C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.
First, I must point out that, as everyone knows, the Bloc
Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment,
but not at any cost.
For example, members will remember that the Bloc Quebecois
supported the government regarding the bill that led to the
establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in 1997.
That legislation, along with the act passed by the Quebec
government, resulted in the establishment of the first marine
conservation area in Canada, and we are proud of that.
Under the legislation, both governments continue to exercise
their respective jurisdiction in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park. The park includes only the marine environment. Its
boundaries can be changed, provided there is agreement between
the two governments and provided they hold joint public hearings
on the issue. These are among the main legislative provisions
adopted in 1997.
The important thing here is that the establishment of that park
was the result of a co-operative effort by the federal and Quebec
governments. It is unfortunate that the federal government did
not choose to follow the same procedure in the case of Bill C-48.
1320
The government could have followed other examples, such as phase
III of the St. Lawrence action plan. Let me briefly remind
members what happened.
On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Canada and of
Quebec announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan,
the bill for which would be shared equally by both levels of
government. This is another example of a joint project that
respects the jurisdictions of each government.
Unfortunately, the approach in Bill C-48 is not even remotely
comparable. How then can the federal government be so naive as
to think that the Bloc Quebecois would support this bill?
With this bill, the federal government, far from relying on
dialogue, is seeking to unilaterally impose marine conservation
areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over
its own territory and its environment.
But there is more. The federal government, not content with
getting involved in Quebec's jurisdictions and sincerely
believing that ridicule does not kill anyone, is duplicating
itself.
Indeed, the bill will establish marine conservation areas, thus
creating a new structure for Heritage Canada and duplicating
existing marine protected areas at fisheries and oceans, and
Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. This means that
the quarrelling is far from over.
It is clear to everyone that Bill C-48 does not respect the
integrity of the Quebec territory.
In order to establish a marine area, the federal government must
first become the owner of the territory where such an area will
be created.
But there is a problem, that is the Constitution of 1867.
Indeed, section 92.5 provides that the management and sale of
public lands comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
provinces. Quebec is still a province.
In Quebec, the Quebec
legislation on crown lands applies to all crown lands in Quebec,
including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St.
Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by
sovereign right.
This same legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its
lands to the federal government. The federal government,
however, is not going to be intimidated by Quebec laws, that is
common knowledge. Heritage Canada intends to establish its
marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence
estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, three areas in which the
ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Heritage Canada will thus force Quebec to cede its exclusive
jurisdiction over its ocean floor. What a fine example of
co-operative federalism. The condition essential to the
establishment of marine areas in the St. Lawrence is the
transfer of ownership rights to the federal government.
Not satisfied with meddling in Quebec's jurisdiction, the
federal government is doing its best to overlap a number of its
departments.
What is the logic in the federal government's decision to create
marine conservation areas under the authority of Heritage
Canada, marine protection zones under fisheries and oceans and
marine wildlife reserves under Environment Canada?
According to fisheries and oceans, one site could be zoned three
different ways and thus come under three federal departments,
which would each apply its own specific rules, and all of this
would come under three different legislative measures.
1325
God knows which waters the fish will choose. As for the
officials, I do not think the stomach of Jonas' whale could ever
contain them all as they try to reach some sort of
understanding.
Once again, and this is not the first time since 1993, I am
faced with a dilemma. If federal departments cannot work
together, how can we expect the federal government to work with
the provinces? Heritage Canada flavoured marine conservation
areas—no thanks. Give me a sovereign Quebec, and quickly.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to rise before the House to
address Bill C-48. The proposed piece of legislation is designed
to protect and conserve representative areas of Canada's marine
landscape for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all
Canadians and the world.
This being the International Year of the Oceans, it only seems
fitting that we are debating a bill which has as its focus the
protection and preservation of an important part of our marine
ecosystems for generations to come.
Such legislation is far overdue. For years we have been guilty
of taking our oceans, rivers and lakes for granted. We have
polluted and pillaged our marine environments to the point where
some species, particularly Newfoundland cod, are nearing
extinction. We cannot afford to remain complacent if we want to
preserve this environment for future generations.
[Translation]
I was born in the region of Acadia known as Mayflower, in the
municipality of Clare. Much of my childhood was spent on the
shores of St. Mary's Bay in the little village of Mavilette. I
so loved the briny smell of the sea that I eventually bought a
house right down by the ocean.
I have a great deal of admiration and respect for our ocean, so
I must speak of my great sadness to see how our natural
resources are being abused.
[English]
My constituency of West Nova borders alongside three different
bodies of water: the Bay of Fundy, the beautiful St. Mary's Bay
and the Atlantic Ocean. Surrounded by so much water, it is only
natural that many of my constituents derive their living from the
water in some fashion or another. The three large bodies of
water that surround West Nova have been the lifeblood for many of
my constituents.
The Bay of Fundy is home to many different species of marine
life. For years Fundy fishing grounds supported a very
prosperous inshore scallop fishery. Groundfish used to be found
in abundance, helping to create a very lucrative fishing
industry. Today many of the species fishers depend upon for
their livelihood are disappearing due to overfishing. The
lucrative lobster fishery still remains, but this is also being
threatened.
It is important that we begin to seriously address the problems
facing our fishing industry. History has shown that we cannot
afford to ignore today's realities. Conservation must be the
pivotal goal of this government if we are going to leave anything
behind for future generations.
The Progressive Conservative caucus is supporting Bill C-48
because we feel it is time that we politicians start taking a
leading role in helping to preserve our environment so that
future generations will enjoy the serene beauty that presently
exists throughout most of this country. We can only achieve
these goals by taking immediate action through protective
measures such as those outlined in this bill.
Deriving one's living from our oceans is a cultural way of life
for us. We depend on the preservation of this large habitat not
only for our survival, but also for the survival of coming
generations.
Recently our coastal regions have been facing another menacing
attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have
been pillaging the ocean floors almost unabated by Department of
Fisheries and Oceans officials. The lucrative lobster fishery
could be endangered if strong measures are not immediately taken
to put an end to this illegal activity.
1330
[Translation]
Clause 18 of this bill explains the application of the act. As
I understand it, the minister may designate marine conservation
wardens to enforce the act and regulations and to preserve and
maintain the public peace in marine conservation areas.
I believe it is absolutely necessary to hire these people, but I
wonder where the minister will find the necessary money for this
project. With all the cuts to our museum and national parks
programs, where will she find the funds?
[English]
I am rather excited by the prospect of having another body of
enforcement officers patrolling our coastal waters. Perhaps
these new recruits could offer our friends in DFO a hand in
patrolling our waters in search of illegal lobster fishers. The
Minister of Fisheries does not seem to realize the extreme
seriousness of the problem in West Nova. Registered commercial
lobster fishers are already very frustrated and angry with the
department of fisheries for failing to put an end to the illegal
activity that is presently threatening their livelihoods. I am
scared that no noticeable reduction in the lobster catches in the
next two months will surely lead to violence.
The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with
preserving our ecosystems. In 1986 the PC government approved
the national marine parks policy. In 1987 the country's first
national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in
Georgian Bay was established. Unfortunately it has yet to be
proclaimed and there are still outstanding issues to be
addressed.
It is important to note that although the proposed legislation
is designed to establish and manage a system of marine
conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas, it does
not specifically identify precise geographic locations to be
protected. These sites will have to be chosen through much
consultation with members of the general public, provincial
governments and those individuals who earn their livelihood from
our waters.
I cannot stress the points strong enough that much consultation
must be undertaken before any particular area is singled out for
protection. Provincial governments, municipal governments,
affected federal government departments and all stakeholders must
be involved in every step of the site selection process. There
must be a balanced approach taken when exploring in an area. The
interests of our fishing community must be taken into
consideration with that of marine habitat before any agreements
on locations are finalized.
Conservation is vitally important to all of us but particularly
to those who make their living from the water. We cannot simply
target a location without exploring the long term effects it will
have on industry. Our fishers must have a direct say in the
management of their industry. We have already witnessed the
disaster that can occur when they are excluded from the decision
making process. It is important that the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans be involved in the consultation process.
It is also important that aboriginal peoples be involved in the
negotiations. With many land claims still to be resolved, it is
imperative that they be consulted on creating any new marine
reserve areas. There are restrictions on non-renewable resource
extractions and careful examination of any proposed site must be
explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration.
Nova Scotia is finally to reap some economic benefits from the
Sable oil and gas exploration, thus fulfilling a legacy started
by the previous Conservative government. This economic boom
would not have been possible if the Sable area had been
designated as a marine protected area. This is why we must
exhaust all opportunities for constructive consultation sessions
with all those who have a vested interest in ocean floors.
It is important that the federal government be prepared to
allocate the necessary resources to protect newly designated
conservation areas. Otherwise we will open the doors to constant
abuse as has been witnessed in our fishing industry.
Furthermore I warn the government against any possible altering
of boundaries of future marine conservation areas for economic
benefits. We cannot afford to have different rules for different
marine areas as the department certainly appears to have in the
national park systems where it allows the expansion of Lake
Louise for economic reasons yet denies economic development in
Tuktut Nogait National Park.
In conclusion, the government set a goal for itself of
establishing 10 marine parks by the year 2000. It is obvious
that it will not achieve this goal, but it is important and
therefore we must choose these marine conservation areas
carefully.
The clock is ticking and we cannot afford to waste any more time
in terms of this important undertaking.
1335
Although this piece of legislation is not perfect, we should
send it immediately to committee where I hope the views of
interested Canadians will be welcomed in our attempts to make any
necessary amendments.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill
C-48, the marine conservation area act. Like the hon. Minister
of Canadian Heritage I believe that Canada has a national and
international obligation to protect and conserve marine areas
representative of Canada's 29 marine regions.
I recognize that such conservation efforts are necessary to
ensure the future existence and enjoyment of these marine areas,
and I support the concept behind the bill. I also support the
polluter pay principle included in the bill.
However I have several major concerns with the bill. The first
is with the structure and wording of the legislation. The second
is with the potential impact of the legislation on natural
resource development. As natural resource critic I want to
address those concerns.
I will begin with my concerns regarding the structure and
wording of the bill. Specifically I am concerned about the
existence of three Henry VIII clauses which would allow the
government to circumvent parliament. In contrast to the
government's position, I am a firm believer in the parliamentary
process. I am disturbed by the way the bill attempts to avoid
the parliamentary process.
In its summary of the bill the Department of Canadian Heritage
stated that the proposed legislation required that any proposed
amendment to the schedules to establish or enlarge a marine
conservation area or reserve should be subject to scrutiny by
parliament. However, the summary failed to mention the
constraints placed on this scrutiny.
The legislation delegates responsibility for the raising of
objections to schedule amendments to the standing committee. The
committee has only 20 sitting days after the tabling of the
amendment to put forth a motion in objection to the amendment. We
all know the results of the Liberal majority in each and every
one of the standing committees of parliament and what the
government whip does to the decisions of those committees.
If 21 days elapse without any objection the amendments can be
made by order in council. If a motion is put forth, the motion
is debated for no more than three hours before the House confirms
or rejects the committee's objections. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the
bill allow the government to side step the usual legislative
process.
The fact that similar Henry VIII clauses exist in national parks
does not make the circumvention of parliament any more acceptable
either in this bill or in any number of other bills the
government has introduced in this parliament and in the previous
parliament.
This aspect of the legislation is particularly suspect as the
schedules referred to in these clauses are now empty. The
government has put forth the names of five areas already targeted
as future marine conservation areas under the act. Therefore I
am as curious as I am sure others are why these five areas are
not included in the schedule attached to the bill. I can only
conclude that they were purposely omitted to prevent full debate
on the legislation which might include a controversial debate on
the proposed areas.
This brings me to my second concern regarding the impact of the
legislation on current and future natural resources development.
Clause 13 states that no person shall explore for or exploit
hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any inorganic matter within
a marine conservation area.
While I understand the necessity of this clause for the sake of
environmental protection, I am troubled by the extent of the
proposed areas. If each area under consideration is successfully
designated through order in council as a marine conservation
area, the entire coastline of Canada extending some distance
inland and a considerable distance into the offshore area,
including a number of already proven mineral rich inland areas,
will be covered under the act.
The legislation proposes to prevent all future mining and oil
and gas drilling projects along the entire coastline of Canada.
This is absolutely unacceptable in light of the fact that Canada
is already one of the least mining friendly countries in this
hemisphere. Under the legislation projects like Hibernia, Terra
Nova and Sable Island would not be allowed to exist.
The opportunities that these projects are providing to Atlantic
Canadians simply would be disallowed. That is absolutely
unacceptable and quite irresponsible on the part of the
government.
1340
Future mining areas have already been barred on large sections
of land because of the settlement of native land claims. By
removing the possibility of resource development along the
coastline the government is potentially crippling the future of
resource industries in Canada.
The legislation is set up in a such way that it is very
difficult to remove portions of the conservation area from the
act. It takes only an order in council to add a conservation
area. The legislation requires an act of parliament for no net
loss, swapping or removal of a portion of a marine conservation
area.
This requirement will have serious impacts on natural resource
industries. If a marine conservation area proves in future to be
a valuable and bountiful source of yet undiscovered natural
resources, it will be very difficult to have the boundaries of
the conservation area redrawn to exclude the area containing the
resources.
I might remind the House that there are a number of areas on all
coasts of Canada which potentially hold huge natural resource
deposits, both fossil fuel and mineral deposits that could some
day potentially be mined.
I am concerned by the ease with which each new marine
conservation area can be created and the difficulty involved in
removing it from that marine conservation area. By setting up
the legislation in this way more area than necessary may be
included initially and cannot be freed from the legislation
without enormous difficulty.
This major obstacle to future development will undoubtedly
impact on our energy and resource independence. This leads into
the last point I wish to make. The act is clearly intended to
fulfil preservationist and not conservationist objectives. While
these objectives may be noble, as I stated in my initial comment
they are hardly the usual objectives for a national park or
historic heritage site. National parks normally allow relatively
free public access.
The legislation requires authorization by permit for any
activities in the area or reserves. The bill aims to establish
marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible
for national parks.
As the legislation's aims are clearly environmental it would be
more appropriate to establish authority under the Minister of the
Environment. The legislation could then be evaluated by members
of the House as well as members of the public for what it is,
environmental legislation.
I reiterate that I support the goals of the legislation. Too
often Reform members of parliament are portrayed as enemies of
the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am
a firm believer in conservation and responsible development. I
understand the necessity for environmental responsibility.
Canada's biodiversity is one of the many things that makes our
nation unique. I support the concept of sustainable development
and preservation of Canada's natural environment for this and
future generations.
I also advocate participation in the world community of
agreements. I commend the government on the inclusion of the
polluter pay principle in the legislation although I have some
doubts regarding its resolve to enforce this principle.
Unfortunately I cannot support the bill. My colleagues and I
want to see parliament restored as the supreme body responsible
for the creation and interpretation of Canadian law. Clauses 5,
6 and 7 subvert parliament's law making role and therefore
contradict this fundamental belief.
For this and other reasons as previously presented I reject the
legislation and encourage other members of the House to do the
same, to simply stop for a moment and look at the possibilities
for future job and wealth creation in the development of Canada's
offshore resources.
In my opinion it has not been the development of our natural
resources either offshore or onshore that has endangered, as some
of my colleagues talked about, the fish habitat in Canada's
oceans. It has simply been poor management and overfishing, not
resource development.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that Canada can develop its
natural resources offshore, off all Canada's shores, in an
environmentally responsible manner and at the same time preserve
the biodiversity and the environment that exist there.
1345
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.
In looking at this bill in detail members will find that this
bill is full of ambiguities. Much of the bill is not clearly
stated. Where the responsibility crosses over to the provinces
is not spelled out. There are many things on which this bill
needs some genuine bookkeeping and homework done.
This bill changes the previous concept in Canada as to what is a
park. Traditionally a park was an area relatively free for
public travel. A park was established in some cases for heritage
purposes. This adds to the meaning of the word park. It becomes
a marine park and it is being added to the concept of a national
park.
My colleague has mentioned some of the areas where all of the
power vested here is given to the minister in charge. In other
words we can have something take place within and under the act.
Changes can be made without having to steer them through
parliament. More and more often bills come before us which give
the minister the power to make huge changes to an act without
having to come back to parliament which has to discuss the act in
the first place but then gives the authority to make substantial
changes. We do not believe in that. We believe that if there is
a substantial change being made to any act, this is the body that
should make the changes, the elected people, and not the
committee.
This is a classic example of the government sidestepping the
usual legislative process. When that is done, the government
gets into a dictatorial way of operating the nation's business.
Government wants the expansion of a new marine conservation area
or a reserve to belong to a standing committee. It would not come
back to the House; it would belong to a standing committee. The
majority of the members on a standing committee are from the
government side. As a result, we can almost rest assured that
the standing committee is going to pass what the minister directs
or asks for. That is a dangerous precedent in the bill.
It also very rapidly shrinks the amount of land that can be used
for exploration, as my colleague has mentioned. As a matter of
fact it could possibly contain the entire coastline of a country
that has more coastline than most. This could all take place at
the minister's discretion.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill would require not just the
federal crown to obey it, but it would also insist with respect
to the provincial waters and resources off the provincial shores
that the provinces would not have a say in what becomes a new
marine park or the waters thereof. We see all kinds of
difficulties in this when the provinces are not consulted.
There is another item in the bill which is terribly dangerous.
It violates all the Canadian principles I have ever read. Those
appointed to enforce the act would be designated as peace
officers as defined by the Criminal Code. These enforcement
officers would be authorized to enter and pass through any
private property in discharge of their duties. As I read that, it
is without a warrant. They have that right.
Also anyone who contravenes the law could be fined $100,000, or
if found guilty of an indictable offence, be fined up to half a
million dollars.
1350
There seems to be something missing in the bill. While we want
the act to have teeth and importance, the due process of law is
not mentioned in the bill.
As my colleague said, we agree to the polluter pay principle.
There is no question about that. We would strongly support the
bill in that regard. However, the bill violates the principle of
the democratic process so much. We cannot support acts which lay
the real power of the act in the minister's hands.
Further, the rightful place and supreme body for creating and
interpreting the laws of Canada is this House. It does not
belong to a minister by order in council, nor does it belong to a
parliamentary standing committee. I do not understand why members
opposite, with almost every bill that comes up, continually want
to violate these principles.
This really is not a park bill but is an environmental bill. We
believe in sustainability, development and management for the
environment to preserve both biodiversity and conserve the
environment for the present and the future. This bill expands
the domain of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and encroaches on
what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of the
Environment. As such, we have real difficulty with the bill.
We have difficulty with this bill because it gives powers to
committees, gives powers to orders in council, gives powers to
the minister which rightly belong to the legislative body here.
The bill requires, as I said, the provincial governments to fall
in line. It also requires that natives under their land claims
also fall in line without any consultation, if the government so
wishes.
Note that the enforcement officers may arrest without warrant
and enter private property without permission.
All of those things are within a bill which the government is
asking us to pass. It violates the rule of law. It violates the
longstanding principles of justice. It violates the authority of
the House as the legislature.
For those reasons we cannot support the bill even though it has
many admirable parts to it. Canadians need most of the bill but
we do not need to go down the road to dictatorship in
implementation of the bill in its present form.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The division on the
amendment is deferred until later this day at the end of
Government Orders.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1355
[English]
JEAN VANIER
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I would like to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a man who lives
by his own creed that every person needs to know that they are a
source of joy; every child, every person, needs to be accepted.
I am talking about Jean Vanier, founder of L'Arche, a community
of homes for the intellectually disabled around the world and of
Daybreak House in Richmond Hill in my riding. It is one of 11
L'Arche houses in the Toronto area, home to 44 men and women with
disabilities.
It is the first and largest of the North American communities
created by a man who has been many things: military officer,
philosophy professor and recipient of the Vatican's Paul VI
International Prize.
Mr. Vanier was in Toronto last week to give the Massey lectures
and to shed light on how most of the world treats some of the
most oppressed members of their societies, the intellectually
disabled.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Vanier for his efforts in
making the world a more welcoming place and for spreading his
message of love and acceptance.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the families of servicemen who have been disabled as a
result of military service are all too often left to fend for
themselves.
On November 24 Marg Matchee goes before the federal court in
Halifax seeking veterans benefits. Her husband Clayton Matchee
is totally disabled as a result of his service in Somalia. A
respected Canadian forces doctor described his condition as
mefloquine related. That is, his present condition is the result
of a drug, an unlicensed drug illegally administered and
fraudulently obtained by the department of defence.
1400
In October 1997, the minister of defence was advised by
officials that they had misled the Somalia inquiry on the status
of the drug mefloquine. The minister has not bothered to inform
Marg Matchee and her daughter that DND misled the inquiry.
I now call on the minister of defence to tell Marg Matchee the
truth so that she can support her claim before the federal court
next week in Halifax. Time is running out.
* * *
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the recent advisory opinion of the World Court on the legality of
the use of nuclear weapons establishes a legal duty of states to
negotiate in good faith toward the elimination of nuclear weapons
and their use in armed conflict.
While some nuclear weapon states still argue that article 51 of
the United Nations charter and the right to self-defence that it
recognizes would permit a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in
anticipation of an armed attack, the authoritative legal
consensus that has now emerged establishes clearly a binding
international law principle of no first use of nuclear weapons.
* * *
RURAL CANADA
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to acknowledge the work of one of my constituents who
participated in a national rural conference held in Belleville
last month.
Jan Sideris travelled from my riding of Bruce—Grey to meet with
some 200 other Canadians for a common goal. They spent three
days discussing the challenges of rural life with others who want
a sustainable future for rural Canada. Jan tells me the weekend
was most productive and the results encouraging.
Participants overcame regional differences and came from tiny
east coast villages, remote northern towns and small farming
communities. They worked together in a way to strengthen and
enhance rural life. They discussed building partnerships and
finding workable solutions to chronic unemployment problems.
My thanks goes to Jan and those other Canadians who attended
this conference. Their work and dedication are a true
contribution to rural Canada.
* * *
MEMBER FOR DAUPHIN—SWAN RIVER
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was reported in today's papers that the member for
Dauphin—Swan River is taking advice from the Americans on what
position to take on Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising
services by foreign periodical publishers.
The member for Dauphin—Swan River can argue as much as he wants
that he got information from both sides, but facts are facts. The
member met with American representatives then took his decision
by himself before he announced it to the House. Two weeks after
the fact did he agree to meet with the representatives from the
Canadian magazine industry when they requested a meeting to set
the facts straight?
The member for Dauphin—Swan River can argue as much as he wants
that he got information from both sides. Just because his seat
mate chooses to ignore him does not mean that the member should
not communicate with Canadians. It is obvious or it may as well
be written ink that the member is off the mark.
* * *
GASOLINE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how
are Canadians to understand the Liberal policy on Canadian
gasoline content?
First during the debate in the House on manganese octane
enhancement, the Minister of Industry advocated the necessity for
the harmonization of gasoline in the North American market. Now
we have the Minister of the Environment dramatically cutting
sulphur levels with no regard for the American position.
Fantastic Liberal logic.
What makes matters worse is that this Liberal logic will
eliminate independent gasoline stations in Ontario, force the
closure of Canadian refineries, reduce competition in the retail
gasoline market and, according to the chairman of the Liberal
committee on gas pricing, the member for
Pickering—Ajax-Uxbridge, will mean a 15 cent per litre increase
in gas prices.
Will this government ever get its act together and decide on a
single reasonable position on gasoline quality in Canada?
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have spoken in the House and on other occasions about
child poverty and the discrepancy between Canada's top rating by
the United Nations and the growing gap between the rich and poor
in our country.
Under treaty agreement Canada will be reviewed by UNESCO on its
human rights protections. Social problems such as poverty,
homelessness and shortage of affordable housing in our major
cities are disturbing aspects of the Canadian landscape that will
not show well under the UNESCO review.
We cannot proceed with an agenda that targets the middle and
upper classes while thousands of human beings try to survive on
the streets. The plight of Canadians who frequent food banks and
hostels must become a major priority for the House. I urge that
we take action before we loose more lives on the streets of our
cities this winter and we loose our bragging rights in the
international arena.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw
attention today to the Madore family's first victory. For 13
years now, Sylvie and Katy Madore have been working for their
mother's business in Kamouraska.
But since 1996, Human Resources Canada and Revenue Canada have
been denying Sylvie EI benefits on the basis that she is a blood
relative of her employer.
Two years of fighting Revenue Canada were required to overcome
this flaw in the system.
Sylvie Madore will finally receive retroactively the EI benefits
she was entitled to during these two years.
Sadly, this family's ordeal is not over yet. Both departments
are now targeting Katy, who has been unfairly denied benefits
for six months. It is time the two ministers stopped targeting
the unemployed and admitted there are serious problems with the
Employment Insurance Act and its application, instead of
abetting a major misappropriation of funds.
* * *
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to see which Lucien Bouchard will
participate in the leaders debate tomorrow evening.
Will it be the Lucien Bouchard who told the Toronto Star a while
back “I entered politics because I profoundly believed and
continue to believe that the future of Quebec is within
Confederation”, or the one who reiterated last weekend that
Quebec must achieve sovereignty?
Which Lucien Bouchard will show up at the leaders debate
tomorrow evening?
Will it be the one who was a member of a Conservative government
and all of a sudden quit on his Prime Minister, the convert who
now contends it is essential that Quebec become independent, or
the Lucien Bouchard who hinted at the possibility of deferring
the next referendum indefinitely?
Which of the two, or rather the three, will participate in the
leaders debate tomorrow evening?
* * *
[English]
MICHEL TRUDEAU
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our hearts go out today to former Prime Minister Trudeau
and Margaret Trudeau-Kemper on the tragic loss of their son
Michel.
Every parent's nightmare came true for them last week as Michel
died in an avalanche in British Columbia. Michel inherited his
father's love for Canada's outdoors. He was a sociable young man
who loved to travel and enjoyed hiking and skiing with his
friends. It was in following those passions that Michel
tragically perished.
As a father of five I can only imagine the pain of losing a
child. I know the love and hope his parents must have felt for
him and I can only imagine their feeling of loss.
I know that my words or any words spoken here today will provide
little comfort for them in their time of grief but I want
Michel's father and mother and entire family to know that they
are in the thoughts and prayers of every member of this House.
The Speaker: I would say that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition has spoken for the entire House today as our heartfelt
feelings go out to Mr. Trudeau, to his former wife and the
children of the Trudeau family.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Who is clearer, a
premier of Quebec who says he entered politics because he is a
sovereignist, or one who says the winning conditions are not in
place for holding a referendum on Quebec independence?
Who is clearer? The Quebec premier who had changes made to a
resolution on the holding of a referendum during a subsequent
mandate, which was passed by PQ militants at the last general
council, or the premier who declared this past weekend that
Quebec must become sovereign?
Who is clearer? The former PQ leader, Jacques Parizeau, who was
anxious to see Quebec independence as soon as possible, or
Lucien Bouchard, who is waiting for winning conditions, no
matter what the price?
This coming November 30, the vote must be for clarity, for a
stronger Quebec within a stronger Canadian federation. I will
be voting Liberal—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon.
* * *
[English]
LOUIS RIEL
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on November
16, 1885 Louis Riel was executed for high treason against the
Government of Canada. He died for his convictions, his country
and his people.
1410
One hundred years later, we must let Louis Riel take his place
among the heroes of this nation. Riel fought and died so his
people would have freedom, freedom to determine their lives and
their futures. I join my Métis colleague from Churchill River in
remembering all the valiant Métis who were killed that day in
1885. It is time to right the wrongs.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC FINANCES
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, year after
year, the Bloc Quebecois has shown how the government is hiding
the reality of public finances from the public.
Once again this year, our prediction of a budget surplus of $12
to $15 billion for 1998-99 is more realistic than the zero
surplus announced by the Minister of Finance.
In fact, according to the latest financial review six months
into this fiscal year, the surplus accumulated by the federal
government has already reached $10.4 billion. The credibility
of the Minister of Finance is getting pretty thin.
The government claims to be holding pre-budget consultations, but
these are based on inaccurate information. Meanwhile, the
Minister of Finance is maintaining his cuts in health and
employment insurance, while secretly using the huge surplus just
to pay down the debt. The people will be the judge of this.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is a vote
for the PQ on November 30 a vote for a referendum?
The Bloc Quebecois leader was saying very clearly that this was
the case.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis had a bit more to say on the
subject a few days later, pointing out that the referendum
should be held by 2001.
However, the Premier of Quebec took the wind out of the sails of
the true sovereignists by saying that the timing of the
referendum would depend on the presence of the winning
conditions. He thus discouraged all those who had hoped for a
referendum in the next mandate, as had initially been the choice
of the militant PQ members in a general council vote.
And the truth? On November 30, it is clear: a vote for the PQ
is a vote for a referendum.
* * *
[English]
RIGHT HON. JOE CLARK
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
November 14 thousands of Canadians came together in a new and
historic process to choose the Right Hon. Joe Clark as the leader
of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Mr. Clark is a man of integrity. He has been all things to the
Progressive Conservative Party, from youth president to Prime
Minister of Canada. He is respected internationally for his work
on human rights, free trade and building bridges with developing
countries. He is respected here at home as a man who cares
passionately about a united Canada. He is a proud Albertan. He
has proven himself to be a man of vision. He was a fiscal
conservative before it was popular to be a fiscal conservative.
He is a consensus builder. He believes in openness and
democracy and he was chosen the leader of our party in the most
open and democratic process ever to be held in Canada.
We look forward to Mr. Clark's principled leadership as he lays
out his priorities for a brighter and stronger future for
Canadians from across this great country.
* * *
MISSISSAUGA WEST
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party recently mailed brochures on employment
insurance to individuals and businesses in my riding of
Mississauga West. I remind the Reform Party of the old adage you
gotta fish where the fish are.
In the last election the Reform candidate in my riding got a
whopping 18.3% of the vote. That may be slightly better than
Reform's current standing in the national polls but it is a far
cry from the 61.2% of my constituents who voted Liberal. It does
not appear to me that many Mississaugans would be interested in
being on Reform's mailing list. The real galling part is that
Reform has the audacity to title its brochure “Whose money is it
anyway?”
Despite the fact that the brochure warns the government not to
misuse taxpayer dollars, the Reform Party used taxpayer dollars
to produce it and to mail it out. Whose money is it anyway? It
is the taxpayers' money and the citizens of Mississauga West—
The Speaker: Oral Questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last month the finance minister said that Canada risked
falling back into a deficit so we had to keep taxes ratcheted up
high.
Now we learn that the finance minister has actually overtaxed
Canadians by $10 billion in just the first six months of 1998.
He has set a new record for gouging taxpayers, taking billions
from Canadians whom the government itself defines as living in
poverty.
How could the finance minister miscalculate the budget surplus
by so much? Why is he trying to hide overtaxation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there certainly has been no miscalculation of the budget
surplus.
If the hon. member wants to talk about taxation, the fact is
that last year not only did the government take 400,000 Canadians
off the tax rolls, it brought in $7 billion of tax reductions
which will take place over the course of the next three years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, taking an extra $10 billion from taxpayers is not
tax relief. It is called gouging. It is called having the
highest personal income taxes in the western world. It is called
punishing employers and employees with unreasonable payroll
taxes.
Personal income taxes are up $2 billion and corporate income
taxes are up by almost $1 billion.
Why will the finance minister not admit that his so-called
surplus is nothing more than evidence that he is overtaxing,
gouging the taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear that six months does not a year make.
What is painfully evident is that the leader of the Reform Party
is unable to accept the fact that Canada has a $10 billion
surplus going into what is a very uncertain economic climate.
What is really true is that the leader of the Reform Party is
unable to accept the fact that Canada is doing well in a world
that is in considerable uncertainty.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian taxpayers want a reward. Where is the tax
relief?
This month this finance minister is going to try to twist the
arm of the Employment Insurance Commission to keep ripping off
workers and employers with excessively high payroll tax rates.
He has an option to return those dollars to Canadians.
Will the finance minister give workers and employers the tax
relief and cuts in employment insurance rates that they deserve,
according to the chief actuary himself?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget not only did we bring down taxes by
$7 billion over three years, but we reduced EI premiums by $1.5
billion last year, which was the largest single reduction in EI
premiums.
The real problem is that the leader of the Reform Party does not
like it when Canada is doing well. It is doing well and it is
going to continue to do well.
* * *
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the country is going to do well, as Gordon Thiessen said this
morning, then perhaps the finance minister should talk himself
right around the circle and give tax relief to Canadians.
He has skimmed $10 billion out of the pockets of people—workers
and business people—in this country who have paid EI premiums.
They have paid billions of dollars into it. He owes them money
back.
When is he going to make his announcement that he is going to
lower premiums to $1.90 for workers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us understand what members of the Reform Party are
advocating.
They are advocating $9 billion worth of tax reductions. They
are advocating $9 billion worth of debt reduction, and now they
are advocating $6 billion in terms of EI premium cuts. What they
are advocating is $24 billion to $25 billion in cuts.
Where is that money going to come out of? It will come out of
our health care system. It will come out of transfers to the
provinces. It will come out of the things that count for
Canadians. That is their real agenda.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
our real agenda is to give tax relief. Our agenda is exactly
what the actuary's agenda is, which is for the finance minister
to lower premiums to $1.90.
I do not think he is too nervous about what the actuary is
saying, he just needs to act on it.
1420
With these billions of dollars in excess payments that people
have built up, why is the finance minister not going to just give
that money back to them? It is Canadians' money, not his own
personal fund. When will he give it back?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform members talk about their agenda. In their
program they would take $3.5 billion out of health care. They
would take $1 billion out of equalization for Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. They would gut the amount of transfers that go to
aboriginal Canadians. They would not support research and
development.
They would pay for their tax cuts on the backs of the future of
this country and we will not do that.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to Finance Canada's Finance Monitor, the government
has accumulated a $10.4 billion budget surplus in six months.
At this rate, by the end of the year, the surplus will be $15
billion, with half of it coming from the employment insurance
fund.
Does this kind of surplus not show that this is government
policy and that the reason the finance minister will not improve
the plan is that he wants to keep using the employment insurance
fund as a cash cow?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
we want to do is to ensure the fiscal stability of our country.
What the Bloc Quebecois is proposing is chronic deficits, a
country that will neglect its responsibility to its own people.
That is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing. But our country is
growing and will continue to grow.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the minister, who does not know how to count, the Bloc
Quebecois has accurately forecast the financial situation of the
country over the past four years. We were also the only ones to
put forward anti-deficit legislation. He should speak seriously.
Will he admit that, in using employment insurance contributions
to artificially inflate his surplus instead of helping the
unemployed, he is in fact destroying the entire Liberal Party's
social legacy, that men like his father have helped build since
the 1940s? There will be nothing left of this legacy at the rate
the minister is going.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here
is what this government is offering Canadians: shrinking
deficits, lower taxes, a national debt that is growing smaller
and a national unemployment rate that currently stands at 8.1%,
compared to 11.9% when we took office.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, a substantial part of the $5.1 billion surplus
in the employment insurance fund results from the government's
persistent refusal to pay benefits to 57% of the unemployed who
contributed to the plan.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development not ashamed to
have helped generate, in just six months, a $5.1 billion
government surplus by making people contribute to the fund, even
though they do not qualify when they lose their jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see how
difficult it is for the Bloc Quebecois here when we are dealing
with surpluses, considering that its head office in Quebec City
is obsessed with a zero deficit, something which we have
achieved and exceeded, to the point where we now enjoy a
surplus.
Your comments should reflect the decisions made by your head
office.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Let me say that, once again, the Bloc
Quebecois is trying to confuse Canadians by playing with the
figures. The fact is that 78% of those Canadians who lost their
jobs during the past year, or who quit for a valid reason, were
covered by the employment insurance system.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on page 47 of the minister's own study it is
clearly indicated that only 43% of the unemployed who
contributed to the program are getting benefits. That is the
truth.
After a week-long parliamentary break during which he had an
opportunity to meet people from various ridings, has the
minister not realized that workers do not want him to take money
out of their pockets under false pretences in order to increase
the federal government's budget surplus?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I noticed when I traveled
in Quebec last week is that Quebeckers are very pleased with the
transitional jobs fund—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: —which created thousands of jobs in
those regions where the unemployment rate is particularly high.
I met young Quebeckers who thanked me for the federal
government's youth employment strategy, which helps them join
the labour market by allowing them to gain some work experience.
1425
I met Quebeckers who were pleased with the progress we made on
the issue of child poverty by implementing a national child
benefit in co-operation with the provinces.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Two hundred and fifty thousand young Canadians start smoking
each and every year. That is a human tragedy. Clearly more
action is needed in the way of effective anti-smoking measures.
Does the health minister believe, yes or no, that a levy of 50
cents a carton is too high a price to prevent our youth from
taking up smoking?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that this government has taken important
and effective action to discourage young people from starting to
smoke. We have done that by introducing some of the toughest and
smartest anti-tobacco legislation in the western world, which
restricts access by young people to tobacco and indeed creates
offences for those who sell tobacco to persons under the legal
age.
In addition, we have already announced the intention to spend
over the coming five years $100 million in the administration of
that statute and in efforts to discourage young people from
smoking.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, who is
the health minister kidding? He knows perfectly well that only
$200,000, 2% of that $100 million prevention program, has even
begun to be put to work.
Smoking related illnesses are costing Canadians $5 billion a
year.
When will the health minister follow British Columbia's lead,
stand up to big tobacco companies and make them pay for the costs
of smoking related illnesses?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said, the member should be aware that we are devoting $100
million in the coming five years to enforce the Tobacco Act,
which is the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the western
world, and to efforts directly aimed at young people to
discourage them from starting to smoke.
I should also remind the member that our statute and powers are
to control tobacco as a substance and to increase the warnings on
tobacco packages for which we now have proposals in front of us
that are under consideration.
I can assure the hon. member that this government will follow
through on its commitment to encourage young people not to start
smoking.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister's budget projections are bogus. Revenues this
year are rising beyond his projections because of increases in
personal taxes. The Canadian standard of living continues to
decline as taxes rise.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of
Taxpayers has endorsed the PC plan demanding tax relief.
Will the minister commit today to lowering taxes and making them
fairer for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last PC plan I saw had a $42 billion deficit in it.
We have made it very clear that it is our intention to reduce
taxes. We did so in the last budget. We would hope to do so in
every budget. We would also hope to continue to reduce EI
premiums. We would also hope to see the kind of job creation
that Canada is now coming forth with which is the strongest job
creation of almost any of the G-7 countries.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
last PC plan I saw had free trade and GST in it. I would like to
know where the Liberals, who are sitting in this House today,
were back then.
The fact is that personal taxes are up $2 billion this year and
low income earners have had the biggest tax hike of all Canadians
due to the 70% increase in CPP payroll taxes. The government now
wants to maintain unnecessarily high EI premiums. These payroll
taxes are regressive and punish the poor in Canada.
Why is this finance minister balancing the books on the backs of
low income Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the current EI premiums, at $2.70, are substantially
lower than the EI premiums that existed when the Tories were in
office.
It is right that the surplus for the first six months is $10
billion higher than some people would have projected. However, I
sat in this House when Tory finance minister after Tory finance
minister made a mistake and it went the other way. If we are
going to make a mistake I would rather make it our way.
* * *
1430
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Sadly, Mr.
Speaker, it is taxpayers who pay for his mistakes: $10 billion
right out of their pockets.
The fact is that the finance minister is sitting on a $10
billion mountain of money gouged right out of the pockets of
Canadian taxpayers and a full $7 billion of that comes from
workers and employers through EI overtaxation.
When will the finance minister come down off money mountain and
make sure that Canadians get the tax relief they need through
lower EI premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will have a supplementary question so
let him deal in the supplementary with the real difference of
opinion.
We want to reduce taxes. We have demonstrated that. We want to
reduce EI premiums. We have demonstrated that. This is not the
issue. The issue is that we are not prepared to do it on the
backs of low income Canadians. We are not prepared to do it on
the backs of poor families with children. We are not prepared to
do it by gutting the health care system.
That is the Reform Party agenda and at least its members ought
to have the guts to stand and admit it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last year 2.5 million Canadians earning less than $30,000 a year
kicked in $2.5 billion in EI premiums. That is the government's
record when it comes to taxation of low income Canadians. I
think the air is a little thin up there on money mountain. The
oxygen is not getting to his brain.
The fact is that Canadians pay far too much in taxes, 56% higher
than the G-7 average. There is a $7 billion surplus in the EI
fund. When will the minister wake up and understand that the
surplus is not his? It belongs to workers and employers. When
will he give it back to them in the form of lower premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us simply take a look at the facts.
In the first 10 months of 1996, 321,000 new jobs were created.
In the month of October 57,000 new jobs were created. The reason
for that is that the nation's finances have been cleaned up and
there is a feeling of confidence across the country.
That is what will lead to job creation. That is what will lead
to lower taxes. The Reform Party ought to understand that
Canadians are now on a roll and ought to stop trying to stop it.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
latest financial review reveals a surplus of over $10 billion in
the first half of the current fiscal year.
However, last month, the Minister of Finance was maintaining his
harebrained prediction of zero budget surplus for 1998-99.
Will the minister confirm that by so shamelessly hiding the
surpluses, his plan for them is to apply them all to the debt,
since under accounting rules all unplanned surpluses must be
applied to the debt?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have always said our projections would not be of our optimum
performance, but of our minimum.
I am proud of Canada's victory over the deficit, and I am very
happy to see that we have a $10 billion surplus for the first
six months of this year. However, we still have another six
months to go.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, being
100% wrong one month is certainly the minimum in terms of skill.
If the minister wants to use part of the surplus for something
other than debt reduction, he knows he can table a supplementary
budget to increase, for example, health transfers.
So why does the minister not want to use part of his $10 billion
surplus to increase health transfers, when all the provinces are
asking him to do so, when he has the wherewithal and when he can
do so by tabling a supplementary budget this week?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
is just what we did in the last budget. We increased transfers
to the provinces by $7 billion over five years, and the Bloc
members voted in opposition.
When we look at what the Bloc proposes, we realize that they
want to spend $15 billion this year and $15 billion next year.
They want Canada to be back in a deficit position. This is
certainly not what Canadians want.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister just said that the Reform Party would gut health care.
However the health minister in the five years they have had power
has taken $7 billion a year out of transfers to the provinces.
I have a brand new Canadian Medical Association poll which says
that 68% of Canadians want that money back into health care. Why,
with $10 billion extra in the bank, is our health care system in
such a mess?
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has already made clear that health will be the
focus of the next major reinvestment by the government. The hon.
member can count on us to keep our word.
What is passing strange is that this question would come from a
member and from a party that if given the opportunity would gut
the Canada Health Act, would repeal it and would end medicare.
This is the member and this is the party that called the Canada
Health Act outdated legislation. It is shocking that this man
would stand in the House and ask a question about the very
medicare, given the chance, that he would destroy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the
best defence is a good offence. The minister will twist any fact
he has to but he does not answer the question.
Here are the Liberal facts on health care. They promised to
preserve it. They delivered $7 billion in cuts. They promised
to cut waiting lists. We have the worst waiting lists in
Canadian history. They are trying to look after the brain drain.
They are firing more physicians and health care workers, sending
them to the States.
Why with $10 billion in the bank do we have a medicare system
that is in a mess?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many responses come to mind from the health transition fund we
created to the $1.5 billion increase in the provincial transfer.
The government has shown through the last difficult five years
its commitment to health as a priority. The Prime Minister has
also said that in the months ahead we will demonstrate once again
that health is to us a central concern.
This member speaks of twisting the facts. He is the member of
the House who stood in his place and said that the Canada Health
Act was outdated legislation. He called for choice which we all
know is a code word for American style private insurance. This
man and his party should be ashamed of themselves.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance wants to change the government accounting system so as
to combine the employment insurance surplus and the general
government surplus.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it not his
intention to combine the two surpluses so that in future people
will not know what exact proportion of the huge federal
government surplus is from employment insurance, since the
figures have become far too embarrassing for him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
that we are doing is complying with the requests of the Auditor
General which date back to 1986. They were also complied with
by the previous government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, seriously, I
am asking the Minister of Finance, now that the members of the
cabinet realize that they do not contribute to the employment
insurance fund, as they thought they did up until last week,
whether they do not find it quite simply immoral to vote in
favour of a tax reduction for themselves from an employment
insurance program to which they do not even contribute? Is this
not immoral?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to reducing the taxes paid by
our seniors, if they are opposed to lower taxes for the middle
class, for self-employed people, that is up to them.
We, on the other hand, intend to continue to reduce the tax
burden for Canadian taxpayers, just as we did in the last
budget.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister wants Canadians to believe that he has brought tax cuts.
Maybe he is thinking about tax cuts in the countries of Liberia,
Barbados and Bermuda where certain steamship lines are
registered. However a local restaurant cannot avoid the finance
minister's taxes by flying a Liberian flag and a corner
barbershop cannot hide assets by registering in Barbados.
When will the finance minister treat ordinary taxpayers to the
same low taxes that companies like CSL enjoy offshore?
The Speaker: I would ask members to be very judicious in
their choice of words. We sometimes come close to attacking each
other personally and I would prefer that this would cease.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will preserve the health care system in this country.
We will preserve the social safety net.
1440
The hon. member is recommending on behalf of his party a social
safety net comparable to that of Liberia. They are recommending
a health care system comparable to that of Liberia. That is
where they have probably chosen their social model from. Not us.
This is an advanced and progressive country and we will not
listen to Reform.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister thinks his $10 billion in
overtaxation is something to celebrate. For him it may well be.
By his definition anybody less than a millionaire is middle class
and a tax target.
The Speaker: I want the hon. member to go to his
question.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Two million Canadians earn less than
$10,000 a year but they still pay his high EI rate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, health
and environmental organizations are condemning Health Canada's
inaction and that of its minister regarding toys containing
toxic products that exceed up to ten times the existing
standard, threatening children's health.
Since the minister has known for one year the real danger posed
by these toys, which were banned by the European community, how
can he justify not having taken any measures to protect our
children's health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
already taken action. Today, Health Canada issued a health
notice on the products referred to by the hon. member.
[English]
Today as a precautionary measure Health Canada announced as a
warning to all parents that they should remove from the home
certain objects that are made of vinyl and that are used or
designed for use in the mouth of infants and young children. We
are co-operating with the Retail Council of Canada to remove
those objects from the shelves of stores across the country.
In addition—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
* * *
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is on record as reducing
duplication and overlap in administering its programs and
services.
Therefore I ask the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification why WD has opened a new office in Calgary. Is
this efficient use of taxpayers' money?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, WD is bringing a service to the people. WD has over 100
points of service in the four western provinces, 90 community
futures development corporations, four women's enterprise centres
and a one-stop business development centre to serve the people
locally.
Calgary is the gateway to southern Alberta and to the large
market of the United States. It is doing business with the
people locally to assist them with their particular needs. It is
good business.
* * *
ACOA
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, another
day, another ACOA scandal. The Canadian Blood Bank Corporation
has been bleeding the public purse for almost $10 million while
the government has done nothing to protect taxpayers.
This small company with big Liberal connections was funded by
the ministers for ACOA and human resources. Now Blood Bank
Corporation has shut its doors and is being sued by creditors.
The Newfoundland government had the sense to secure its $500,000
loan to the company. Why did the government not do the same?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that because there is a
court case involved I cannot report on the specifics. What I can
say is that ACOA recognizes the comparatively high risk and the
potential high gain from sectors such as biotechnology.
ACOA will continue to fill the critical financing gap that is
caused by the high prospect technology base start-ups which
traditional financial institutions are sometimes reluctant to do.
We are not ashamed of that.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is unacceptable. I do not know how the minister could stand in
this place and defend this deal.
This company gained notoriety claiming it had a $300 million
deal with China after returning from a team Canada trade mission.
It was given $2.5 million taxpayer dollars claiming it would
store people's blood but it cannot show any clients. It became a
public company on the strength of these assertions but they were
not true.
1445
Will the minister immediately investigate this shameful
mismanagement of public funds?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's attitude toward
Atlantic Canada and ACOA unacceptable and I will tell you why,
Mr. Speaker. ACOA produces for Atlantic Canada 13,000 jobs every
year. The Reform Party does not like it. Post TAGS has looked
after 25,000 displaced fishermen and plant workers. The Reform
Party is against it.
If the hon. member and his party are interested in getting any
seats in Atlantic Canada, they had better get their act together.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture's response to the growing farm income
crisis is to say that farmers may have to drain their net income
stabilization accounts before he will introduce a disaster relief
program. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says there are
many important reasons that farmers should not first have to use
their NISA including the fact that by so doing a farmer might be
penalized for prudent management.
When will the minister stop pretending NISA is the answer to
this genuine crisis and announce a disaster relief program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with the provinces and
the industry, this government and governments before it have put
in place a number of risk management tools with the agriculture
industry.
We are working with the industry and the provinces to make sure
that every farmer makes absolute use of those if they possibly
can. We are also working to do what we can as quickly as we can
to address any needs beyond those.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, under any
scenario, funds will not flow to farmers before next March. By
then the minister knows full well that it will be too late for
thousands of farmers who face a genuine disaster now.
The minister hinted at some disaster relief 10 days ago at the
United Grain Growers Convention in Regina but as anyone knows,
you cannot go to the banker with a hint.
I ask again, when does the agriculture minister plan to announce
a disaster relief fund to help desperate Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeatedly tell the member and the
industry out there, and the industry knows and the member knows,
that we are working as quickly and as thoroughly as we possibly
can in order to put together the best help that we can to assist
those in the industry who need it the most.
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The environment committee is undergoing a clause by clause
review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as
Bill C-32. This bill, which was co-sponsored by the minister and
the Minister of the Environment, has come under attack by
environmentalists and health organizations as it fails to protect
Canadians from harmful toxic substances. Substances that have
damaging effects on the endocrine systems of living organisms
will not be considered toxic under the assessment criteria in
this bill.
Will the Minister of Health announce today that he will endorse
the amendments to improve this bill's capacity to capture these
harmful substances?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact Canadians are
worried about the effects of pollution on their health and the
health of their children.
The environmental protection act is currently before the House
in clause by clause study as the member has mentioned. It will
in fact give us important tools in addressing pollution and
setting strict new guidelines for taking action on toxic
substances.
1450
I think the member is prejudging the clause by clause process
and that would be inappropriate at this time.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health, the co-sponsor of this
bill. Canadians want to know what the Minister of Health has to
say about the issue.
[Translation]
Committee members, including the Liberal members for York North
and Lac-Saint-Louis, suggested amendments to improve the bill. But
they need the government's support. So far, the government has
rejected all the proposed changes to better protect Canadians'
health.
Will the Minister of Health finally listen to the backbenchers
in his own party and support their request regarding an
endocrine system?
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's question is
a bit out of line. The clause by clause process has only just
started and in fact we have not got to the very clauses he is
referring to.
This bill is an important bill that puts the health of Canadians
and the environment first as we head into the next millennium.
It is an important piece of legislation. I hope the member will
work with all committee members to see it is enacted.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, hurricane Mitch has destroyed hundreds of bridges and
roads in Nicaragua and Honduras, cutting off the most severely
affected communities. The response to this natural disaster by
Canadians has been incredible but my constituents and I are
concerned about those most in need.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation tell us what
steps are being taken to ensure that international assistance
reaches those most in need?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to start by highlighting the tremendous
work of Canadian NGOs, the private sector and national defence.
Perhaps the Reform Party could learn a few things about
compassion and charity.
People are working night and day to ensure that aid is getting
to those parts of Honduras and Nicaragua which have been cut off
from clean water, food and housing for some time. That is why I
am pleased—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, talking about compassion and charity, I have a
question for the solicitor general.
The solicitor general and the APEC inquiry have come under a
cloud. The chairman of the commission has come under a cloud.
This weekend we had a former investigator and a former general
counsel for the commission say that reports have been changed and
altered in the past.
Today the RCMP themselves, the people who work for the minister,
have asked for the commission to be cancelled. Is it not time
for a full judicial inquiry so we can get to the bottom of this
issue?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the public complaints commission has all the powers of a
judicial inquiry. In fact parliament established this process to
deal with issues just like this.
To respond to the question of the member, the public complaints
commission is responsible to parliament. It is not part of the
RCMP at all. It is accountable to this House, as was determined
in 1988 by this House.
* * *
[Translation]
ICEBREAKING POLICY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Under the latest icebreaker fee schedule proposed by the
Canadian Coast Guard, public vessels operated by the federal and
Newfoundland governments will have absolutely no fees to pay,
while those operated by the Société des traversiers du Québec
will have to pay fees whether or not there is ice to break.
How can the fisheries minister justify an icebreaking policy
that exempts federal and Newfoundland public vessels but not
Quebec public vessels?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fee schedule we are proposing was developed by
an industry-led committee, most of whose members represented the
St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region. At the time, the committee
thought it had achieved the most satisfactory compromise for all
regions and all users.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at
the APEC summit this week Canada has an opportunity to support
the Malaysian people in their struggle for democracy as was shown
by U.S. Vice-President Al Gore.
It is clear that rapid trade and investment liberalization at
the expense of human rights, labour standards and democracy are
treacherous.
Will the Minister of Finance commit to controls to curb the
volatility and damage of international capital and focus Canada's
support on sustainable development and democracy?
1455
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member may know, about two months ago Canada
put forth a six point plan. One of the points dealt with the
question of capital liberalization. We took the position that
countries should not be forced into capital liberalization until
they are ready and until their markets are sufficiently
sophisticated that they ought to be able to put in place means of
preventing hot money from coming into their countries.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Palliser has stated under oath that the
Solicitor General not only prejudged the Public Complaints
Commission inquiry, but also made light of the financial
situation of the head of the inquiry, Gérald Morin.
Will the Solicitor General show the same courage by making his
own statement under oath about this infamous conversation of
October 1?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, I never said
anything that would prejudge the process or the outcome of the
public complaints commission's hearing. I take this exercise
extremely seriously. As for the member for Palliser's recent
statements, I am reviewing them now and I will make a decision by
Wednesday.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women.
Everyone in this House knows that the Canadian government has
always been a great financial support for women's groups. The
National Action Committee on the Status of Women is claiming this
government is unwilling to fund it. I would like to hear from
the secretary of state as to what the government's position is
with respect to funding NAC.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware
that NAC represents as an umbrella organization many women in
this country. As a result of that, we are prepared to work with
NAC and to fund NAC for programs that are fulfilling the criteria
for our program funding.
The first NAC submission was a conflict of interest. We have
asked for further details on the second submission. We have yet
to receive those details. The hon. member should know that at
this point out of 14 national groups 12 have already been funded
and are carrying on with their good work.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the solicitor general.
He knows the public complaints commission reports to a minister
of the government before it reports to parliament. A judge does
not report to a minister of the House. A judge is totally
independent, unlike the public complaints commission. The
minister also knows that a judicial inquiry would be totally
independent of this House. People who work for this government
would not be phoning the CBC about a reporter if a judge were
handling this case.
Will the minister finally tell the people of Canada that he will
do what everybody in Canada wants, except for members of the
Liberal Party over here, and have a judicial inquiry into the
APEC affair?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is, I am sure, inadvertently misstating
the role of a judge if he has been appointed to take part in an
inquiry under the Inquiries Act. That judge would be appointed
by the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister would set the terms
of reference of the judge and the length of time the inquiry
would take place. This is not the case with the public
complaints commission. The report of the judge in an inquiry
would go to the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office.
Thanks for the vote of confidence by the Reform Party for the
process that is under way or would be under way if there were an
inquiry.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRAL AMERICA
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Cooperation.
The disaster unleashed on Central America has destroyed the
entire economy of Honduras and Nicaragua, and has had a heavy
impact on the economy of other countries in that region, one of
the poorest in the world.
Does the government support the proposal by President Chirac
that the debt of the devastated countries be struck off the
books completely and that an international conference be held on
the economic reconstruction of these countries?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
in Honduras and Nicaragua yesterday, and I can report that the
damage is incredible. I have the honour to announce that the
government will provide $100 million for reconstruction over the
next four years.
1500
I had a long conversation with the Minister of Finance, and he
supports my request to at least stop payments on this debt. I
hope more can be done as time goes on.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR ATHABASCA
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege. Very
briefly it boils down to this.
On November 5 in the House the member for Athabasca made a
statement to the effect that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I
have accused Health Canada, quoting from Hansard, “of
incompetence, negligence and using Canadians as guinea pigs
regarding the use of the manganese gasoline additive MMT”.
I categorically deny having made such a statement. To the best
of my knowledge also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis did not.
Therefore I urge the member for Athabasca to rise in the House
and retract that statement.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege.
To quote from Hansard, the member for Athabasca mentioned
that I accused Health Canada of “incompetence, negligence and
using Canadians as guinea pigs regarding the use of the manganese
gasoline additive MMT”.
I never did any such thing. I said that Ethyl Corporation used
Canadians as guinea pigs. I never accused the Minister of Health
in any way. I would like the member to retract his statement.
The Speaker: Many times we have in the
House statements and counter statements. Let the record show
that the two members who were named in a statement by another
member have denied that. This is not a point of privilege.
However, if the hon. member for Athabasca wants to join in I will
permit him to.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
along with some of my colleagues attended the meeting in
question. I listened to the entire debate. My member's
statement reflected my understanding of what the two members were
saying. I stick with that position.
The Speaker: Now the record is straight on both sides. It
is an interpretation of the facts, not a question of privilege.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to notice given earlier
today. The background to my point of privilege flows from the
following events in the House.
First, on November 4 the House unanimously adopted the 13th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.
Second, on November 5 certain members of the House spoke to a
point of order raised by the member for Surrey Central. In a
ruling later that same day it was noted that recommendations Nos.
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 required substantive amendments to the standing
orders and required various technical interpretations.
Subsequently the Clerk was asked to draft proposed amendments to
implement recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of that report
and submit that draft to the House leaders.
It is my submission that submitting the redrafted standing
orders concerning Private Members' Business to the House leaders
is a breach of my privileges as a member of this House.
The matter of Private Members' Business as noted in the report
as adopted at page 7 reflects on the non-partisan and
non-governmental nature of Private Members' Business.
Mr. Speaker has implemented this principle of non-partisanship
by ordering the implementation of recommendation No. 5 dealing
with the conducting of a vote on Private Members' Business.
1505
As an extension of this principle, I must ask for the
implementation of recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 by
reference to members of this House and not by submitting a draft
to the House leaders.
If the spirit and intent of the non-government and non-partisan
nature of Private Members' Business is to be upheld, only the
members of this House may pronounce on them. No intermediaries,
such as House leaders, should be consulted since by reference to
House leaders of the redrafted standing orders my privilege as a
member of this House, certainly during private members' hour, is
being directly affected.
My privileges exist by virtue of the office of member of this
House and no individual or entity, corporate or political, may
intervene save and except this House itself.
Since the House unanimously adopted the 13th report concerning
Private Members' Business, the House must also pronounce on the
redrafted standing orders.
I suggest that to refer these redrafted standing orders to the
House leaders is a breach of my privileges as a member of the
House in that it removes my right to examine, study, speak and
perhaps vote on these important changes to the standing orders.
Standing orders, as we know, are the rules and regulations which
the House has agreed on for the governance of its own
proceedings. It is noted in Beauchesne's sixth edition at
paragraph 9 on page 5:
All rules are passed by the House by a simple majority and are
altered, added to, or removed in the same way.
That paragraph also refers to the role of the standing committee
on procedure in being a permanent source of recommendations for
changes to standing orders. What is of interest to me is that
there is no mention of reference to government House leaders.
Briefly, these changes to the standing orders are for private
members' hour. Therefore to refer these proposed changes to the
House leaders is to put into the hands of five people the
possible fate of the rule change recommendations which were
adopted in a report by the House.
In short, the House leaders may never agree and hence they may
never return to the House.
Beauchesne's also notes on page 5, paragraph 9:
I therefore suggest that a prima facie case of privilege exists
and with Mr. Speaker's permission I would like to move a motion.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to comment briefly on this question of privilege.
I assure the hon. member opposite that as far as the official
opposition is concerned the spirit and principles contained in
the 13th report of the Standing Committee of Procedure and House
Affairs are not up for negotiations.
What the House leaders will attempt to do is find a swift and
convenient means to get these draft standing orders changed
before all members of the House for a decision.
I accept that there is a leadership in the House. While I hope
that leadership can come to a unanimous decision, it is not a
requirement to advance the progress on this very important
matter.
We make progress in this House with unanimity or without
unanimity.
1510
Speaking for the private members of the official opposition in
the House, we are not going to back away just because there is no
unanimity. The way I see it, if all the House leaders agree then
a motion will be moved by unanimous consent. If there is no
unanimity then we move the motion under the rubric motions during
Routine Proceedings.
I have considered all other options with the following
observations other than that process I just described. The first
is Private Members' Business. The terms of consideration for a
motion under Private Members' Business would be subject to the
luck of the draw. A follow-up motion complying with an order of
the House should not be subject to a draw. I would discount
that.
A supply motion would do the same trick to some extent. It may
not be appropriate to implement a measure affecting private
members, a majority of whom sit on the government side the House,
with an opposition motion. In addition, there are precious few
votable opposition motions available to the opposition to be used
to implement minor rule changes on which the House already
pronounced itself last week.
Finally, I looked at the government orders and the government
has the most opportunities and flexibility to introduce and move
motions. However, I agree with the member's argument that the
House, independent of the government, adopted the 13th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
While I would welcome the government's initiative in this
regard, the responsibility to implement the details of these rule
changes is not at this stage of the game a matter of ministerial
responsibility. The motion that was adopted by the House did not
ask the government to bring forward these changes. This is
clearly a matter for the House to consider and it is not the
prerogative of the government.
I recognize that for the most part the only motion a private
member can move during Routine Proceedings is a motion to concur
in a committee report. However, there are extraordinary
circumstances where a private member can move a motion under
motions. This was done in the last parliament by the member for
Crowfoot. The extraordinary circumstances in that case was that
the Standing Committee on Justice refused to report a private
member's bill back to the House.
While the government has many tools at its disposal to deal with
a similar situation for a government bill, a private member does
not. The Speaker recognized this extraordinary circumstance and
quite correctly interpreted the rules to provide a mechanism for
a private member.
The circumstances today are also extraordinary and when Mr.
Speaker considers all options, as I just did, there is only one
logical conclusion. A motion to comply with the order of the
House from November 4, 1998 regarding standing order changes can
be moved by unanimous consent or under motions during routine
proceedings.
I believe the timing of these changes is crucial. One of the
aspects of the changes would be to protect private members'
motions or bills from prorogation. Prorogation is a bill killer.
It is well known that cabinet does not like some of the
initiatives of the backbench of late and may be tempted to use
its bill killing powers to silence them and put them in their
place. The government backbench and the opposition have
effectively filled the policy void of this government. For this
reason cabinet may be the biggest obstacle for the implementation
of these new rule changes.
However, if it wants to kill this initiative it will have to do
it democratically. And in case it has not noticed, there are
more of us than there are of its members, unless the Prime
Minister appoints 151 ministers to his cabinet. He is going to
lose this one. The private member is going to win.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Chair has
ruled on this issue previously. To bring this issue today before
the House and to develop it much further is in a way questioning
the Speaker's ruling which has already been rendered.
Second, how the House leaders will deal with this issue will be
determined at the conclusion of the negotiations that Mr. Speaker
has set out, not before they begin.
1515
An hon. member: It's not for negotiation.
Hon. Don Boudria: The hon. member opposite says that it
is not for negotiation. The Chair has already ruled on that
proposition and I have not appealed the Chair's ruling. I could
not do so, nor would I have the intention of doing so.
Finally, something has just been raised with regard to private
members' items and prorogation. Need I remind the House that all
bills disappear at prorogation: private members' bills and
government business. In the past we have sought, between
parties, to find ways to reactivate bills at various stages and
we have achieved a consensus in that regard.
I have more faith in the co-operation between political parties
than perhaps some have indicated on the floor of the House today.
I am confident that such good arrangements can and will be made
in the future.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few brief remarks to the
points raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. The point
he raises is very interesting.
Obviously, as a House leader I have a bit of a conflict speaking
to this. However, I would say that the House leaders, whom the
Speaker has said should make the changes to the standing orders,
are perhaps not the appropriate ones to do so. I will make that
argument.
At the outset, the Conservative Party is in favour of the 13th
report.
It seems to me that the problem came upon this House without
notice and perhaps without the forethought which might have
prevented this problem.
I find it regrettable that the report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs lacked the precision and the
crispness that one would normally associate with that committee.
Unfortunately, as the Speaker has discovered, the committee
failed to draft its report in such a way that would give effect
to its own recommendations if the report was adopted.
I assume that this was perhaps a deliberate action on behalf of
the committee and that it was not prepared to place the changes
it adopted to the standing orders before the House in its report.
In the past Speakers have intervened to prevent the House from
going down that road. However, the Speaker has given a ruling in
a genuine attempt to assist this House with a difficulty not of
the Speaker's creation.
There is a disturbing trend, I might add, of the government
trampling over private members' bills, including those of its own
backbenchers.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton is quite correct to feel
aggrieved. I do not welcome being placed in this position
myself, nor does the Chair. Frankly, this all came about as a
surprise. I want to assure the member that there was no
consultation with other House leaders prior to this matter coming
forward or the Speaker giving his ruling.
Because of the way the committee has drafted its report, the
House has no vehicle by which to give effect to these
recommendations. The committee has a duty to present the House
with clear recommendations which, if adopted, would achieve the
changes that the committee desires.
I support the objections of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. It
is clear that the Speaker cannot get involved in the process of
formulating questions for the House, but neither, I suggest, can
the House leaders.
The simplest remedy, which I offer with respect to the Chair, is
for the standing committee to do its work again, send the matter
back, and make the amendments to the standing orders that it
desires. Otherwise the House is left with a document which is
not much more than a vague wish list.
It is not the duty of the House officers or the Speaker to clear
up this matter, it is a matter for the committee itself.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to rise in this House today to voice my support
and my caucus' support for the question of privilege raised by
the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Members may not know this, but the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, which tabled the report which was
unanimously adopted after concurrence, is composed of a majority
of Liberal members of Parliament.
Also, Mr. Speaker, for your information, I provide to the
members of this House the fact that not only is the majority of
the committee Liberals, but that indeed the chief government
whip, the deputy House leader of the government and other
prominent members of Parliament from the Liberal Party who have
significant responsibilities in the government are on the
committee.
I am puzzled as to why the government is concerned about
adopting all of these recommendations from the committee when it
was the Liberal part of the committee which wholeheartedly
embraced and endorsed the recommendations that were made.
1520
As a matter of fact, the NDP member, yours truly, was the only
one who had some concerns about what was in the report.
That aside, I would abide by and certainly support the
initiative which took place in the House with respect to moving
concurrence unanimously and adopting the report.
I stand in support of the question of privilege put forward by
the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I believe that government
members should shake their heads in bewilderment if they are
opposed to this document when it was their own government that
embraced it, promoted it and put it forward on the table.
I support the member's question of privilege on this issue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to rise in support of this question of privilege.
I would point out that in this House there is only one member
who is not represented by any political party, I believe, and
that is the member for York South—Weston. He too is interested
in private members' business and in fact would not be represented
at negotiations among House leaders because he does not have the
privilege of being represented by any of the House leaders in
this place. So the private members' business would go forward,
about which he would be particularly concerned and interested,
and yet he would not have any input through a party structure in
those negotiations.
If this comes back to the House in a format that we again have
to decide whether we are going to accept it or not—and we agreed
the other day to concur in the report—all we can do is really,
really, really agree. We have no choice. The House has spoken.
It is time to move it forward.
On those two points I agree with the member's question of
privilege, not only with respect to his privileges, but
particularly with respect to the member for York South—Weston
who will be left out of this process.
The Speaker: First of all, with respect
to the question of privilege of the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton, I do not consider the point which he brought up
to be a challenge to my ruling. I want to make that understood
at the outset.
I think what we have had here today is an airing of the ideas
which were put forth.
I would like to recapitulate this issue for the House so that we
are on the same footing.
I believe that on November 4 a unanimous decision was made by
the House to proceed in a certain manner with regard to a matter
that was before the House. When the House pronounced on the
matter, the Speaker, who has to put into effect what the House
has decided, looked at those points of the decision which were
procedural. Those points which were procedural and could be
implemented at the time were implemented at the time.
I reserved a decision on the other points. Forgive me if I do
not have the numbers in front of me, but they were the numbers
cited by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
I was left, as the Speaker, trying to decipher what the House
had decided. The House had clearly decided to proceed. That was
a decision made by the House. Therefore, on those matters which
could be changed at the time, I acted on them.
On the others I had to seek advice. In order to do that, I
thought the best way for us to proceed would be to ask the clerk
of the House to draft motions which he would put into the hands
of the House leaders. I presumed that the House leaders would
have discussions with members of their own party. But at no time
did I say or did I intend to say that the House leaders would
decide on these changes. The House leaders would, I hope, agree,
but it is the House that will be seized with making this decision
when it comes to the floor of the House itself.
1525
As far as the member's question of privilege is concerned, I
would rule that he does not have a question of privilege, but he
surely has a grievance. I believe that there are methods by
which grievances can be addressed.
I would not be so bold as to suggest that any one member, for
example the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party,
has all of the solutions, nor does the House leader for the
Reform Party. But surely these are points which might be
considered when this material is put into the hands of the House
leaders.
I would advise and I would recommend to those members who feel
aggrieved, if they do not already know all of the means that are
at their disposal to rectify the situation, that we would surely
be able to give advice on some of the procedures which would be
available to members to rectify this situation.
However, I repeat that the decision will not be taken by the
House leaders alone. The decision will be taken by the House.
If there is no further debate on this matter at this time, we
will leave you to your devices at this point.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to seek to understand
what was unparliamentary or out of order in the preamble to my
question during question period today, sir.
The Speaker: As a rule the Speaker does not give
explanations for his decisions. Generally speaking, what I would
hope that this House would stay away from would be remarks that
are of such a personal nature that they do not really bear upon
the jurisdiction of a particular minister or any particular
member.
When I am in the Chair and when these decisions have to be
taken, I have to make a decision on how “personal” they are. I
judged today that we were getting a little bit close. I asked
the hon. member to be very judicious in his choice of words and
then I asked the member to put the question. The question still
had the preamble and that is why I intervened.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 60
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise once more to present a petition
from my constituency, and there are many more to come.
These petitioners understand the concept of marriage as only
being the voluntary union of a single, that is, unmarried male
and a single, that is, unmarried female.
It is with pride that I present this petition to the House.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have petitions from Salmon Arm and Victoria, British
Columbia; Cambridge, Brantford, Ottawa and Etobicoke, Ontario,
all on the same subject matter.
1530
These petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act
to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the
Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female. There are 460 signatures.
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition totalling another 1,000
signatures. It calls upon parliament to bring in legislation
making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable
organizations no less than the tax deduction for contributions to
political parties. By happy coincidence that is a motion we will
be voting on this evening. It is a motion I brought forward in
response to petitioners such as these over the last couple of
years.
I am happy to present this petition on behalf of my
constituents.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present an important petition signed by hundreds of
people in the Peterborough area.
The petitioners point out that merchant navy veterans did not
receive post-war veterans benefits and that all of them served
under full military command and many of them served under the
most anxious circumstances. Casualties in the merchant navy were
often worse than in other theatres of war.
These petitioners call upon parliament to act now to compensate
merchant navy veterans for their service and hardship after
serving on Canadian or allied ships during World War II or in
Korea.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from a number of people in the Peterborough area who
are concerned about alcohol related accidents on our roads.
The petitioners point out that an average of 4.5 Canadians are
killed every day as a result of alcohol related vehicle crashes.
It is estimated that there are 4.5 million impaired drivers on
Canada's roads every month. The petitioners point out that the
trend of hard core drinking and driving has significantly
increased over the last seven years.
The petitioners call upon the federal government to provide
strong support and encouragement to jurisdictions to continue to
introduce administrative sanctions that are user pay, such as
ignition interlocks, vehicle confiscation, graduated licensing,
and that impaired driving laws be regularly reviewed for their
effectiveness.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Question No. 136 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 136—Mr. Jean Dubé:
Has Human Resources Development Canada carried out studies on
the effectiveness of the planned adjustments to short weeks under
the employment insurance program that are to end on November 15,
1998; and, if so, what are its findings?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): To address the issue of small weeks
adjustment projects, two 18-month pilot projects were established
covering a total of 29 employment insurance, EI, regions where
the unemplyment rate was above 10%. One of the main reasons
these projects were put in place is to help supplement the weekly
benefits for those who qualify.
Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, is currently reviewing
available information on the small weeks adjustment projects and
will be considering whether they should be renewed.
Preliminary results indicate that between the implementation in
May and August 1997, 130,000 claims have been established with
small weeks of work.
These results also indicated that more women, 61%, that men are
small week claimants, and individuals, both men and women, who
participated in the projects received, on average, $19 more per
week. This is an increase of about 10% on their benefit level.
Currently, 18 of the 22 regions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec
participate in the projects. Ontario has 5 regions out of 16
participating and western Canada has 6 participating regions out
of 16. As the projects are directed toward high unemployment
regions, over 51% of the claims originated from Quebec and 35%
from the Atlantic provinces.
The Government of Canada understands how important these
projects are to the New Brunswick economy, and all EI regions in
New Brunswick are covered by the adjustment projects.
Upon completion of the review of the small weeks projects, HRDC
will then be in a position to announce the government's decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and
the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First
Nation Land Management, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1535
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief opposition
whip, the division on this motion is deferred until the
conclusion of Government Orders later this day.
* * *
MANITOBA CLAIM SETTLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-56, an act respecting
an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement
of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the
establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to address the House on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims
settlement implementation act. I am pleased to speak in support
of this proposed legislation which will address outstanding
commitments to Manitoba first nations and pave the way for
greater economic self-reliance and self-government.
Hon. members will recall that when this government unveiled
“Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, we made
a commitment to renew the relationship with the aboriginal people
of Canada. This is not a goal that can be achieved overnight. It
will involve many steps, large and small. Bill C-56 is one such
step.
The new partnership called for in Gathering Strength must be
built on a foundation of trust and co-operation between Canada
and first nations governments and communities. To establish that
trust we must first of all fulfill our historical obligations to
aboriginal people. Bill C-56 will help us do that for a number
of Manitoba first nations. Although this proposed legislation is
technical, its overriding objective is quite simple: to
facilitate the implementation of claim agreements in Manitoba.
In doing this, Bill C-56 will address a number of specific
commitments set out in Gathering Strength. It will affirm and
honour treaties, which are the cornerstone of Canada's
relationship with its aboriginal people. It will strengthen the
capacity of first nations governments to make decisions about
community lands and moneys as they move toward effective,
legitimate and accountable self-government.
By overcoming obstacles that have slowed progress in the past,
Bill C-56 will foster economic growth and development, consistent
with our Gathering Strength commitment to support strong
communities and people.
As hon. members can see, the bill has two parts. Part 1 deals
with the flooded land master implementation agreement signed by
the Norway House Cree Nation last year. Part 2 relates to the
establishment of reserves in Manitoba under claim settlements,
including treaty land entitlement agreements.
I want to make it clear at the outset that Bill C-56 will not
give effect to any settlement agreement. The goal here is simply
to ensure that land claim agreements, including those that may be
negotiated in the future, can be implemented quickly and
effectively.
I will review the key elements of Bill C-56 for the benefit of
hon. members, particularly those across the way, who may not be
familiar with the proposed legislation.
Part 1 of the bill is specific to a single Manitoba first
nation, the Norway House Cree Nation. Hon. members will recall
that Norway House was one of five Manitoba first nations that
were severely affected by flooding caused by the hydroelectric
projects in northern Manitoba in the early 1970s.
1540
In an effort to address the devastating impact of the flooding
on first nation communities, property and traditional
livelihoods, Canada and other affected parties negotiated the
northern flood agreement in 1977. Unfortunately the passage of
time has shown the agreement to be flawed and difficult to
implement. Despite years of effort, little progress was made in
implementing many of its important and key elements.
In 1990 the parties to the northern flood agreement were able to
reach consensus on a process for resolving the many outstanding
issues. The proposed basis of settlement has provided a
framework for negotiating master implementation agreements with
four of the five affected first nations, the most recent being
with Norway House.
I am pleased to report that the Norway House master
implementation agreement is now being implemented. However, part
1 of Bill C-56 is needed to affirm certain elements of the
agreement in law, just as previous legislation passed in this
House has affirmed elements of the other three master
implementation agreements.
Specifically Bill C-56 will ensure that any lands provided to
Norway House in fee simple title will not become special reserves
under section 36 of the Indian Act. This will enable the people
of Norway House to use and control these lands as they see fit
without the often burdensome administrative requirements the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must impose
under the Indian Act and other federal legislation and strict
management rules.
In a similar vein, Bill C-56 will ensure that compensation
moneys owed to Norway House will not be administered as Indian
moneys under the Indian Act. Instead these moneys will be paid
to and administered by a trust that has been established by the
Norway House Cree Nation and which operates under its direction
with proper accountability safeguards in place. Again, the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have
no role in managing these moneys.
These exemptions from the Indian Act will have two strategic
outcomes. Most importantly they will increase the Norway House
Cree Nation's self-reliance and self-government capabilities. At
the same time they will lighten the administrative load for the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The third thing this part of the legislation will do is give the
master implementation agreement precedence over the northern
flood agreement when a claim arises that could be settled or
adjudicated under either agreement. The adjudication process set
out in the master implementation agreement is widely regarded as
being a superior approach.
Finally, part 1 of Bill C-56 will ensure that Canada has access
to the provisions of the Manitoba Arbitration Act when dealing
with disputes under the master implementation agreement.
The Norway House Cree Nation will also benefit from part 2 of
the bill which is intended to advance the implementation of claim
agreements in Manitoba by facilitating the transfer of lands to
reserve status.
Gathering Strength calls for the development of vibrant on
reserve economies. In order to do that we need to expedite the
process of establishing reserves.
By way of background, part 2 of Bill C-56 has its origins in the
issue of treaty land entitlements. As hon. members are aware,
not all first nations received the full amount of land promised
to them when they signed their treaties. For the past several
years this government has been working to resolve this historical
injustice by providing additional reserve lands to first nations
with treaty land entitlements, including 26 first nations in
Manitoba.
As part of this process, it has become clear that we need better
legislative mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of lands to
reserve status. Toward this end, part 2 of Bill C-56 will
empower the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
to set apart as reserves any of the lands selected by Manitoba
first nations under a claim agreement. This will avoid the
lengthy and cumbersome process of obtaining an order in council
which is the approach currently used to establish reserve status.
1545
However, the main objective of part 2 is to establish more
effective mechanisms for accommodating and protecting third party
interests that are identified during the reserve creation
process. This will give first nations reasonable access to a
broader range of lands that have development interests or
potential. It will also significantly reduce the time required
to add lands to reserves.
The sooner lands are identified and added to the reserve, the
sooner they can contribute to the economic and social progress of
the community. The key is to allow a first nation to consent to
a third party interest on lands it wants to add to the reserve
before those lands have actually been granted reserve status. The
current wording of the Indian Act does not allow for this. A
first nation can only consent to the creation of interests on
land that is already part of the reserve, not on land that is
simply being proposed for reserve status.
This effectively eliminates from consideration many parcels of
land that have an existing third party interest, even something
as basic as a right-of-way. The first nation cannot deal with
the third party interest until the land is granted reserve
status. The holder of that interest is unlikely to agree to the
transactions without a guarantee from the first nation that its
future rights will not be at risk.
Bill C-56 addresses the issue by giving Manitoba first nations a
pre-reserve designation power as well as a pre-reserve permit
granting power, each power being aimed at accommodating different
kinds of third party interests. It also deals with the process
first nations must follows to grant such interests.
The pre-reserve powers will not only apply to existing interests
but will also allow a first nation to negotiate new rights that
will come into effect upon reserve creation. This will ensure
that first nations can take advantage of the development
opportunities on their selected lands even before the reserve
status is granted.
As I noted earlier, the impetus for the legislative changes set
out in part 2 of the bill has been the desire of Canada, the
Government of Manitoba and first nations to expedite the
settlement of treaty land entitlement. At the same time these
mechanisms will be made available to all other Manitoba claim
settlement agreements, existing or future, that involve additions
to reserves. These include the Norway House master
implementation agreement dealt with in part 1 of Bill C-56, as
well as the other three master implementation agreements signed
under the northern flood agreement.
As a treaty land entitlement first nation Norway House will also
benefit from the proposals to facilitate the transfer of lands to
reserve status, which explains my earlier comment that Norway
House will benefit from both parts of Bill C-56.
There is nothing controversial about the proposed legislation.
It does not create new powers for first nations governments. Nor
does it impose new obligations on Canadian taxpayers. In fact it
will do the opposite by relieving the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development of some if its administrative
responsibilities and by speeding the process of reserve creation.
It also establishes clear cut legal mechanisms for protecting
both third party and first nations interests in lands selected
for additional reserves.
This is simply a good, clean piece of legislation that will move
Canada forward in addressing its commitments to aboriginal
people, strengthening the capacity for self-government and
improving socioeconomic conditions on reserves. It deserves the
support of hon. members, particularly hon. members of the Reform
Party. I urge them to join me in voting to send Bill C-56 to
committee for proper, due and quick review.
1550
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is
somewhat different from other bills that have gone forward in
relation to Indian treaty land claims.
It is a huge area of land to be transferred. It is something
like 1,100,629 hectares and covers much of the northern part of
Manitoba. Although we are talking about one specific band right
now, it will include more with the total land claim.
The $76 million being provided is not a large amount, but I
would agree with the hon. member on the government side who just
mentioned speed. We in the Reform Party would like to see that
an additional amount of land could be added to the particular
reserve with speed so that some of the items outlined in the bill
could be accomplished in a hurry. With that in mind, I think we
will find support from the official opposition.
We agree that there are historical obligations. There is no
question about that. Across Canada most people agree
fundamentally that we should honour those treaties and it is time
we got at it. We in the Reform Party are no different. We agree
with that as well. We have these historical obligations. As the
hon. member mentioned, this land will be added as quickly as
possible to the reserve status.
The term self-reliance is a very important one. It is up to the
government and all Canadians to see that self-reliance in fact
takes place. However we do have some questions. I have some
questions in particular within my own constituency. I would like
the term self-government to mean the same thing for the
settlement of a land treaty in Saskatchewan or one in northern
Manitoba.
I am concerned that in this negotiation, the acquisition of land
and the establishment of new reserves we could have different
types of government for first nations. At the same time we would
then have a quasi-judicial group of people not falling under the
same piece of legislation.
It is incumbent upon the government to give us some idea and to
give Canadians some idea of what the new partnership it talks of
is about. I believe they are being sincere about that. I
believe they are talking about a new partnership, a new way or a
new understanding. To me partnership means a new understanding
as well.
What puzzles me with land treaty agreements is that no one seems
to be able to identify what is meant by self-government, as the
hon. member mentioned. Is it right from reading the bill that
self-government is up for negotiation by each of the land claims?
As a new reserve is established or land is added to a reserve in
my constituency, in moving toward self-government is it a
negotiating matter, much like when they are given money to buy
new land, which land is acquired through an agreement of the
seller? Nobody quarrels with that, but as the land moves over
into the reserve and falls away from the tax base, is there any
compensation for the loss of another type of self-government, the
municipal government?
We do not seem to have anything carved in stone or concrete
about what we mean by the term self-government. I support the
bill wholeheartedly. It was a long time coming. I believe it
was started in 1977 and here we are 21 years later. That is
nothing anyone can be proud of.
To be quite open with the government opposite, it is incumbent
that the rest of Canada knows or has some idea in the settlement
of treaty lands what is being negotiated.
I have five reserves in my constituency and I know these people.
I have 43 rural municipalities. They are all subject to one set
of rural municipal law and regulations. I cannot imagine in
rural Saskatchewan the government functioning without an act,
some guidelines or some frames of reference. It just would not
work. I think the hon. gentlemen opposite understand that.
1555
If we are to have a new partnership then that partnership is
between the new governments and the rest of Canada: other
municipal governments, the provincial governments and with the
federal government. Until that is clearly spelled out that
partnership is an unknown quantity. This concerns Canadians.
I mentioned the other day that I first worked among the Nisga'a
people the second year of teaching school. I was there with my
wife. It was a great time. They were great people. I made a
return visit there. I talked to the people I hunted moose with
and the fellow who cut my hair. I had more hair then; I needed a
barber. I asked them at that time what they wanted from
self-government. They were not quite sure in this partnership.
For instance, one chap was very interested in an economic
venture.
If my hon. colleague opposite who just spoke to the bill and I
were going into a business agreement, we would have to follow the
business agreement criteria set out in the province in which we
were working. I think he understands that. If we were to be in
negotiation with the local RM, we would have to appear before
that RM.
I understand that for people wishing to come on to reserve
status land and wishing to enter an agreement need some
government. There also needs to be rules in which they can
operate and in which the other people coming in can operate. We
could have all kinds of different agreements and arrangements
without a clear definition of the statutory laws that must be in
place. It would not be healthy for any first nation not to have
some consistency.
In talking to these people I find that this is exactly what they
want. They want to break from their traditional past. They want
self-government but they want it from the grassroots up like in
the recent municipal elections in Saskatchewan where so many are
elected each year and follow the guidelines within the municipal
act. We understand that.
I agree with the use and control of their lands as they see fit.
We agree with that. We agree that a municipality, a city or a
town can pass bylaws in control of their land. There will not be
any opposition or quarrelling in that regard, but there will be
strict management rules as was mentioned in a statement of
another hon. colleague. Once that applies and if I live in the
RM of 40 in southern Saskatchewan I must follow certain
management rules of that RM. Therefore, if I move into another
RM, for example No. 72, the same set of rules apply. Then there
would be continuity. In this partnership we have an
understanding not only among natives but among other citizens in
Canada.
I like the term the hon. member used respecting accountability
and safeguards being in place. In order to have accountability
and safeguards in place we must move immediately to establish the
groundwork of self-government.
1600
We must have accountability. They are crying out for
accountability. All Canadians are crying out for accountability,
yet more and more we are moving away from accountability. The
further government gets from people, the less accountability
there seems to be.
While I agree with the bill and while I will be supporting it I
do not support the continuance of further legislation unless the
House has some idea of a bill or of anything else that may be
used to describe the situation so all Canadians will know what we
are negotiating. Are we negotiating self-government with each
individual parcel? Does self-government mean the same with the
Nisga'a as it does with the Norway House Cree? These are
questions Canadians are asking. Can the hon. gentleman opposite
answer those questions or does each individual Cree nation become
a separate identity in itself where the laws and regulations
regarding the people will not be governed by some other source?
It seems we are going down a trail in terms of future
development, which may include mineral development or whatever,
where there will be all kinds of lawsuits open to ourselves and
all kinds of lawsuits open to the first nations unless we put
together some kind of package. They cannot be sovereign unto
themselves. That is not what Canadians understand. Canadians
understand that the Government of Saskatchewan is not sovereign
unto itself. They understand that its capital city of Regina is
not sovereign and that it must fall under provincial
jurisdiction.
There is a big vacuum out there, a big void in which we have no
other answers. I wish we could have some. The hon. member just
spoke very well on Bill C-56 and I wish we could discuss these
issues. They are very important issues not just for the
development of the new land treaties but important for the rest
of us in Canada to know where we are going. It is incumbent on
us that we do not proceed within a huge vacuum of
misunderstanding concerning the meaning of self-government.
Reform will be supporting the bill and we are pleased to support
it but we also raise the question being raised from coast to
coast to coast of why we do not get down and finalize what
accountability and partnership mean. Accountability and
partnership mean nothing until we define what we mean by
self-government.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the request
of my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean and Bloc Quebecois
critic on native affairs, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill
C-56 entitled An Act respecting an agreement with the Norway
House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the
flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain
reserves in the province of Manitoba.
This bill has two parts. The first concerns the agreement
reached with the Norway House Cree Nation on the settlement of
matters arising from the flooding of land.
The second provides for measures to facilitate the settlement of
claims by the creation of reserves in Manitoba or by the
addition of lands to existing reserves. Let us discuss the
first part.
This part concerns the main agreement on implementation signed
in 1997 by Canada, Manitoba and the Norway House Cree Nation.
In the early 1970s, the latter was affected by a flood caused by
the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Nelson and
Churchill rivers and by changes to Lake Winnipeg.
The 1997 agreement settles the obligations of the federal
government under the 1977 Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement
between the federal and Manitoba governments, Manitoba Hydro and
the northern flood committee, on behalf of the first nations of
Cross Lake, York Factory and Nelson House, and the Norway House
and Split Lake Cree nations.
1605
The 1997 agreement terminates the Norway House Cree Nation's
claims regarding obligations unfulfilled by certain parties to
the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement.
The flood agreement signed in 1977 was designed to remedy the
adverse effects of the Lake Winnipeg development and Churchill
River diversion projects, which had resulted in approximately
12,000 acres of first nations' reserve land in northern Manitoba
being flooded, as well as another 525,000 acres of non-reserve
land that was used by the first nations affected.
In other words, the purpose of the agreement was to compensate
the first nations affected by Manitoba Hydro work. While nicely
described by then Indian affairs minister Warren Allmand as a
charter of rights and benefits for those affected, the fact
remains that the agreement was a precondition to any work.
Indeed, people's lives cannot be disrupted without at least
compensating the communities for the significant changes imposed
on them by hydroelectric projects. The extensive damage caused
by the Lake Winnipeg development and Churchill River diversion
projects completely changed the traditional way of life of the
bordering communities.
We must bear in mind that more than 1,200 Cree people who lived
alongside or near the affected areas were faced with an entirely
new environment overnight.
The Norway House Cree had always hunted and fished. They had to
learn new ways and adjust to a totally different way of life.
In particular, because of excessive water pollution, there were
serious problems with fishing and with drinking water.
Members can imagine what an odd “charter of rights and
benefits”
this is for the Norway House Cree.
As well, although the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement called
for programs and compensation to make up for unfavourable
outcomes, the roles and responsibilities of the parties still
had to be clearly defined. Because of this, there were delays
in the project and in the meeting of common obligations, such as
adding land to the reserves, as well as arrangements to promote
employment opportunities for the communities and environmental
monitoring.
Implementation was not making any progress, and the parties
could not reach agreement. In short, the spirit of co-operation
was very much absent. More than 20 years passed without any
clear definition of the mechanisms. For far too long, all sorts
of dispute resolution approaches were resorted to, rather than
giving preference to a co-operative and co-ordinated approach.
The four parties, in a desire to enhance the efficiency and
reduce the costs of this undertaking, resumed negotiations in
order to settle the claims and better define the obligations.
The four parties therefore negotiated a basic proposal to settle
the outstanding land claims and the unfulfilled obligations.
This proposal served as a starting point for negotiations with
each first nation.
With the help of this proposal, negotiations were successful
with four of the five first nations.
As a result, the minister of Indian affairs signed
implementation agreements with the Split Lake Cree First Nation
in June 1992, the York Factory First Nation in January 1996, the
Nelson House First Nation in March 1996, and the Norway House
First Nation in December 1997.
1610
A law is now required to provide for the comprehensive
implementation of the provisions of the main Norway House Cree
Nation agreement.
The first part of Bill C-56 will permit the lands provided within
the framework of this agreement to be exempt from the provisions
of the Indian Act. This will also permit the Norway House Cree
Nation to use them for economic development purposes without
administrative intervention by the minister of Indian affairs.
Under Bill C-56, the money due under the implementation agreement
will be administered by a first nation's trust and not by the
crown under the meaning of the Indian Act.
Bill C-56 provides that all claims may be processed under the
1997 agreement exclusively.
Finally, this legislation provides recourse to Manitoba
arbitration legislation in the event of a dispute between the
parties to the implementation agreement.
In the first part, we consider these elements satisfactory and
necessary to the implementation of the agreement.
We will now discuss the second part of Bill C-56, which concerns
the federal government's commitments in the Framework Agreement,
Treaty Land Entitlement, Manitoba. This part has broader scope
than that of the framework agreement or of the first part of the
bill.
It will facilitate the implementation of all territorial claim
settlements in Manitoba in which the government agrees to expand
the size of a first nation reserve with, of course, the
agreement of the first nation.
Under Bill C-56, the minister of Indian affairs may set aside
lands as a reserve and the first nations will be able to create
or accept the interests of third parties earlier in the reserve
creation process than is currently possible.
This type of agreement is not new. There are in fact already a
number of agreements in existence to settle claims in Manitoba
providing for the expansion of first nation reserves.
The first, and most significant, is the one that concerns treaty
land entitlement, which the federal government has not fully
honoured. In other words, it has not granted enough land.
This is a major issue for the Manitoba first nations that signed
or approved Treaties Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 between 1871 and
1910. Each of these treaties provided that reserve land would be
allotted to first nations by the federal government according to
the size of each family.
While the majority of first nations in Manitoba were assigned
the land they were entitled to under these treaties, 26 nations
were not assigned land.
In most cases, the problem arises from an inaccurate enumeration
of members of the first nation or from insufficient land
allocation. Efforts made to remedy this problem in the 1970s and
1980s were hampered by disputes on issues such as the
availability, size and suitability of unused crown land.
The province's public interest requirements regarding new
reserve land and the applicable area assessment method now
required to meet the obligations set out in the treaties also
hamper the settlement of claims.
Seven of the Manitoba first nations affected, who conducted
separate negotiations, reached specific settlements regarding
their land entitlements arising from treaties signed with Canada
between 1994 and 1996. As a result, the federal government is
required to add more than 170,000 acres to existing reserve
land. It must also pay in excess of $51 million in financial
compensation to the first nations affected.
As for Manitoba, its main obligation is to set aside 100,000
acres of unused public land—out of a total of 170,000 acres—as
reserve land, which represents some $9 million.
1615
On May 29, 1997, Canada, Manitoba and the Treaty Land and
Entitlement Committee representing 19 other Manitoba first
nations from among the 26 first nations that did not obtain
lands under treaties, signed the framework agreement on land
rights arising out of those treaties. These 19 first nations
obtained reserves in excess of 1 million acres in all, but this
still represents less than 1% of all of the land base in
Manitoba.
For the federal government, the total cost of this settlement
and implementation of the framework agreement relating to the 19
first nations is in the order of $98.8 million over 15 years,
starting with the date of signature, May 29, 1997.
Other settlements in Manitoba which could come under this bill
are the agreements with the Brokenhead and Sapotaweyak first
nations, to whom the federal government must pay total
compensation of $404,883 and provide lands with a total area of
close to 213 acres for expansion of their reserves.
The Bloc Quebecois, via its aboriginal affairs critic, did not
oppose the bill on the Split Lake first nation settlement, which
was given royal assent on December 15, 1994. Nor did the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the agreements with the York Factory and Nelson
House first nations, which were both given royal assent
in April 1997.
The Bloc Quebecois is, therefore, in favour of the underlying
principles behind this bill.
So, at first glance, we see no litigious or confusing clauses.
However, the Bloc Quebecois has serious reservations about the
process the Norway House Cree Nation will follow in approving
this agreement. In the Globe and Mail of January 30, we learned
that the federal government had approved a second referendum on
this agreement, a referendum we consider undemocratic, to say
the least. Let me explain.
After the initial referendum on the matter of the Norway House
agreement failed to pass by five votes on July 29, 1997, the
Minister of Indian Affairs agreed to another referendum but
changed the rules beforehand. First, a problem with the voters'
list was cited. This was reviewed, because native people living
off the reserve had apparently voted in the first referendum.
Under the new rules, only native people living on the reserve
could vote. The voting system had been developed by the federal
government and published in a guide book.
For the second vote on the matter, the federal government also
offered $1,000 to each voter supporting the agreement. We can
understand that the approximately 5,000 native persons living at
Norway House, who have a hard time making ends meet, were not
going to spit on this money. On the contrary, it was manna from
heaven just before the holidays. It seems that the federal
government simply bought votes.
I would point out to this House that the second referendum, with
the vote buying scandal, was held, believe it or not, at the
very moment the federal government was asking the Supreme Court
to decide on the legality of Quebec's unilateral separation from
Canada. Rather ironic, is it not?
Obviously this sort of practice raises some questions. For
example, what is the relationship between the federal government
and the native peoples? Is vote buying common practice? Is
this how the Minister of Indian Affairs consults the native
peoples in this country?
1620
How can we trust the federal government in the future, when we
know that the Department of Indian Affairs supported such an
unjust operation?
In the light of the role of the federal government in this
obviously undemocratic referendum process, how can it then turn
around and try to give Quebec lessons on the democratic
consultation of its people and the interpretation of the
results?
Whatever the case, while the Bloc Quebecois does not oppose this
bill in principle, rest assured that our native affairs critic
will be questioning the witnesses appearing before the standing
committee on this highly irregular event sullying Bill C-56.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I to rise to
support this bill.
Looking at it in the context of the four categories in the
minister's statement “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal
Action Plan”, this bill would fit very well in renewing
partnerships considering it has been 21 years with very little
action or compensation for the first nations that were flooded.
It is important to be willing to renew an partnership. It will
strengthen aboriginal governance. It will support strong
communities, people and economies. But it remains to be seen
whether it is a commitment to a meaningful and lasting change for
these people.
The minister goes on to say that we have to learn from the past,
that we cannot afford to repeat mistakes. First nations people
have suffered disproportionately for the last 150 to 200 years.
They cannot afford to have government make any more mistakes on
their behalf.
The document deals with increased access to lands and resources,
that many first nations lands and natural resources offer the
most important opportunity for creating jobs and economic
development. The government will work with first nations,
provinces and territories to strengthen the co-management process
and provide increased access to land and resources. This is a
very important political document because it reaffirms the
commitment to self-government.
My Reform colleague said he did not know what self-government
meant and that it should be the same for everyone. But the whole
objective of self-government is so that it is not the same. It
offers each band within a framework the ability to set its own
standards and laws. They develop very differently culturally
than Europeans. They have justice systems and access to
resources that are very different from ours.
In Yukon land claims are not such a scary idea. Most of the 14
first nations are now implementing self-governing land claims.
It has been a real benefit to Yukon. It was a long struggle.
Implementation is not easy. Our auditor general has said he does
not know if the amount of money settled will be enough to achieve
the objective of the claims. But it is still an improvement. It
is an improvement in the communities that have self-government.
We can see the change. We can see the activity. We can see the
determination.
My colleague was also worried about first nations governments
not being accountable. By having self-government they are
accountable to the people who elect them rather than being
accountable to a bureaucracy that doles out money. They have to
answer to their people. The first nations leaders I know are
very dedicated individuals who have worked tirelessly on behalf
of their people.
Bill C-56 is concrete proof of a movement toward living up to
the “Gathering Strength” document. It has two parts. Part one
of the bill relates to the settlement of matters arising from the
flooding of lands as provided for in an agreement concluded with
the Norway House Cree Nation which is very specific to it. Part
two establishes mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of
claims settlement in Manitoba by the creation of reserves or the
addition of lands to existing reserves. Some of the first
nations were shortchanged when their reserves were developed.
This gives them the opportunity to redress it.
Part one pertains to the master implementation agreement signed
in 1997 by the Government of Canada, the province of Manitoba,
Manitoba Hydro and the Norway House Cree Nation which was
affected by the flooding arising from hydroelectric projects.
1625
The first nations affected by the flood were Cross Lake, York
Factory, Nelson House, Split Lake Cree First Nations and the
Norway House Cree Nation.
Because of the 1997 agreement which was difficult to implement
there was very little movement in settling long outstanding
problems and compensation. There was a proposed basis for
settlement and four out of five first nations have signed the
master implementation agreement.
Part two is the reserve establishment. It is related to federal
government commitments in Manitoba to treaty land and the
entitlement framework agreement of 1997.
On the basis of agreement from the first nations, part two would
facilitate the implementation of any Manitoba claim settlement
where Canada commits to increase first nations reserve land base.
This document provides a guide to the future. Treaties impose
serious obligations and we need to respect those obligations and
move forward.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-56, an act respecting an
agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of
matters arising from the flooding of land and respecting the
establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.
This omnibus legislation deals with two issues, the Norway House
Cree Nation's master implementation agreement resulting from the
flooded land which we refer to as part one, and reserve
establishment particularly in reference to the Manitoba treaty
land entitlement framework agreement of 1997, part two. I will
be speaking on these two issues separately and in the order I
have just outlined.
I express my reservations about the combination of bills this
legislation represents. While I certainly realize the issues are
related, I feel these issues should be addressed separately to
provide each bill with the attention it deserves.
With regard to the Norway House Cree Nation and the master
implementation agreement that was signed by the first nation, the
province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the federal government
on December 31, 1997, while it was 1997 before the agreement was
signed it was more than 20 years earlier that hydroelectric
projects changed the way of life for the aboriginal people living
in northern Manitoba.
In the early 1970s the Churchill and Nelson Rivers
diversification projects and the late Winnipeg regulation project
flooded more than 212,000 hectares in northern Manitoba. The
flooded area included 4,800 hectares of reserve land and an
additional 200,000 hectares of land used by the aboriginal people
for traditional purposes such as hunting and trapping. This
affected five first nations, the York Factory, Split Lake, Cross
Lake, Nelson House and Norway House Cree Nations, comprising
approximately 12,000 aboriginal people.
Recognizing the severe impact of the hydroelectric projects on
the first nations in the area, Manitoba Hydro, the province of
Manitoba, the federal government and the affected first nations
signed the northern flood agreement. The flood committee
incorporated was formed to act on behalf of the five first
nations in the area affected by the flooding. It was this
organization that signed the northern flood agreement on behalf
of the first nations.
The purpose of the northern flood agreement was to provide a
framework for compensating the first five nations affected by the
hydroelectric projects.
1630
These projects included the construction of up to 14 power
stations, four which were constructed by the mid-1980s and 10
which will not be finished until the year 2050, a full 73 years
from the signing of the agreement.
This is a long process and the results of the projects are
far-reaching, both in terms of the amount of land flooded and the
future impacts these developments will have on the life of the
aboriginal people.
Since its signing on December 16, 1977, the northern flood
agreement has been fraught with all kinds of problems. This has
led to the failure to implement many of the provisions contained
in the agreement and the first nations have been forced to seek
restitution through a dispute resolution program. This was noted
by the auditor general in his 1992 report as a major fault and
something the federal government should address since adversarial
positions seldom assist those groups most affected, in this case
the five first nations.
It is not my intention at this stage of the process to go into
any detail about the advantages and disadvantages of this
legislation and the agreement it represents. That is best left
for the committee stage when we will hopefully have an
opportunity to hear from those individuals impacted by the
flooding and the subsequent agreement. If it is anything like
the tobacco bill, that process will not unfold to the
satisfaction of many of us in this House.
Speaking to the terms of the agreement, under the master
implementation agreement the Norway House Cree Nation will
receive $78.9 million in cash and hydro bonds, and approximately
24,000 hectares of new reserve lands. The settlements of the
other first nations range from $47 million and almost 14,000
hectares of new reserve land as well as 1,100 hectares of fee
simple for Split Lake to $62.5 million and 22,000 hectares of new
land reserve for Nelson House. York Factory received more than
$24 million and 7,700 hectares of new land reserve as well as a
segment of fee simple land.
The money mentioned in these settlements is being placed in
trust for the first nations. In the case of Norway House,
Keenanow Trust will be handling the proceeds. This is an
important revision of the agreement since the money will not come
under the terms of the Indian Act. Instead, first nations will
have greater control over how and where this money is spent.
In order for the federal government to negotiate settlements
individually with the first nations it was necessary for the
parties to negotiate the proposed basis of settlement. Since the
first five nations were at various stages of agreement this was
the only way for the government to bring to closure the northern
flood agreement.
Cross Lake, the only first nation that has not signed an
implementation agreement, remains opposed to doing so and has
been active in seeking support for treaty recognition of the
northern flood agreement.
The Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry of 1991 stated that the
governments of Manitoba and Canada recognize the northern flood
agreement as a treaty and that the two governments should honour
and properly implement the terms of the northern flood agreement.
While the master implementation agreement signed by the four
other first nations will ensure that they begin receiving the
compensation promised under the northern flood agreement, the
question of treaty status for the agreement has never been
completed to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
1635
The community of Norway House voted in a referendum to accept
the master implementation agreement. While questions have been
raised about the validity of the process, the community members
voted to accept the agreement in the second referendum. This
should reflect the community's acceptance of the terms of the
agreement and their satisfaction with it, or at least a desire to
move on.
This legislation is not necessary for the implementation of this
agreement since it has already been going ahead. Instead, this
legislation is another step toward implementing terms of the
northern flood agreement and the federal government's obligations
under the agreement with regard to the first nations which have
signed implementation agreements. This does not apply to Cross
Lake as I mentioned earlier.
This issue is one I look forward to studying more closely at
committee stage, particularly in terms of the first nations'
views of the agreement and the northern flood agreement. One
advantage of this legislation should be the opportunity to move
away from the dispute resolution process to a more conciliatory
form of negotiation and discussion.
I would like to take a look at the second part of this
legislation to establish reserves in the province of Manitoba.
Part 2 of this legislation is expected to assist in establishing
reserves where an obligation exists in a current or future
agreement to set aside land for this purpose.
This has particular relevance for the signatories to the
Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement. Treaties
signed between 1871 and 1910 and, in particular, the claims of 19
first nations affected by these treaties make up the treaty land
entitlement framework agreement. These 19 first nations signed
the agreement in May 1997.
Under the original treaties of 1, 2 and 5, each family of five
was to receive 65 hectares of land. Under treaties 3, 4, 6 and
10, 260 hectares of land was to be provided for each family of
five.
Problems arose, however, when the first nations claimed they did
not receive their full entitlement. Some of the band member
counts were inaccurate because members of the first nations were
away hunting when the surveys were taken. It sounds like what
happens to us when we attempt to set up a voters' list. The same
problems occurred there. In some cases insufficient land was
selected by the first nations when given the opportunity to claim
their land under those very treaties.
These entitlements have never been settled with some of the
first nations. In fact, only seven of a possible twenty-six
first nations that did not receive their full allotment under the
treaties have since settled their claims.
The land to be allocated to the 19 first nations who signed the
agreement last year is 445,400 hectares. That is slightly less
than 1% of the land mass of Manitoba and about 8% of the province
of Nova Scotia. The province of Manitoba will provide most of
this land from crown land that the federal government and
Manitoba agreed would be used for this purpose. The remainder
will be provided from private landowners on a
willing-buyer/willing-seller basis. In other words, private
landowners who do not wish to sell their land will be not be
forced to do so.
What this legislation is attempting to do is make it easier to
establish reserves from both the federal government's and first
nations' perspective. One of the ways the legislation will
achieve this is by providing the minister with the power to
confer reserve status. That is an important point.
1640
This eliminates the need to obtain governor in council approval,
thereby reducing the time the process takes in facilitating full
implementation.
In addition, changes are made in the legislation to address
third party interests. If agreements currently recognize third
party interests in the land, these interests would typically fall
under provincial jurisdiction. With the creation of a reserve,
however, they would fall under federal jurisdiction.
Accommodating this change in jurisdiction is a very
time-consuming process. This has been mentioned as one of the
major delays in processing land selections for reserves. With
the legislation, reserve status will be conferred subject to that
third party interest so the easement or right of way of the third
party would be able to continue as the jurisdiction changes.
Perhaps of greater importance or significance, especially for
the first nations, is that this legislation allows first nations
to establish new third party interests, not just those existing
at the time of reserve establishment.
This also allows first nations to take advantage of economic
development opportunities as they become available instead of
being forced to wait for the land to be given reserve status.
I would like to mention again that this legislation, both parts
1 and 2, requires greater research and consideration on the part
and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada. This is something we
look forward to doing at committee stage.
At the same time, I certainly realize that the agreement is
already in place and functioning. The purpose of the legislation
before us is to provide the government with the authority to
implement some of these provisions.
Part 2 requires further study as well. It appears to be
beneficial to first nations by allowing them to take advantage of
conditions on a timely basis and speeding up the process of
reserve creation. Obviously, this would be beneficial to the
first nations, but again it needs to be examined very closely.
I look forward to studying this legislation, along with my
colleagues, at committee stage and learning more about these
issues. At this time I still have some serious reservations, as
does my party, about this legislation.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
noticed in the comments of the member for New Brunswick Southwest
that he said that some portions of this bill are not needed
because negotiations are ongoing. I did not quite catch what he
meant, but it was something to that effect.
If I understand correctly, this is to finalize compensation for
land flooded for a hydroelectric project that dates back some 21
years. I am having an extremely difficult time understanding how
such a project would go ahead without having the terms of the
settlement in place before the project was undertaken.
As is the case with a lot of members of this House, I have some
experience in municipal politics. I know that if a municipality
built a road and annexed some land from neighbouring landowners,
whether crown land, Indian reserves or fee simple land, and then
later went back to the people who were affected and said “By the
way, we built a road on your place and we would now like to start
to negotiate what it is going to cost us for that right of way”,
for the land that has been taken off the title or out of
production or whatever, that is an absolutely backward way of
doing business.
1645
One of the most important considerations in a project that is
going to go ahead is what the acquisition of the land is going to
cost. That is something that has to be determined up front, not
some 21 years later.
I wonder if the member for New Brunswick Southwest would like to
clarify the comments he made so that I could better understand
where he is coming from.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in terms of clarification
and going beyond the member's question, I mentioned the
historical impact of this bill. It goes back to the principle of
negotiation and how these agreements are established in the first
place.
I think the point the member was making was that before we go
into this we need long term planning. In other words the
government sometimes goes into these negotiations in the wrong
way. We have seen it happen so many times and it is something we
could accuse the government of doing almost on a day to day
basis. We have to put some of those mistakes behind us. We have
to proceed with the only process available to us. Recognizing
that there have been mistakes in the past, hopefully we will
minimize mistakes in the future as we hold the government's feet
to the fire. Again I go back to the opportunity we will have at
committee stage with regard to this bill.
Taking the member very seriously, he is absolutely right. So
little planning has gone into some of these mega projects,
developments and settlements that impact on a good many
Canadians. Sometimes those projects and the disruption of the
lives of families happen close to home.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest
to comment on something that has been troubling me for a long
time.
This government seems to be entering into a multiplicity of land
settlements with native bands or groups of natives on an
absolutely ad hoc basis. Nobody gets the same deal. It is not
just a question of wanting one size to fit all, we have one size
that fits practically nobody. Every time there is a problem or
every time somebody has been shortchanged on their land
entitlements, the government sets out through the department of
Indian affairs and comes up with something absolutely new. This
is not a sensible way to do business.
The problem is made even worse by the fact that most of the
agreements when made contain what we call a me too clause. If one
band gets a better deal on a particular problem than some other
band got on its, then the other deal can be reopened and brought
up to speed so that everybody gets treated equally. If everybody
is going to get treated equally, why could we not have a set of
rules, some guidelines, something to follow before we get into
these things?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with
the member more. It is a good question to ask.
I see that we do have the justice minister in the House this
evening. She is probably in a better position to answer on
behalf of the government than I am. More precisely hopefully the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be in
the House before the evening is over.
Those are legitimate questions that have to be answered by the
government itself.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to get involved in the last bit of the debate that is
going back and forth.
I have some personal knowledge of the hydro dams in northern
Manitoba. I worked on them as a carpenter. It was a good source
of work for me but I was also quite sympathetic with what was
being done in the outlying areas.
I visited some of the communities prior to their being flooded
and then again after they were flooded.
1650
To help shed some light on the questions raised by the member
for Wetaskiwin, I think that in 1977 when the northern flood
agreement was finally negotiated it was actually about seven
years after the main damage of flooding was done.
When the first big wave of flooding happened, the Notigi
diversion from the Churchill River into the Nelson River, nobody
really understood just how devastating that would be. They
actually thought raw land could be flooded without clearing any
of the trees first. They were flooding whole forests. They did
not realize that mercury and other stuff leeching out of the soil
after years would kill off the fish stocks. A mumbo-jumbo of
trees fell to the point where the lakes were not navigable, even
if people did want to fish.
In and around 1970 it was an NDP government that orchestrated a
lot of the original flooding. It completely underestimated the
damage from what it was doing. The government thought it could
simply take people from one community, transplant them and flood
the old land and they would still be able to use the lake and
land in the same way. It just was not true.
When the northern flood agreement was negotiated, it was clear
that far more compensation would be needed and far more impact
studies would have to be done before any real package could be
arrived at.
Happily we are now at the point where a lot of this stuff is
being remedied. A lot of measures are being taken to try to put
these people's lives back in order.
Somebody mentioned that $76 million is involved in the Norway
House case. It is a lot of money, but the net profit to Manitoba
from selling hydroelectricity is $250 million to $300 million per
year. It is a huge revenue producer. Manitobans also get the
lowest hydroelectricity costs anywhere in the country, two and a
half cents per kilowatt which is about one-third of those in many
other places.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the
member for Winnipeg Centre speak highly of him and show that he
is very sensitive to the issue before the House.
In terms of sensitivity, I will go back to what the member said
on the human tragedies that result because of some of these
developments. That is something I do not think we have ever,
regardless of what colour or stripe the government is, considered
in the sense of how it should be considered when it is the
environment and human tragedies that play out. Those are things
that are left for others to clean up and deal with. It goes back
to what some of the other members have mentioned. It goes back
to planning, talking to the human beings who are affected by some
of these developments.
This is a legacy we do not want to leave. We want to show that
we are compassionate, that we have to act in the best interests
of all Canadians. Disrupting people and the environment is not
the answer.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Davenport, the Environment; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Bill
S-13.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-56, the Manitoba
claim settlements implementation act.
My comments will be on part 2 of the legislation which
establishes a means to facilitate the implementation of land
claim settlements in Manitoba through the creation of new
reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves.
When government is adding new land to reserves or creating new
reserves would be an ideal time to look at the problems in terms
of accountability on reserves now and to deal with some of the
problems.
It is unfortunate that did not take place in conjunction with
this legislation. There was very little change that will lead to
any improvement in accountability.
1655
During my presentation I am going to refer to a task force I put
in place. It is a process that three aboriginal people from my
constituency of Lakeland and I went through. We wanted to find
out how aboriginal people felt on these issues. I will go through
all the recommendations later and then talk a bit about how the
task force was set up. I will start by summarizing the comments
on accountability made by some of the aboriginal people who
presented their cases before the task force.
They said that more transparent financial reporting by band and
settlement administrators is needed. That is no surprise. We
have brought example after example before this House of the
complete lack of proper fiscal accountability on reserves. They
were clear that governments at all levels, including native
leaders, need to consult their members far more often to ensure
that those consultations are reflected in policy. They even said
that they would like an ombudsman set up to act on complaints
laid out by aboriginal Canadians. They also said that more
scrutiny needs to be applied to bands during elections. These are
only some of the recommendations made by task force members.
When I looked at this piece of legislation, I asked how many of
those recommendations have been implemented in this legislation.
The response from Liberal members across the floor was why should
they implement changes that came from a Reform MP. I would like
to respond by saying that these recommendations did not come from
a Reform MP. They came from a task force which included three
aboriginal people and myself.
We make it very clear that the recommendations do not
necessarily reflect Reform policy, which is fine. The fact is
that none of the task force members are Reform Party members. I
do not even know if any of them are Reform Party supporters yet,
although I do believe that because of the work we have done some
of them probably are. However, that is not important.
What is important is that the recommendations came from the
aboriginal people themselves. And my question is, why are those
recommendations not reflected in this piece of legislation? I
believe the members across the floor will probably say “Why
would we want to act on a document that has been presented by a
Reformer”.
I would like to read the response from the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development to the task force report we
presented to her. She finally agreed after a little public
pressure was applied to meet with the task force members. We met
in September during the first week that the House sat in this
session. She gave us ample time to present our case and I
appreciate that.
I was very disappointed however by some of things she said. I
will begin by referring to her letter of response to the task
force report. My disappointment will become evident as I read
through part of this letter:
There is no question that accountability is an important issue.
Accountability is key to governance. We cannot build
self-sustaining, self-governing First Nation communities without
it. It is an issue for us as Parliamentarians with a
responsibility to Canadians, and it is an issue for First Nations
who must be accountable both to their communities and to
Parliament for the resources appropriated to support service
delivery.
That is clearly the conclusion of the work of the Lakeland task
force, just as it was also identified as important in the work of
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and in “Gathering
Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan', our response to the
work of the royal commission.
1700
What the minister is saying is the Lakeland aboriginal task
force presented really fits in perfectly with what has been
presented in the past, including by the most recent royal
commission and by her response to that commission. So she is
acknowledging that what is in the report is what they heard
through their commissions as well.
I guess my question is why has the minister not acted on it. Why
has she not at least made some movement toward acting on some of
these recommendations in this piece of legislation?
I will read more of the minister's response:
Within “Gathering Strength”, we set out four themes to be the
foundation of a changed and better relationship with aboriginal
people in Canada: renewing the partnership; strengthening
aboriginal governance; developing a new fiscal relationship; and
investing in communities, people and economies. In each of these
themes, there is an opportunity and a commitment to focus on
accountability.
She goes on to reinforce that accountability is important and
there is a lot of work to be done:
When we look at the tremendous challenge of building sustainable
governments, and what a complex and difficult process that is, we
need to recognize that there are reasons for this. For decades,
we have tried to control virtually every aspect of the lives of
the aboriginal people. First nations are making their own
decisions—defining how they want to be governed; setting their
own priorities; and speaking up to hold their leaders
accountable.
I agree with part of that statement. Aboriginal people are
speaking up to hold their leaders accountable. But what I do not
agree with is the minister's statement that first nations are
making their own decisions and defining how they want to be
governed. What really is happening is that the leadership of
first nations and the national leadership such as Phil Fontaine
are saying what they want to see in terms of accountability.
They are saying how they want leadership to look. But the
aboriginal people have not been listened to at all. The
grassroots aboriginal people have not been listened to and that
is reflected in this legislation and what is missing from this
legislation. I think I will leave my reading of the minister's
response at that.
I would like to explain a bit about the Lakeland aboriginal task
force and why we started it, how it was set up and then refer to
some of the recommendations. I know I am not going to get
through the recommendations but I am going to really try this
time to get through the first five, because it is the first five
that deal with accountability, both fiscal and electoral.
I think those examining this legislation and my colleague and
others who have spoken on this legislation already have pointed
out some of the things missing in terms of accountability. I am
sure as this debate goes on others will point out how the
minister has really missed the target in terms of taking the
opportunity when she is expanding reserves and establishing new
reserves of making sure accountability will be there. She has
really missed the boat.
The reason I established the aboriginal task force in the
Lakeland constituency was that shortly after the last election my
constituency boundaries were changed substantially. Beaver River
and Vegreville were put together, two-thirds of each, into a new
Lakeland constituency. In Vegreville the constituency which I
represented before the election, there were no reserves or Métis
settlements. In the Lakeland constituency there are eight
reserves and four Métis settlements, an aboriginal population of
probably around 30,000 people which is quite substantial out of a
total population of about 110,000.
Shortly after the election I started getting phone calls from
aboriginal people, some on reserves, some in Métis settlements
and some living in communities near reserves. Over the first
couple of dozen calls I started to see common themes developing.
1705
These themes were that there is virtually no accountability on
reserves. What we have are chiefs and councils taking in the
money, not accounting for it and spending the money the way they
see fit. They do not necessarily follow the guidelines that are
laid out by Indian affairs. What became very clear is that many
people living on reserves, the people the money was supposed to
find its way to, were being completely missed.
I heard one story after another of extremely crowed living
conditions. People had nowhere to stay and did not know where
they were going to spend this winter. People were not covered by
health care for special expensive medication. They were being
completely missed. I heard from a lot of people who are covered
under Bill C-31 and who were supposed to have some of the
benefits of reserves. They were being pushed aside and felt they
belonged nowhere. Chiefs and councils decided they were not
going to accept those people, so they did not. I heard from
dozens and dozens of people throughout the task force process,
some by telephone calls before we set the task force up.
I also got calls from people who pointed out specific examples
of how money was being completely misspent. In some cases they
pointed to cases of fraud which were borne out later by
investigations and audits. Many of these people called for a
forensic audit. They wanted audits that determined where the
money was coming from, how much was coming in and how it was
being spent. They felt that the current audits being done on the
reserves were virtually useless. It was chiefs and councils that
ordered the audits and determined what kind of audit they wanted.
Furthermore, they would only make available a summary and in
some cases nothing at all. The accountability was not there.
After I received enough of these calls I decided that I had to
do something about it. As a member of parliament it is my job to
represent my constituents. I went to some friendship centres in
towns near reserves. I got together with a few people and asked
them what could be done. They said they had different ideas but
said we should get a group of aboriginal people together in one
place and decide what could be done. We did that.
A group of about 20 aboriginal people met in Bonnyville and we
set up the aboriginal task force of originally four aboriginal
members and me. Then we laid out guidelines that would guide us
in our process. We first determined that the purpose of the
aboriginal task force would be to hear grassroots aboriginal
people in the constituency. That was the purpose, to hear them,
not to tell them what we thought on issues. That is what we did.
Throughout the process we heard from about 300 aboriginal
members. That may not sound like a lot, but several of these
people, recorded on tape and TV cameras, said they had never
before in their lives had anyone in any position in government
really listen to them. I thought that was a pretty sad
statement. It did not come from just one. It came from several
people.
They did say that from time to time they had a minister of
Indian affairs listen to certain chiefs and council members. But
it was rare. They said that people listened to Phil Fontaine all
the time. The minister listens to Phil Fontaine but nobody has
ever listened to them before. It was time and the task force was
put together to do that.
We did listen and we did it in three stages. We started in the
first stage with private, confidential consultations. We held
these consultations at various native friendship centres around
the constituency. The reason we did this was that more
aboriginal people, particularly from reserves, felt comfortable
coming in to native friendship centres. They did not feel that
they would be detected easily. Think about that.
1710
They felt more comfortable coming to native friendship centres
but they certainly would not go to a hall in a community near a
reserve because they were afraid they would be detected and that
there would be a price to pay from chief and council. This was
very common. Some people who went said they knew they would pay
for going but they decided it was time to go anyway. And so they
did. We heard from them. Some of them did pay a price.
Mr. Charles Favel was there more than once throughout the
process. I heard from him before we started. I have a letter
from his chief and council that says Mr. Favel will be banished
from the reserve because he went to the media in Edmonton and
because he was involved with this member of parliament. He was
banished from the reserve. The letter is quite unbelievable. I
have copies of it for anyone who would like to see it. It was a
bit of a baptism for me as to what can happen and just how
serious it can be for aboriginal people from reserves to dare to
say things are not as they should be on reserve.
We also put the invitation to chiefs and councils by letter to
all chiefs and Métis settlement councils in my constituency. The
letter we got back said that I basically had no right to do this.
I could not quite understand that so I sent a letter back saying
I thought I did. They invited me to a tribal chiefs council
meeting. I went to that meeting where some of the chiefs said
that I had no right to do what I was doing. I thought that as a
member of parliament I had not only a right but a responsibility
to represent all constituents. I had not heard that Indian
people living on reserves or Métis people living in Métis
settlements or aboriginal people living in communities near
reserves were not my constituents. Of course they are. I am
going to represent them.
I will talk more about this aboriginal report during debate on
this bill and on Bill C-49. Then I may get through all the
recommendations. I am extremely disappointed that this
legislation does not show the Indian affairs minister really
means what she said in her letter of response to the task force
when she acknowledged there are serious problems of lack of
accountability, fiscal, electoral and democratic. She
acknowledged that is the case but I would like someone to show me
where that is reflected in this legislation, ensuring that as
these reserves are expanded and as new reserves are established a
proper level of accountability will be put in place so we will
know the money that is going to the reserves is getting to the
people it is intended to go to. It is not happening now.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
months we have been listening to the Reform Party thread together
isolated incidents of problems on reserves. Reformers have been
trying to thread those incidents into an overall package that
aboriginal leadership is corrupt, inept or incapable of handling
its own self-government. It is no coincidence that this kind of
talk is escalating now as we get closer to the historic Nisga'a
deal.
Throughout B.C. there has been a very organized campaign to try
to stop the Nisga'a self-government deal. We have seen newspaper
editors manipulating their stories in the press, those who are
convinced they are against us. We have seen a former Reform
Party researcher leave his job with the Reform Party, move to
British Columbia and set up the B.C. chapter of FIRE, the
anti-Indian organization from the United States.
This is now the B.C. chapter of FIRE dedicated to holding
aboriginal people back.
1715
I have sat here and listened day after day to speaker after
speaker trying to convince everyone that aboriginal people are
corrupt, mismanage all their funds and some even wear expensive
jewellery. I even heard allegations that aboriginal leaders are
dressing too well, that they are rich and people on their
reserves are poor.
To try to imply that it is some kind of national trend, that all
aboriginal communities are corrupt, is absolutely intellectually
dishonest. I have listened to it for about as long as I care to.
I am sure we will hear more of it as the whole Nisga'a debate
continues.
Some comments have been very revealing of the true attitudes. I
heard the Reform member for Athabasca say “Just because we
didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean
we didn't conquer these people. Isn't that why they allowed
themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most
isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?” Other
Reform members likened Indians living on reserves to people
living on a south sea island, courtesy of a rich uncle. Another
member of the Reform Party accused native Indians of practising
South African style apartheid because they want to set up their
own aboriginal self-government and have control of their own
communities, as if that is apartheid.
The first time that I heard of that position was on the front
page of the Up Front magazine. Up Front is the
publication of Heritage Front. That was the postulation of the
president of Heritage Front, Wolfgang Droege, another former
Reform Party member, two years ago. I have a copy of it if
anyone would like to see it.
There is a disturbing connection between the extreme right
winger in the country vehemently opposed to aboriginal
self-government and the comments made by the Reform Party. It is
being picked up in the mainstream media by other anti-Nisga'a
campaigners like Gordon Gibson, the former leader of the Liberal
Party in British Columbia, who is also involved with FIRE, the
Foundation for Individual Rights and Equality.
These people believe that all people must be treated equally,
whereas Judge Murray Sinclair, an aboriginal leader in Manitoba,
pointed out clearly that to treat all people equally when they
are in fact unequal is in itself a problem that compounds the
problem.
I hear people laughing. To try to imply that we can allocate
the same type of principles to all people equally is not
recognizing the unequal situation that aboriginal people find
themselves in now. Special circumstances are in order. That is
why we as Canadians are willing to give special consideration to
aboriginal self-government.
I guess I like the comments of the member of the Reform Party
who spoke previously. Do you or do you not agree with the
positions of the anti-Indian movement, FIRE, as chaired by a
former federal Reform Party researcher, Greg Hollingsworth?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind members to
direct their comments through the Chair.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything
about this member's reference to a former Reform researcher being
involved in some sinister kind of organization. It does not
sound like something a Reform researcher would be involved in.
What we have heard from this member today is some of the most
despicable kind of mud slinging I have ever heard. I have heard
a lot of it before coming from across the floor, but I do not
think I have ever heard anything any worse than that.
He virtually used all the ism words that he could imagine
without saying them directly. I think the kind of tactic used by
this member is what is killing fair and proper debate in the
House of Commons and across the country.
1720
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. For him to imply
that Reform is trying to do anything but help aboriginal people
completely ignores the truth. I hope the member would stand and
apologize when he gets the next opportunity, because it is a
despicable approach to take to debate in the House and he should
be ashamed of himself.
I would like to refer to one of the member's comments. He
thought I sounded like I was saying that all chiefs and councils
across the country were corrupt. I do not believe that is the
case, although we did hear from all eight reserves in the
Lakeland constituency of very serious claims about money not
being allocated properly. Whether that constitutes corruption or
not I guess is a matter for debate.
In many cases it is very clear that there was corruption because
the audits have been done and it was proven through the audits.
In some cases charges were laid and guilt was affirmed through
the justice system. To say that it is across the country, I do
not believe that is true. I do not believe it is on all
reserves, but it is on many reserves and it is certainly a
problem in my constituency. We are trying to rectify the problem
by calling for proper accountability. That is what the Lakeland
aboriginal task force heard from grassroots aboriginal people.
Let us get some real accountability into the system so the money
that is being spent and coming into the reserves from taxpayers'
through the federal government, the department of Indian affairs,
and the money from oil and gas revenue as an example are
accounted for. How much is coming in needs to be clearly
accounted for and the people themselves need to know where the
money is being spent. On all eight reserves in Lakeland
constituency the people said very clearly that there was not
proper accounting.
In the report we certainly were not attacking chiefs and
councils. We were maybe a little kind but that is the tone we
wanted in the report. Our recommendation No. 2 was on
accountability. To assure sound financial management on reserves
and settlements the government must provide better financial
management support for aboriginal councillors and administrators.
The second recommendation called for some help from the
department of Indian affairs to teach chiefs and councils how to
account properly.
Does that sound like we are slamming chiefs and councils? We
deliberately took a very conciliatory tone. We did not attack
chiefs and councils although some of the individuals who made
presentations did. That is reality. We cannot change that. We
deliberately presented it in a way that would allow chiefs and
councils to improve so that they would become truly accountable.
That is the tone we took and that is what we presented to the
minister.
I close by saying that it is extremely sad and troublesome that
after all this time we would still have the kind of attack
launched by a member of the New Democratic Party against any
member of the House. It would be unfair for any member to be
painted in the way that he painted some of us today.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to be in the House once again to talk
about aboriginal affairs, particularly where they come into play
in Manitoba.
Selkirk—Interlake is located in the centre of Manitoba. It
borders and includes the very lake we are discussing today, Lake
Winnipeg, which flows north into the Nelson and Churchill river
system and ultimately ends up in the Hudson Bay.
1725
If I could reiterate a bit, Bill C-56 deals with a settlement of
matters arising from the flooding of land on the Norway House
Indian Reserve and on other reserves. It is with respect to the
establishment of certain reserves, the adding of land to land
currently held. The land which was flooded belonged to the
Norway House Indian Band and would ultimately have become their
land under treaty entitlements.
All Manitobans, myself included, have benefited greatly through
the actions of the Government of Manitoba and its crown
corporation, Manitoba Hydro. Native people in Manitoba have also
benefited greatly in that we now have hydro going into most
reserves.
Some members from Manitoba, including the member for Provencher,
seem to indicate they are experts on Manitoba natives. I agree
that no doubt the member has some knowledge. However, like the
member from Winnipeg Centre, they do not have all-encompassing
knowledge of what is going on in reserves. They could have had
historical references for the last six to ten years when the
Reform Party talked about accountability.
I will deal with the bill in two parts. The first part will be
with regard to the flooding of land and the second will be with
regard to some accountability issues.
The Norway House band land which was flooded was excellent
trapping land. It was land they had occupied for thousands of
years. They should be compensated for that land. There is
absolutely no problem with that on my part. I encourage the
provincial and federal governments along with the aboriginal
people as they proceed to compensate for the damage.
The parties to my right, my left and opposite seem to want to
isolate aboriginal affairs into a stand alone situation. We
share this land together. Our national boundaries are well known
from coast to coast to coast. We and the aboriginal people share
this common land.
For just a minute I would like to show that is the case.
Organizations on Lake Winnipeg in my riding have had some spill
over effect from the flooding. The organizations of which I
speak are the Lake Winnipeg Property Owners' Association and a
lady by the name of Lorraine Sigvaldason who is important in that
organization, along with Baldur Nelson and Mr. Nelson Gerrard of
the Bifrost Lakeshore Homeowners Coalition. Nowadays the lake is
at a high level in order to accommodate the generation of hydro.
All Manitobans are sharing in the benefits and the losses
associated with major hydro electric developments.
Some problems experienced in the south end are with respect to
ongoing excessive and rapid erosion of land, physical loss of
highly assessed residential property, permanent destruction of
prime sandy beaches, rapid deepening of the inshore lake bottom,
devaluation of prime real estate, destruction of wildlife
habitat, hazards to marine activity in the form of floating and
submerged debris, and severe financial losses and burdens for
lakeshore residents. They suggest some solutions.
This is a concern that has been around my riding and the province
of Manitoba for some time.
1730
Aboriginal people live along this lake that is affected by the
flooding, including the Norway House band and the organizations I
have spoken of, say the problem has to be acknowledged and
addressed in an honest fashion. Lake level regulation must take
into account actual water levels rather than statistically
altered and wind eliminated or monthly average levels.
Their request to various levels of governments has been that
those who have suffered losses deserve compensation whether such
losses were the direct result of an act of God as in the flood in
the Red River Valley or the acts of government and hydro.
Issues dealing with aboriginals have to be thought of in the
context of dealing with all Canadians. That is what seems to be
missing in some of the debates on the particular bill as it is
with many other bills.
With regard to solutions on Lake Winnipeg, Mr. Wilfred L.
Arnason suggested that additional causeways near Hecla Island, a
narrow opening between the north basin and the south basin of
Lake Winnipeg, could be spanned by additional bridges
accommodating the inflows of all rivers, creeks and ditches
entering the south basin. The idea that there would be an
additional flow of water out of the south into the north basin
would help to provide a solution with regard to erosion problems.
I am not privy to all the details of how the $78.9 million in
cash and hydro bonds with regard to how compensation for the
Norway House band was arrived at, but if the Manitoba government,
the federal government and the aboriginal people agreed to that
it would seem to be fair. I could support that on my part. The
moneys owed under the agreement are not payable to the crown as
Indian moneys but as moneys to be held by the minister in trust.
I will deal with that in a moment.
I certainly agree with the creation of a resource co-management
board with Manitoba. Co-management of resources is exactly what
I have been talking about. It will be a good aspect of the
agreement. As I have noted in past speeches, the ability of an
aboriginal first nation to pass laws in conflict with federal
laws, in other words the aboriginal law supersedes, is not in the
best interests of Canada, of all Canadians or of our living
together.
As a result when I see the terms co-management and working hand
in hand, the people of Manitoba both aboriginal and
non-aboriginal working hand in hand, that is exactly the way it
is supposed to be. That is what I am attempting to promote as
the member of parliament representing Selkirk—Interlake and, I
might add, representing all Manitobans. I have been involved in
various accountability issues with the first nations people where
people from all parts of the province and most of the aboriginal
first nations approached me with their problems, concerns and
their solutions.
I mentioned that this money was to go to the first nations
people to be administered in trust. This is where the member
from Winnipeg Centre said that the Reform Party was—he did not
say crying wolf—trying to take a few little incidents and make
them into some kind of statement that all chiefs and councils are
either crooked or mismanaging funds.
1735
Earlier in my speech I said that members opposite, along with
the members to my right, have not kept an eye on what happened in
terms of the northern flood agreement which included about six
other bands. I would like to refer to what happened when the
Nelson House band was paid several million dollars from the
federal government. It went into a Winnipeg account and through
a lawyer. I will not repeat the exact amount of money that was
to go to the band. A non-aboriginal consultant and the ex-chief
of the Nelson House band were involved in handling the moneys.
It is well known in the House and back in Manitoba that I was a
member of the commercial crime section of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. We received a complaint with regard to how those
moneys in trust were handled. We conducted an investigation. I
will not take credit for doing the whole investigation because I
had some able assistance from other members of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. We laid charges of misappropriation of that
money which was held in trust, the big guarantee, the guarantee
that is referred to in the agreement, the money in trust. Many
thousands of dollars were taken contrary to the trust agreement.
We ended up in a court case that went on for some time and that
chief was convicted of stealing the moneys held in trust.
I hear members talk in the House about the Reform Party making
up stories about possible problems. I am telling the House and
all members that the problems are real. The white consultant
still had some assets which we were able to seize under proceeds
of crime legislation and ultimately have forfeited to the crown.
He passed away before the case went to court so I will not
mention his name.
Just as we have seen in many thousands of cases across the
country, when people receive something in trust such as moneys or
other goods like lands or whatever it cannot be automatically
assumed that with the fiduciary responsibility, the trust
responsibility, they will handle the moneys in a manner according
to the trust conditions, in this case for the native peoples of
that reserve. I have told members how the trust agreement did
not protect the moneys of the Nelson House band.
Over the years I went through RCMP investigations, many times
with aboriginal reserve complaints from people who felt that
moneys were being mismanaged. There was no way, due to a number
of different factors, of ever laying charges or having a solution
through the criminal courts. We laid charges in this one case,
the Nelson House case, with regard to northern flood agreement
moneys.
I ended up retiring from the RCMP and in politics which is why I
am standing here today. Once again I have a responsibility to
the people of Manitoba and my constituency to speak out on behalf
of constituents in my riding. Many people on reserves in my
riding have come to me and said there was an accountability
problem on their reserves.
Not only did they have a lot of problems with social conditions
and lack of housing. They could not find out where in the heck
the money coming into the reserve was going. They saw some
people doing very well on the reserve, primarily at the elected
level, but they needed answers. They needed to find out what was
going on.
1740
When members opposite and the community at large in Canada see
reports in the paper of Reform speaking out about these issues,
we are speaking out on behalf of people who do not have a voice
to speak out on their own. These are the non-elected people.
Many of them are women and young people who are not in the
aboriginal electoral process. They are not elected officials and
are not in non-aboriginal government offices. That is why my
colleagues and I speak out so strongly on this matter.
Accountability should be included in these agreements. Actually
it should be included for aboriginal governments at the band
level because each of the bands is separate. Certain things make
for accountability in government. One of the biggest
accountability factors is money, and I will start with that one.
The member from Winnipeg Centre certainly tried to indicate that
we were trying to scare people and to paint people with a broad
brush. I hope what I have said today shows how untrue that is.
I would certainly be pleased to answer questions after my speech.
I have been advocating a couple of cornerstone democratic
principles since the accountability meetings were held. I will
list them before finishing speaking so that they remain in
everyone's mind.
On October 31 the aboriginal people of Manitoba, not the Reform
Party, organized a big meeting in Winnipeg at the Airliner Inn.
Before that meeting took place I stood in the House and told all
members about it. It is in Hansard. I told them October
31 was the date of the meeting and that all were invited. It was
organized and run by the aboriginal people.
One outside politician came. It was not the member for
Provencher. It was not the member for Saint Boniface. It was
not the member from Winnipeg Centre. It was the Indian affairs
minister David Newman from the province of Manitoba government.
He attended the meeting and spoke for at least half an hour about
all the serious issues dealing with financial funds and problems
with aboriginal leadership and what could be done about it.
From all these meetings I have four basic cornerstones of
democracy that would help provide accountability for the chiefs
and councils. The first one is absolute, independent, fair
election laws to ensure that elections of the chiefs are fair and
true.
The second is an independent auditor general. That is the one
that would provide for accountability of the financial funds.
There is no reason the leadership of the aboriginal people in
Canada and the federal government could not already have set up
some kind of independent auditor general to take care of moneys
that are for the benefit of aboriginals on our reserves.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been listening very carefully for the past couple of hours
to a number of interventions made by members of the Reform Party.
1745
I appreciate the comments made by the member of the New
Democratic Party. His interventions speak very clearly to the
problem of the misuse of language and the misrepresentation of
the issues we are dealing with. I find the debate quite
interesting as we debate the northern flood agreement.
We have heard talks about self-government, dealing with the
Nisga'a deal, references to RMs, the most recent intervention
from this member claiming that he speaks for the people of
Manitoba on aboriginal issues and talking about the participation
of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at
this rather odd undertaking at the Airliner Inn in Winnipeg. I
find the debate is moving off into areas that are not intended in
this bill.
This bill is about a bill of compensation that was properly
addressed by the New Democratic member from Winnipeg. It is a
bill about compensation. The member for Selkirk—Interlake
talked about the fact he lives on the inlet. So do I. We were
transferred to Norway House when they were building the power
lines. My father was a pilot for the government air services for
many years in 1950s. We spent a summer there.
I believe the hon. member misses the entire point of the debate
about compensation. Some of his colleagues have referred to
that. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has spoken to
it very clearly. This is a question of hydro flooding these
lands in northern Manitoba and doing it improperly without
consulting the native people. I wonder, for example, whether the
provincial minister who is responsible and is signatory to this
agreement talked about that at the Airliner Inn in Winnipeg.
This is an agreement about compensation. It is an agreement
about a contract and a breach of contract. There is a settlement
between the parties, Manitoba Hydro, the Government of Canada and
the first nations people, in this case the people of Norway House
who voted on the bill. He referred to the cottage owners in Lake
Winnipeg. Is it not proper, is it not right, that when somebody
floods somebody's land, that the first nations people would be
compensated for the lands that were flooded, that this is the
proper thing for the Government of Canada and Manitoba to do?
They all signed the agreement.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Provencher and I end up on the same plane lots of times, so we
may even talk about this again.
I think we will refer to Hansard tomorrow and we will
see that I spoke quite eloquently, I would say very eloquently,
with regard to the fact that the Norway House band had serious loss
of lands and that the compensation of $78 million that was agreed
to by the various levels of governments, the aboriginal chiefs
and the people was very fair and should be paid to them. We have
no problem in agreeing on that fact.
The accountability problems deal with much more than this one
agreement. As a member of parliament, where the issue at hand
has brought the broad ramifications it has for the people of
Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not touch on those issues
attached to the bill we are dealing with. One attached issue is
accountability for the moneys that will be received by the band
in trust. I agree it is normally a very good legal means by
which money does not go missing. As I have said, I have seen so
many thousands of cases of dollars go missing over the years,
millions, from non-aboriginal and aboriginal holders of trust
moneys.
We should not make light or cast aspersions on members of the
House or others who speak up and say that everybody who is
elected in aboriginal reserves to councils and chiefs are not
crooks. They are average people who are getting elected to these
things. But there are enough problems that have to brought to
the attention of legislators and they have to be dealt with. To
sit back and pretend that nothing is going wrong and that there
is no room for improvement is sheer lunacy, to put it bluntly.
I take pride in speaking out in my riding for my constituents. I
have had so many comments from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people that previous members of parliament did not stand up and
speak in the very means that I am speaking today on behalf of
aboriginal women and children and others who want to see
accountability in first nations government.
1750
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
seeing as I was made reference to a number of times in that
address, I want to clarify a few things.
What I said in my remarks is that it is intellectually dishonest
to try to take a bunch of isolated incidents of problems with
funds and try to thread that together into an overall picture
that aboriginal people in Canada are not ready for or capable of
self-government or the implementation of the recommendations of
the royal commission which our party stands for. I am not saying
they are allegations. I am saying they probably are well founded
incidents.
I made a number of connections with anti-Indian organizations
like FIRE. The hon. member can deny any connection to them if he
likes. As the ONFIRE begins now, the Ontario version of the
anti-Indian organization, the director is a Reform Party member
and activist Judy Kilgore. Brian Richardson, the founder of the
Ontario FIRE organization, left his job with FIRE so he could run
for the Reform Party in the last federal election. He did not
want that crossover too public I guess.
Mel Smith, who was the salaried, paid consultant for the Reform
Party's Indian task force, is the author of the book Our Home
or Native Land. It is a play on words instead of our home and
native land. The three major points are that aboriginal
self-government must be stopped; that some government treaties
with first nations should be either ignored or modestly
interpreted; and that all government programs related to native
people should be phased out, i.e. first nations people should be
made real Canadians. In other words, no special affirmative
action measures to try to recognize the historic imbalance.
Does the Reform Party stand behind the implementation of the
recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal people or
does it subscribe to Mel Smith's points?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, we talk about listening
to each other's speeches and I certainly hope that my speech was
also listened to because there is no place that I would ever say
that aboriginal self-government should not come about. I do not
think that anybody can show me any place in Reform Party policy
where it says we are against aboriginal self-government.
I would certainly not like to see condemnation by association or
whatever, which the member for Winnipeg Centre is somehow trying
to place on my shoulders. I think I have spoken quite clearly
about what my beliefs and stand are and what I believe the
beliefs and stand of the Reform Party are. My 59 colleagues as
far as I know believe exactly along the lines and in the same
general principles. The other groups or whatever the member for
Winnipeg Centre is talking about, I do not know if they have been
authorized by the Reform Party to speak like that. I would very
much doubt that. In fact I know it is not true.
People in the House have made some pretty wild promises over the
years. I think back to some members who are currently sitting
who talked about how they would get rid of the GST and all this.
I would simply say that our politicians do need to have
accountability imposed on them and I think the aboriginal leaders
are no different.
1755
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-56,
the Manitoba claim settlements implementation act. My colleague,
the hon. member for Provencher, has made it clear that the
proposed legislation will address outstanding commitments to
several Manitoba first nations. I will comment on the elements of
the bill that pertain to the establishment of reserves in
Manitoba.
The overall objective of this part of the bill is
straightforward, to advance the implementation of claims
agreements in Manitoba by facilitating and thereby accelerating
the transfer of lands to reserve status. In “Gathering
Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” this government
stated its belief that treaties provide a basis for developing a
stronger partnership with aboriginal people. But in order to
move in partnership into the future we must first honour our past
commitments.
One of Canada's longest standing commitments is to deal with
treaty land entitlements, claims that involve lands promised
under treaties and signed mainly with the first nations of the
prairie provinces. This is for a variety of reasons. Not all
first nations received the full amount of land promised to them
when they signed the treaties. For example, in certain first
nations incorrect counts of memberships occurred when reserves
were created.
As hon. members can appreciate, this has been a contentious
issue with first nations in western Canada for many years. Our
government intends to bring closure to this difficult problem by
fulfilling Canada's obligations to provide additional reserve
lands to first nations with treaty land entitlements. This
process has been spearheaded in Saskatchewan where a treaty land
entitlement framework agreement signed in 1992 has paved the way
for the final agreements with individual first nations. Now we
are focusing our attention on righting this historic wrong in
Manitoba.
While the majority of Manitoba first nations received their full
land allocations when they signed treaties between 1871 and 1910,
others did not. Over the past 50 years or so numerous efforts
have been made to resolve this problem. Some progress was made
between 1994 and 1996 when seven of the affected Manitoba first
nations signed individual treaty land entitlement agreements that
provided about 170,000 acres of land to be added to reserves.
The major breakthrough came in May 1997 when the governments of
Canada and Manitoba signed a framework agreement with the treaty
land entitlement committee of Manitoba on behalf of 19 first
nations whose claims had been accepted. Under this agreement
about 1.1 million acres of additional reserve land will be
provided to 19 first nations. About 90% will be crown land
provided by the Manitoba government. The remaining 10% will
likely be purchased from private landowners by these first
nations using cash contributions provided by Canada. The
remaining 10% needs to be purchased privately because certain
first nations are in the areas of the province where there is not
sufficient crown land available.
We have now moved into the next phase of the settlement process
in which each of the 19 first nations ratifies its own treaty
entitlement agreement based on the broader framework agreement.
Six such agreements have been completed and we hope to finalize a
number of other agreements this fiscal year.
The process is moving forward but our experience in Saskatchewan
has taught us the importance of having better legislative
mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of land to reserve status.
This is particularly true where these lands carry one or more
interests held by third parties. Bill C-56 provides these
mechanisms.
I bring the attention of hon. members to three main provisions
of the bill that relate to the establishment of reserves under
the Manitoba claims settlement. First, Bill C-56 will empower
the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set
apart as reserves any of the lands selected by Manitoba's first
nations under a claims agreement. The Indian Act is silent on
the power to create or add to reserves. However, the historic
practice has been for the governor in council to issue an order
in council granting reserve status.
For the purposes of Manitoba claims agreements only, Bill C-56
will eliminate the added step of obtaining the order in council.
1800
The second and third measures both deal with the issue of the
third party interests on proposed reserve lands and in
particular, with the timing of first nations' consent to the
continuation or replacement of existing interests or the creation
of new interests.
Under the government's additions to reserve policy, the reserve
status can only be conferred on lands if third party interests on
these lands have been identified and resolved prior to Canada's
acquisition of the lands. Unfortunately it is often very
difficult and sometimes impossible to meet this policy goal using
the existing laws which can act to impede resolution of these
interests. Let me give an example.
A Manitoba first nation has selected a certain parcel of land
that it would like to purchase under its treaty land entitlement
agreement. A hydro company happens to have an easement across
this land which was previously granted to it by the province.
Before the first nation can purchase that land, the additions to
reserve process requires that the hydro company's interest be
resolved. Typically the hydro company would require the first
nation's consent to continue the easement.
Here is the catch. The Indian Act gives a first nation the
power to consent to the creation of interests on land that is
already part of a reserve but not on land that is simply being
proposed for reserve status. Thus, the first nation would not
have the power to consent to the continuation of the hydro
easement. It would be a fairly big problem for anyone who is
taking hydro off of that line.
Hon. members can no doubt see the dilemma. Without the first
nation's consent that the easement will continue, the hydro
company may be, quite understandably, unwilling to cancel its
existing provincial easement. Through no one's fault, a
potential addition to the reserve becomes stalemated. An
opportunity to forge a new working partnership between the first
nation and the hydro company is delayed and possibly even lost.
Bill C-56 will resolve this potential catch 22 by allowing a
first nation to consent to a third party interest on selected
lands before those lands have been granted reserve status. In
this manner the third party interest is continued and not put at
risk as it would be under the current regime.
The process for the first nations to grant such consent will
depend on the nature of the interest. For example, exclusive use
interests, such as leases, would require the first nation
membership to give consent through a designation vote.
Non-exclusive interests, such as rights of way, would require
only the consent of the first nation council.
These distinctions are parallel to those applicable to the
existing reserves under the Indian Act. That is to say the
important feature of these new designation and permit powers is
that they would allow the first nation to give consent when it is
most needed, indeed at the very time at which it is the most
helpful to the reserve creation process. Of course the interest
consented to would take effect only if and when the land becomes
a reserve.
I want to point out that the pre-reserve powers to designate
lands or issue permits would be available to deal with the
protection of existing interests and to allow the first nations
to put in place new development deals that would take effect upon
reserve creation. This ability to take advantage of the new
opportunities will ensure that first nations do not have to leave
their selected lands undeveloped until reserve status is granted
and that first nations can compete on an equal footing even while
the reserve creation process proceeds.
1805
The driving force behind this legislative proposal is Canada's
commitment to settle treaty land entitlements with 19 Manitoba
first nations. The mechanisms in Bill C-56 will also be made
available to the seven Manitoba treaty land entitlement
agreements negotiated in advance of the framework agreement
reached last May. Canada is also prepared with full provincial
support to make the bill's mechanisms available to all other
Manitoba claim settlement agreements, existing or future, which
have addition to reserve components.
For example, two specific claims have been settled with the
Manitoba first nations that oblige Canada to create new reserve
lands. These first nations will be able to use the reserve
establishment provisions of Bill C-56 in this process.
Hon. members will also be aware of the master implementation
agreements signed by four Manitoba first nations to implement the
northern flood agreement. In fact part 1 of Bill C-56 will
affirm to certain elements of the agreement recently completed
with the Norway House Cree Nation, an agreement that provides for
the conversion of about 55,000 acres to reserve status. The
reserves establishment provisions of Bill C-56 speak to this
commitment and to reserve creation commitments Canada has made to
other northern flood first nations. Given that Norway House is
also owed additional reserve lands under its own treaty
entitlement agreement, it will benefit from Bill C-56 on two
fronts.
Finally as I have said before, any first nation that negotiates
future claims that include a commitment to create a reserve land
in Manitoba may opt into the new process.
I want to make it clear that the mechanisms to be made available
by this legislation will be limited to additions to reserves that
are the result of the Manitoba claims settlements where first
nations ought to avail themselves of the legislation. The
extension of these mechanisms to all types of additions to
reserves in Manitoba and elsewhere across the country cannot
happen now and would not happen without broad and extensive
consultations with all our first nations and provincial partners.
Hon. members should also know that part 2 of Bill C-56 is not
needed to give effect to any claims agreement in Manitoba. These
legislative proposals are intended only to facilitate the
creation of reserves under these agreements, in large part by
achieving a key objective: enabling first nations to accommodate
and to protect third party interests that are identified in the
reserve creation process. This bill will significantly reduce
the time required to add lands to reserve which under the current
system can approach three years.
Given the technical nature of these provisions, it is fair to
ask what the practical day to day effect will be on first nations
communities, on children, on families and on businesses. The
answer is this. By accelerating the implementation of the claims
agreement, the proposed legislation will pave the way for
improved socioeconomic conditions in the first nations
communities throughout Manitoba.
The sooner that selected lands can become reserve lands, the
sooner the affected first nations can develop these lands and
benefit from them. In many cases, lands will be selected because
of their development potential, or for commercial and
institutional ventures which in turn will contribute to real
improvements in the lives of the aboriginal people.
Bill C-56 will move Canada forward in meeting our goal set out
in Gathering Strength: to build stronger first nations
communities and to end the cycle of poverty. The treaty land
entitlement first nations of Manitoba have waited patiently for
the day when their claims would be resolved. Bill C-56 will
facilitate and accelerate this process to the benefit of all
parties.
It could serve as a legislative template for similar efforts in
other provinces. It will send a clear message that parliament
not only intends to live up to the commitments made to the
aboriginal people but also stands ready to legislate a process
that helps make this happen.
1810
Third parties that hold an interest in the lands that a first
nation has selected will also benefit from this legislation.
Their continued interests will be protected by having the first
nation's consent prior to the reserve addition, giving them the
commercial certainty in the face of this process that they have
long been seeking.
In closing, I want to assure hon. members that the Treaty Land
Entitlement Committee of Manitoba has been consulted on this
legislation. The bill was also shared with the province of
Manitoba and the seven first nations that had previously signed
individual treaty land entitlement agreements.
The bill has also been made available to the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs and to the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research
Centre which is operated by the representatives of the Manitoba
first nations. The centre recently expressed its support for the
legislation in a letter dated September 18 to the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In it Chief Jim Prince
notes that with the new legislation in place, “the process of
conversion of land to reserve status will be considerably
enhanced”.
Other parties were extensively consulted and represented by the
province of Manitoba during the negotiations which led to the
signing of the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework
agreement.
We have consulted. We have listened and we have acted.
Manitobans want this legislation.
I urge hon. members to join with me in supporting this bill so
that it can be sent to committee for review.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for the ease with which he read
a speech which he had not seen before. I think it was a
wonderful job. I wonder if the hon. member was gambling. Did he
lose the coin toss or did he get the short straw? Exactly how
was the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey selected
to read the departmental speech?
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
has probably taken shots at any one of us over here out of his
absolute frustration of the success of this government over the
last five years. We have taken a deficit of $42.5 billion down
to zero in five years. We have taken unemployment from 11.9%
down to 8.1% in five years. I can understand the hon. member's
frustration in making a statement like that.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon.
member would reply to my question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to compliment the member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey on his speech. I certainly
enjoyed it.
Many members have been taking part in the debate today,
especially those from Manitoba and that is as it should be.
However, some of us take a great interest in these matters even
though in this particular case we are not from Manitoba. The
member and I share this very personal interest. I have in fact
seen from the air and the ground the results of the flooding
which we are dealing with in this case.
As some members may have noticed today, the Reform members have
been dragging the puck for whatever reason. I do not know what
the reason is. They do not like this legislation and have been
drawing out the debate this afternoon at great length. We are
now getting very close to voting time. They keep mentioning the
matter of accountability. They raise the spectre of
accountability of first nations.
My question will be based on my understanding that the trust
fund which is going to be established manages the compensation
moneys which was stressed by the parliamentary secretary.
1815
We are talking about compensation for many, many years; decades
of hardship resulting from the flooding.
The trust fund that manages the compensation moneys will be
subject to provincial trust laws and will be administered
according to generally accepted accounting principles. As well,
all of the parties to the master implementation agreement will
receive an annual report on the trust's business affairs.
I do not know the laws of the province of Manitoba, but I would
ask my colleague: Is it not true that in fact the moneys which
will be allocated under this legislation will be properly managed
and accounted for in the way that I have just described?
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Peterborough for his question. Yes, is the simple
point and the answer.
We are debating this bill at second reading and it is going to
go to committee. The hon. member across the way wants to know
why I was chosen. My interests concern all of Canada. I am not
only interested in what happens in Ontario, I am also interested
in what happens in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.
An hon. member: We are a national party.
Mr. Murray Calder: That is right. That is the point.
Unfortunately, the Reform member opposite belongs to a regional
party which represents the west and that is his only interest.
My interests concern the nation.
When this bill is in committee, if the member has any problems
with this legislation, that is the time and that is the place—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say first of all that a member opposite said we have
drawn out the debate at great lengths. I think it would only be
appropriate if four, five or six Reform members spoke to this
legislation, and I believe that is how many have spoken today.
The other thing I would like to comment on is the fact that my
colleague for Winnipeg Centre is completely off the mark when he
tries to cast aspersions on the Reform Party by implying that
somehow we have condoned, possibly spawned and encouraged this
organization, which none of my colleagues in this caucus have
even heard of, let alone been made aware of what the aims or
goals are. I think that is probably one of the sleaziest things
I have seen happen in this parliament up to this point.
Having said that, I would like to ask a question of my colleague
from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. This agreement is an
attempt to bring to a close 21 years of negotiation. The first
thing that occurs to me is that when we are in negotiation for 21
years the people that benefit are not the stakeholders, they are
the negotiators. This looks to me like a career for somebody to
continue negotiations which started in 1978.
I would encourage my colleague across the way to remark on that
or to enlighten me as to how he feels about the fact that this
has dragged on and on. Who does he think have been the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this has
dragged on for 21 years and that it has taken this government to
find a solution is the answer to the member's question.
For five years we have brought forward good legislation that has
put this country back on track. For five years we have been
working on solving problems that previous governments have not. I
think we have done a darn good job of it.
1820
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
all about talking to the folks back home who are watching. It is
all about Bill C-56. It is all about the government making a
commitment it could not keep. That is basically what this is all
about.
I will quote from an article written by John Gray of the
Globe and Mail. It is entitled “Referendum process leaves
a House divided”. It is about a government trying to go ahead
by buying votes. That is what it is about.
Maggie Balfour is the former chief of the Norway House reserve.
She and other people on the reserve wanted to challenge the
legality of a referendum with regard to the implementation of
this whole agreement. She and other people had problems with the
process and the way these things were done. They were going to
put forward their challenge to what had happened.
What happened then? Ms. Balfour described it as bribery in the
article. She said that basically everybody who had problems with
the process was offered $1,000 just in time for Christmas. If
they accepted the $1,000 then these dissidents would thereby kind
of fall off this challenge. As a result, with $1,000 the
government could buy silence from these people on the reserve.
Not only was the government complicit in these things, but the
band council got control of the $1,000 payouts and could decide
who would get them and who would not. It was even more selective
than just whether or not you took your name off the list. There
was complicity between the federal government and the band
council.
The article touches on some other issues that we are dealing
with in the country, particularly a province that I have in mind.
They say here that if a referendum loses, then a second one
should be called, and that is exactly what this situation had in
mind. They were continuing to call referenda until they got the
results they needed. This was all something the federal
government was up to because it had made commitments that it just
could not keep.
As a result, the federal government and the band were complicit
in holding referenda again and again on the implementation on
this whole agreement until they could go ahead and pass this
legislation.
It says here that money and land was exchanged for a formal end
to the obligations of the northern flood agreement.
I will quote directly from the article because it is
particularly relevant in this case. It states: “When the votes
were counted on the night of July 29, the majority in favour of
the implementation agreement was almost two to one. But the
referendum was defeated because there was not a majority of
eligible voters on the reserve in favour”.
What happened then? On August 1, three days after the defeated
referendum at Norway House, Ms. Jackson, the federal negotiator,
was laying the groundwork for a second referendum.
What happened here is that they could not get what they wanted
in the first one, so by offering $1,000 and by plunging ahead
into a second referendum the federal government, along with the
band, hoped they were going to be able to get the results they
wanted, despite the objections of some of the dissidents who had
problems with what was being done.
The federal government asked questions about the accuracy of the
voters' list at Norway House. By asking questions about the
accuracy of the voters' list it was able to go ahead and force a
second referendum. It even admitted that the rules could be
changed for the second vote. “If you consider it changing the
rules, I suppose that is what it is”. That was a quote taken
directly from Ms. Jackson, the federal negotiator in this whole
deal.
In the days after the first referendum a group of Norway House
residents took the band council to court on the grounds that the
entire referendum process was improper. Some 186 band members
signed the application to the court.
1825
In the ensuing three months, three-quarters of those who had
supported the legal challenge signed affidavits saying in effect
that they did not sign or did not mean to sign the court
application. This is because they were being bought off, bit by
bit, with thousand-dollar increments of federal money.
The unemployment rate on this reserve is 80% to 85% and most
people in town live on social assistance of only $205 per month.
Not surprisingly, the money figures prominently in this glossy
guide book to the implementation of the agreement published by
the federal government. Most of these people are not very well
off and $1,000 of federal government money to buy their votes
seems like a pretty lucrative deal for some of them. If they
only make $205 a month, $1,000 would be five months' salary.
On page 3 of the government's guidebook describing the
implementation agreement is the promise of a $78 million trust
fund. Page 13 has the promise that if the agreement is approved
there will be three payments totalling $1,000 for all band
members. Even more so, those aged 55 and older will get $1,500.
This will pay off the band elders with a little more money.
Ms. Omand was one of the 186 who signed the challenge to the
legality of the referendum. She acknowledges that later she
signed the affidavit because she wanted the money. She speaks,
frankly, for many of the people who were bought off with federal
government money.
The first challenge to the referendum was rejected by the
federal court. The dissidents discovered in the two referenda
that it is difficult to be effective in a town where the band
council owns and controls the only newspaper, the only radio
station and the only television station. There is complicity
among the band, the federal government, the money being spent by
the federal government, the newspaper, the radio station and the
television station. How are these dissidents, these people who
have problems with it, supposed to be able to have their voices
heard? Ms. Omand wrapped up her article by asking “How can the
government put us in such a devastating mess?”
In light of this, what does the Reform Party propose as a
solution? My NDP colleagues criticized us earlier today so I am
sure they would ask that question. The Reform Party believes
that the chief electoral officer of Canada should have authority
over Indian government elections to ensure they are fair and
lawful. What we had here was a case of the federal government
and the band buying votes. It was a thousand dollars a pop to
have dissidents drop a legal challenge. It was easier to buy
their votes than it was to have a fair election and get the
results they wanted.
Some members have said today in the House that the Reform Party
is bringing up these unfair elections and these problems in terms
of democracy and what happens on the reserves. I think that is
only fair. We are doing that in the spirit of people like Ms.
Omand and Ms. Balfour, the former chief of the Norway House
reserve. It is only fair that their type of consideration be
heard in the House. These are not just allegations because they
were willing to press ahead with them in court. These types of
consideration should be taken into account.
Let us think about how this plays with the Liberal strategy in
other areas. Liberals do not just buy votes on reserves and buy
the complicity of bands and councils to get their way, they buy
votes in provinces too. It is not only a strategy they keep up
with aboriginals in this country. They buy votes in this country
by giving out flags and through various programs that they adjust
and tinker with for special interest groups—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sory but I must
interrupt you now. The time for debate has concluded.
The hon. member for Calgary West will have 10 minutes when next
this bill comes before the House.
1830
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred divisions.
Call in the members.
1850
[English]
And the bells having rung:
* * *
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-37, an
act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
The Speaker: The first deferred recorded division is on
the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-37.
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 156
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Laliberte
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Strahl
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 47
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bonin
| Brien
|
Bulte
| Cardin
| Chan
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
|
Perron
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act,
be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading
stage of Bill C-208.
Following the adoption of the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on November 4, the
division will be taken row by row, starting with the sponsor and
then proceeding with those in favour of the motion beginning with
the back row on the side of the House on which the sponsor sits.
[Translation]
Then, after we have gone through all the rows on this side of
the House, the hon. members on the other side of the House will
have their turn, starting again with the last row.
[English]
All those on my right in favour of the motion will please rise,
beginning with the mover.
1910
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 203
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bonin
| Brien
|
Bulte
| Cardin
| Chan
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
|
Perron
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CHARITABLE DONATIONS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made earlier today,
the next deferred recorded division is on Motion No. 318.
1915
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Johnston
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 130
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bonin
| Brien
|
Bulte
| Cardin
| Chan
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
|
Perron
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-42, an act to amend
the Tobacco Act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on Motion
No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-42.
1920
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members
present vote yes on this motion.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. On the previous vote I did not vote and I would like to
be recorded as voting no with my party.
The Speaker: I would inform the hon. member that she was
counted in the first division that was held. It is all right.
She voted.
(The House divided on Motion No. l, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 71
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bonin
| Brien
|
Bulte
| Cardin
| Chan
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
|
Perron
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved that the
bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe that you would find consent to apply the results of the
vote taken on Bill C-37 to the matter now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an
act respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second time
and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-48.
1925
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote no on this motion.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members
present vote yes on this motion.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 39
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 164
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bonin
| Brien
|
Bulte
| Cardin
| Chan
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
|
Perron
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect
of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-49.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the vote
now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 262.]
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 15 I asked the Minister of the Environment whether she plans
to introduce legislation this fall to ban water exports.
Water is our most important natural resource. A price cannot be
put on the value of fresh water to people, plants, animals and
ecosystems.
1930
Some people say we have a limitless supply of water but the fact
is there is a limit to how much we can use and abuse. Once we
contaminate the quality of water, as we have done in the Niagara
River, the cost of replacement is high. It can come at the
expense of another watershed. We have learned that water is a
resource which must be treated carefully.
In 1983 the Liberal government commissioned a federal inquiry on
water policy. Two years later inquiry chair Peter Pearse and his
fellow commissioners recommended a full range of water related
policy initiatives including drinking water, safety, research
programs, intergovernmental arrangements and water export.
The central message of the inquiry's report, in the words of
Peter Pearse, was:
We must protect water as a key to a healthy environment, and
manage what we use efficiently as an economic resource.
On the issue of water exports the Pearse report recommended the
federal government adopt legislation setting out clear criteria
for approving or rejecting water export proposals to ensure that
Canadian economic, political and environmental interests would be
protected. According to Peter Pearse:
Since the late 1980s, the federal government's handling of this
issue has been unhelpful. Although it declared its intention to
adopt our proposal for legislation to enable it to regulate
exports, it did not do so. Instead, it assigned the question to
the interdepartmental legislative review group in 1989, which
never reported.
It has been 14 years since the Pearse report. We are still
waiting for a water export policy and for a comprehensive water
policy.
In the vacuum created by the absence of a comprehensive policy
and in the absence of a federal law banning the export of water
came the application last spring by the Nova Group in northern
Ontario for a permit to take water.
In March the Government of Ontario, in one of its frequent
moments of galloping madness, granted the permit to take up to 10
million litres per day. At the time the government said it had
no choice but to issue the permit, saying “you can get a permit
to draw water in Ontario as long as it doesn't cause any
significant environmental damage”.
Then the Ontario government a little later came to its senses
and decided to cancel the permit. Consequently the Nova Group
appealed the decision to the Ontario Environmental Assessment and
Appeal Board. While a number of public interest groups from the
U.S. and Canada will be represented, it is sad to note that the
federal government is not represented at the hearings.
Going back to July it is important to note that at the panel
convened in Toronto by the ministers of the environment and
foreign affairs, panellists from all sectors of society agreed
that interbasin diversions, domestic or transboundary, should not
be undertaken because of the serious environmental consequences.
We are now at the end of 1998. We still face a legislative gap
crying out to be filled. We know there is broad support for the
gap to be filled. We know we can expect proposals in future for
water exports. Therefore I am again asking the minister when
legislation will be introduced banning water exports.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record
as saying that the federal government is opposed to bulk water
exports.
There are no bulk exports taking place at the present time. The
company to which my hon. colleague referred has had its permit
revoked. The decision has been appealed to the Ontario
environmental appeal board and the hearings are set for early in
December.
The cumulative effects of tanker shipments by river or lake
diversions are unknown and might be very serious. There might be
effects on levels and flows of lakes and rivers. We want to take
a cautious approach.
I point out to my hon. friend that this year particularly in
parts of Canada one in 40-year droughts are taking place. Ontario
is one of those that is suffering greatly at the present time.
The levels of the Great Lakes are down, even to the risk of
transportation on the seaway.
1935
Considerable progress has been made regarding consultation with
provinces on options to deal with this matter. Both federal and
provincial governments have a role to play in deciding the
outcome. The government will lay out its strategy for a
comprehensive approach to water exports later this year. I can
assure my hon. friend we will proceed with the utmost caution.
BILL S-13
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I had a question for the government House leader
relating to the Minister of Health and Bill S-13, a bill that
obviously originated in the Senate. We often call it Senator
Kenny's bill.
It is an anti-smoking bill that would place a 50 cent levy on
every carton of cigarettes. In a sense it appears as though the
government will attempt to derail that bill. In other words, the
government does not want that bill to come to the House of
Commons.
I take exception to this because today in the House we were
debating Bill C-42, amendments to the Tobacco Act. We were
saying the bill does not have enough teeth in it. It does
nothing. At the end of the day we will still have 40,000-plus
Canadians dying each year from smoking. The point we are
attempting to make is that Bill S-13 addresses some of the very
problems we know exist with regard to the acceptance of smoking.
Bill S-13 does something about this. It would levy 50 cents per
carton of cigarettes at the manufacturing level. The money would
go into a foundation to educate Canadians, particularly young
Canadians, on the dangers of smoking.
I mentioned that 40,000 Canadians die every year. Senator Kenny
and many members on both sides of the House agree that it is a
big problem, particular with our youth.
I have a very simple comparison but very graphic. If 100 people
a day in Canada died as a result of an airplane crash, we would
have slightly fewer than 40,000 Canadians dying a year. To be
exact, 36,500 people. That would be absolutely unacceptable if
the government did nothing about it but instead sat back and let
it happen.
If a recurring problem such as an airliner going down every day
in Canada killing 100 people occurred, the transport minister
would have to resign within days. At the end of 365 days, there
are 40,000 Canadians dying because of smoking. The government
sits back and simply lets the tobacco giants control the agenda.
We want to see something done. We are saying that Bill C-13
would do something about that. Senator Kenny's bill does
something about it. We are asking the government to give this
bill some consideration, at least get this bill on the floor of
the House of Commons so that it can be debated on its merits.
I am hoping the government will be receptive to this bill,
consider it and debate it openly and honestly in the House of
Commons where all members can express their points of view.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
share the concern of the member regarding smoking. On November 3
he asked whether the government would provide time for
consideration of Bill S-13.
The leader of the government in the House replied that the
appropriate forum for discussion of the future business of the
House is the weekly meeting of all party House leaders.
That answer stands.
1940
The hon. member may, if he desires, ask his own House leader to
raise the matter in the appropriate place. As the hon. member
knows, the House has been developing in recent years increasingly
effective procedures for the consideration of Private Members'
Business and, if otherwise found in order, Bill S-13 would
already benefit from certain advantages that our rules provide
for private members' public bills emanating from the Senate.
As the hon. member also knows, however, there are certain
fundamental procedural and constitutional considerations
surrounding Bill S-13 that must be ruled on by the Speaker of the
House of Commons, who is the only person authorized in our
parliamentary system to rule on matters relating to the
constitutional monopoly of the House of Commons to initiate
fiscal legislation, and it is only fitting that we should await
such a ruling to be made at an appropriate time.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:41 p.m.)