36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 150
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 5, 1998
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSOLIDATED STATUTES OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAY SAFETY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-58. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-455. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1010
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Alcohol Consumption
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1015
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Parents
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortions
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-51. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1050
1055
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1110
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1130
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1135
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1210
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1315
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1320
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1335
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1340
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1355
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAK AND ENTER CRIMES
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1400
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SIKHISM
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL SENIORS SAFETY WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLISH COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTRAL AMERICA
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1405
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARIO TREMBLAY
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JULIANA THIESSEN
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MUSEUMS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1410
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DOWN'S SYNDROME
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORGANIZED CRIME
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1415
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1440
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1445
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1450
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PASSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE HOMELESS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1500
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1510
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1520
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1525
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Business of the House
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1530
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1550
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—Speaker's
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1605
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1610
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1615
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1640
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1645
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1700
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1705
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA STUDENT LOANS
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1735
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 150
![](/web/20061116174210im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 5, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
CONSOLIDATED STATUTES OF CANADA
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both
official languages, proposals to correct anomalies,
contradictions or errors identified in the Statutes of Canada
and to make other minor and non-controversial amendments, as well
as to repeal certain legislation that no longer applies.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to 16 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present, in both official languages, the
fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans,
the central Canada freshwater fisheries report. In accordance
with Standing Order 108(2), last May the committee undertook a
study of fisheries issues in central Canada. Pursuant to Standing
Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to
this report by the minister within 150 days.
This is a very comprehensive and important report. It deals
with a number of issues regarding the Great Lakes fisheries that
have never been addressed. Some of the recommendations will be
acted on. One request is related to the sea lamprey, a
non-indigenous species to the Great Lakes. We have been dealing
with this species recently. Today I ask my fellow colleagues,
all workers in the House and on the hill, to go to Centre Block
to see the sea lamprey display in the rotunda. I ask that all
here today make time to see that display today.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the 43rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and the associate membership of some standing committees of the
House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move
concurrence in the 43rd report later this day.
* * *
RAILWAY SAFETY ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an act to amend the
Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-455, an act to amend the Food and Drugs
Act (nutrition information on foods).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in every session of every parliament
since October 4, 1989, I have introduced a bill to amend the
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act to ensure the nutritional
value of food is clearly stated on packaged foods.
1010
It is my wish that consumers have the information they need in
order to make informed decisions on the foods they wish to
purchase.
This bill is my effort for the 36th parliament. It is much more
sophisticated than my previous bills. It proposes to amend the
Food and Drugs Act to provide that packaged foods, bulk foods and
fruit and vegetables sold at retail have specific nutritional
information for consumers.
This bill is supported by a coalition of health and consumer
groups representing almost two million consumers. I hope the
House will support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move
that the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents in Ontario. They are
requesting that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include the
provision supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses
and grandparents regarding access to or custody of their
children.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to present a petition signed by many of my constituents who
are upset regarding the money being wasted on gun control.
They point out that the commissioner of the RCMP in July 1997
send a letter to the Department of Justice stating that of the
88,162 violent crimes investigated in 1993, only 73 or .08%
involved the use of firearms.
Therefore they petition parliament to have the hundreds of
millions of dollars spent on gun control redirected to a better
use.
ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two small petitions today. In the first the petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of
alcoholic beverages may cause health problems. In particular,
fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related birth defects are 100%
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore ask parliament to require health
warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic
beverages.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition concerns human rights in this year marking
the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human
rights.
Whereas Canada is internationally recognized as a leader in
promoting human rights around the world, the petitioners call on
parliament to appeal to leaders around the world where human
rights are not being protected and for Canada to seek to bring to
justice those responsible for the violation of internationally
recognized human rights.
JUSTICE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour to present today as a representative of
my riding of Calgary—Nose Hill a petition signed by nearly 1,000
of my constituents calling for measures that will lead to greater
deterrence of youth crime.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present on
behalf of my constituents of Bruce—Grey two petitions.
The first petition, signed by constituents from Hanover,
Walkerton and Chesley, concerns the legal definition of marriage.
The petitioners ask that parliament define marriage in Canadian
statute as the union between an unmarried male and an unmarried
female.
CRTC
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition from the residents of Durham and Elmwood request
that parliament review the mandate of the CRTC to encourage the
licensing of religious broadcasters.
1015
MARRIAGE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today. One is from my constituents in
Athabasca and the other is from constituents in the national
capital region.
Both petitions ask parliament to pass legislation to protect the
definition of marriage and that the definition should remain the
voluntary union of a single male and a single female.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House another petition on
an issue about which my constituents feel very gravely.
They want to preserve the understanding of the concept of
marriage as a voluntary union of a single male and a single
female. I am proud to present the petition on their behalf.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents
also dealing with marriage.
The petitioners are concerned about the broadening of the
definition of marriage. They are showing support for private
member's Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the
Interpretation Act, to define clearly that marriage is to be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to present two petitions on behalf of the
constituents of Yellowhead.
The petitioners call on parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act
to amend the Marriage Act, to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
RIGHTS OF PARENTS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition which calls for the traditional upbringing
of children by parents without undue interference by the
government, the state and the police.
ABORTIONS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls for the government to hold a binding
national referendum at the next election to ask voters to decide
on the funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-51 that
has some merit.
It is interesting that there are sections in the bill which the
government has addressed that should have been addressed many
years ago. I do not raise this point simply to bring out the
fact that the changes the government finally got around to doing
are overdue. There is another point.
A number of amendments were raised at committee. Some of them
were presented by the Reform Party of Canada. They were clearly
thought out. We had discussed them not only among our own
colleagues and law enforcement people but among other members of
parliament from other parties. These amendments were not
controversial and should have found very wide support.
Let me discuss a couple of the amendments we wanted to bring
forth. The legislation dealt with such things as people who live
off the avails of prostitution, specifically of minors or
children. It includes maximum penalties. It is an approach that
says we need to get a little tougher on certain types of
offenders in society.
We in the Reform Party support that kind of approach. We
thought perhaps the government had overlooked that it was all
well and good to have a maximum sentence and say that under
circumstances the judge can sentence the person up to a certain
amount of time, but what about a minimum sentence?
We see far too often in our courts and in society people walking
away scot-free from offences that offend the sensibilities of
Canadian citizens.
It is a shame that this happens.
1020
This was our opportunity to do something about it. The
government in its wisdom saw fit to include maximum sentences. We
go along with that. We support them. There should be some
capping based on the severity of this crime.
We should also put in more parameters for judges. Many people
in my riding, and I suspect in the ridings of Liberals,
Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and my colleagues, complain that judges
seem to have far too much leeway in what they do.
The range of sentencing is astronomical. In many cases this
causes defence lawyers to go shopping for judges. They know that
certain judges are soft on certain types of crime and if they
could get their client before a certain judge, even if the client
is found guilty, the penalty would not be very severe and in many
cases they would walk away. We have heard some horrendous cases
of people walking away completely scot-free from very serious
crime.
We wanted to bring in a minimum sentence for people who live off
prostitution of a minor. We have sentences for dealing with
those living off the avails of prostitution but this is a special
section. It is much more serious. For adults who chose to enter
a life of prostitution we can pass all kinds of judgments or we
can ignore those judgments. However, it is pretty serious when
someone lives off the avails of prostitution of a child.
It is all well and good to have a maximum sentence but we have
no minimum. We wanted to bring in an amendment that would
provide the minimum of a one year sentence for someone living off
the avails of child prostitution.
We have talked to many people including Liberals across the way
and people involved in the legislation. They agreed that it made
a great deal of sense. However, what happened when we brought
the amendment before the committee and said we thought it was
something that would make the bill better?
We would like to support government legislation. We are not
here to oppose for the sake of opposing. We are here to point out
any shortcomings, where perhaps the government has erred and not
done as complete a job as it should have done.
The general response from the Liberal members of the committee
just before they defeated the amendment was that it was under
study. There are provisions in the bill that have been outdated
decades ago. The Liberals have had more than ample opportunity
to fix these things and have not done so. Why are they taking
something as straightforward and basic and saying they have to
study it more and cannot possibly pass it at this time, even
though they have already spent all this time on it?
The message the Liberal government is sending out to people in
society who live off the income from prostitution of a child is
that they still have no minimum sentence. They can walk away
scot-free if they find a lenient judge, and we know they are out
there.
We had another amendment to bring in. Another clause of the
bill deals with drugs, various crimes and sentencing provisions
for people living off income from selling illicit drugs on the
streets. We know the kind of problems that creates.
The conditional release program allows prisoners to get out
after serving only a small part of their sentence, one-sixth. A
tremendous number of Canadians watch parliament, look at the laws
we create and bring into the House. They wonder what on earth we
have in mind when we say that a certain criminal act results in
so many years in jail but if the prisoner is good he will be let
out after serving only one-sixth of the sentence.
1025
When someone is sentenced to six years, the victims of the
particular crime might say that is okay or that he or she should
have had a longer sentence. We have to be careful now that we
include women. They like equality, so we want to make sure that
when we talk of crime that we include everyone.
It is fine for six years, but now we are saying that they could
be out in 12 months. There is a caveat that says that certain
people will not be eligible. People who commit violent offences
will not be eligible and will have to serve a whopping third of
their sentence before they are considered for release.
We think that in itself needs to be addressed. Personally I do
not think that anyone who commits a violent offence against
someone else should be allowed out early at all. They are
sentenced for a number of years and they should serve those
years. That debate will go on at another time when we talk of
serious offences like murder because Liberal legislation or the
lack thereof allows convicted murderers and rapists, the Clifford
Olsons and the Paul Bernardos of the country, after being
sentenced to life in prison to put their victims through the
trauma of a hearing after 15 years. We went through that before
and because the government failed to act we will have to go
through it again.
There is another type of crime that by definition does not come
under the violent offender category which we believe should be
considered in this legislation. I am referring to the people
involved in the trafficking of drugs and the importation of
illicit drugs into the country and the pain, suffering and
expense to our justice system and our health care system. People
involved in importation and/or trafficking of illicit drugs
should be included in the exclusion from the early release
program after serving one-sixth of their sentence.
This is strongly supported by people who work in the criminal
justice system and by the police officers who are the ones on the
frontline dealing with these people and all the problems they
create. It is absolutely shocking that anyone would consider
someone who is trafficking in narcotics and is causing problems
in society should be released after serving only one-sixth of
their sentence.
What was the response of government members in this regard? They
said there was some merit in what we were saying but that they
had to study it. That is how we got into the mess in terms of
half the things that are already in the bill. They said they had
to study, to wait, to consider every ramification and to consider
whether they would get any political brownie points. If they
bring it in at all, if they bring it in now or if they bring it
in later, will it cause them any problems with voters or some
special interest group?
I would like to know what special interest group government
members are afraid of in bringing in a sentence that cracks down
on the traffickers and importers of illicit drugs, or even for
that matter those who live off the avails of child prostitution.
I would like to know what they are afraid, what they feel is the
downside of bringing in something like that.
In many areas the government claims it is doing the right thing,
but when they are held up to the cold light of day they just do
not make a lot of sense.
In various parts of the country, and in particular in my
province of British Columbia, there is a criminal justice crisis
right now. The government states that it wants to make homes and
streets safer. I would like to know, especially arising out of
the problems with the bill, why the government has cut back on
funding for the RCMP.
My province has a huge coastline. The RCMP has tied up all its
coastal patrol boats at the dock. The bill talks about drugs,
trafficking and the importing of drugs, yet the RCMP has had to
tie up all its patrol boats.
British Columbia is a big province as is the province of
Ontario. British Columbia is a very big, rugged province. It is
necessary for the RCMP to spend a lot of time patrolling,
travelling and conducting surveillance from the air, but it has
grounded its airplanes, except of course for the commissioner who
can fly out for a party. That is the exception that is allowed.
Of course he is not really, in my opinion, part of the RCMP. He
is part of the government. He is no longer the top cop of this
country, he is the top bureaucrat associated with the RCMP.
1030
In my riding the government has made major cutbacks in funding
for patrols for these various small communities. In one small
community there was a break-in at one of their public buildings,
which was then vandalized. It occurred and they reported it on
Monday. The RCMP got to it on Thursday. That is not acceptable.
We have another small town which has a breathalyser so they can
apprehend people who would put other people in danger by drinking
and driving. The breathalyser is not functioning properly and
there is no funding in the budget to fix it.
This is the result of $8.5 million worth of cutbacks to the RCMP
in my province of British Columbia. This same government has
brought in, is enforcing and is now trying to implement Bill
C-68, which is the legislation to force law-abiding citizens to
register their hunting rifles and their sporting shotguns used
for trapping and skeeting and maybe some bird hunting. The
government said when it brought the legislation in that it was
going to cost $89 million to implement. It is up now to
approximately $200 million by the time it will be fully
implemented and that is assuming it does not have to do what the
Canadian Police Association says it will have to do, which is to
upgrade the national computer system at a cost of anything up to
another $200 million.
The justice department has said it is going to cost $50 million
or $60 million a year to maintain it once they get it running, if
in fact they do. It will cost $60 million a year so that I and
other people who are shooting enthusiasts can trap and skeet.
Does that make a lot of sense, particularly in the light of the
problem we have in British Columbia where $8.5 million would
truly bring justice and prevent crimes in our province, as well
as in other parts of the country?
The government says that it needs time to study whether or not
there should be a minimum sentence for someone who lives off a
child prostitute. When I hear this and look at all the other
things this government has done, I have a hard time believing
that the government is serious with respect to getting tough on
crime.
What is getting tough on crime? Is it forcing the law-abiding
citizens of this country to registry a shotgun or a hunting
rifle? Or is it taking a small portion of that money and funding
the RCMP so it can properly patrol the communities of this
country and catch the traffickers and the importers of drugs that
are referred to in this bill? These are the same importers and
traffickers for which this government, for some reason, is
reluctant to take away the right of early release after serving
only one-sixth of their sentence.
I am not suggesting or implying anything, but I think there are
going to be people in the country who are wondering why a Liberal
government would be so reluctant to bring in a condition that
says traffickers and importers of drugs cannot be a part of this
early release program after serving only one-sixth of their
sentence. They are looking at this and saying that this is the
same government which, in spite of the fact it is spending
hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless firearms
registration program, is cutting back $8.5 million in the RCMP in
British Columbia. The impact will be that they will be stopped
from patrolling their coastline where a lot of the drugs come in.
They will be stopped from flying their aircraft over our province
to find people hiding out in different areas, and to do certain
types of surveillance including border surveillance. We have a
long common border with the United States. Drugs certainly come
in from that area as well. They are also smuggled into our
country through other ways and then channelled into the United
States.
When this government says that it is tough on crime, I would
like to know what kind of crime it is. It is not prostitution.
It certainly is not people who would live off the avails of child
prostitution. The government had an opportunity to make a small
change that would have sent that message a lot better in this
legislation, but it did not do it.
1035
It is not drug traffickers and importers of drugs because not
only has the government refused to add them into that section of
people exempted from this early release after serving one-sixth
of their sentence, it has cut back on the RCMP where one of the
biggest impacts will be on the fight against organized crime and,
in particular, people who smuggle things into our country, the
number one concern being illicit drugs.
I am a member of this parliament. It is very awkward sometimes
when people ask me who I am, what I do and where I am from. What
can I say? I am a member of parliament. What is a member of
parliament? Do I belong to the government? No, I am not a
member of the government. They are the government. I do not
want to be tied that way. I am a member of Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition, which is sometimes a little difficult to explain. Am
I a government representative? No, I am not. I am not even a
Reform Party representative. I am a representative of the
constituents of my riding. The Reform Party is the vehicle I
use.
Those constituents need representation in this House is because
this government does things that are purely against their
interests. It does it in terms of its cutbacks to the RCMP.
This asinine firearms registration that the government says is
getting tough on crime has nothing to do with crime.
My constituents need representation because there are changes
that should have been made in Bill C-51 which have not been made.
I would like to mention a witness who was brought before the
committee immediately preceding the clause by clause examination
of the bill to bring it back to this House. The witness was a
representative of the Canadian Police Association, the
organization that represents the frontline police officers of
this country who certainly have a strong interest in this bill.
This association brought in a couple of recommendations for
changes to this bill which were ignored out of hand. They were
ignored for what seems on the surface a plausible reason, because
there was not sufficient time to study and consider the
recommendations. I thought they were very appropriate
recommendations.
What is interesting is the scheduling. If that is how the
government is going to react to recommendations from the Canadian
Police Association, then why did that committee, controlled by
the government, choose to have those people appear in the 30
minutes immediately preceding the time it was moving to
consideration of this bill and amendments thereto?
I do not think I can take this Liberal government seriously when
it says it is getting tough on crime. I do not think Canadians
can take this government seriously.
I hope that all Canadians will take note of what could have been
in this bill versus what is in it and make sure that when they
talk to their member of parliament, be it Liberal or otherwise,
they make it clear that they want this government to get tough on
crime in a serious way, not in a phony or a two-faced sort of
way.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk for a minute about some of the
things the member talked about with regard to cutbacks to the
RCMP on the west coast. This is a major ongoing concern and it
is not going to go away.
We are now going into the winter months and these so-called
temporary measures that have been enacted to try to make up for
what the government is calling overspending are going to take us
to at least April. We are now in a circumstance, well described
by my colleague, where the airplanes and helicopters are in the
hangar and the boats are docked.
In the past, for example, we had members who would work a shift
and then would be on call for eight hours for which they would
receive one hour of overtime. That was precious little
compensation for being basically on tap for an additional eight
hours. That one hour of overtime is now gone and the members of
the RCMP in our area are expected to carry on as if this is fine.
In actual fact, none of this was created by them.
1040
This was all created by Ottawa and by not forwarding moneys
through E division. The reason we ended up with an $8 million
so-called shortfall has everything to do with court costs and
with extra things that happened. For example, there was a
multiple murder in my riding. One case like that can put the
taxman's budget well over. We cannot plan for contingencies like
that. These are major investigations.
The public is becoming more and more uncomfortable. Basic
policing is something that government should be providing. That
is a prime responsibility. I am glad to see that the solicitor
general is in the House to hear what I am saying, because this
cannot carry on. It is affecting overtime monitoring, our
helicopters, our boats and our airplanes. It is affecting
capital spending. It is affecting the future of the RCMP. The
training centre in Regina is now shut down. It is affecting
morale on an ongoing basis. This is just not acceptable. Anyone
who has small communities in their riding knows that what used to
be slim coverage is now skimpy or non-existent.
We have huge areas on the coast where the Criminal Code, drug
interdiction and other things are not being enforced. They
cannot be enforced because there is nobody there. That is my
comment.
My question for my colleague relates to the fact that this is
obviously an omnibus bill. It takes in everything from gambling
to homicide, child prostitution, conditional sentencing,
organized crime, telemarketing fraud and so on. This makes it
very difficult. One can support nine measures out of 10 and get
oneself into a bit of knot on a piece of legislation like this.
I guess the prime area of concern would be with conditional
sentencing, at least from my perspective. We still have in
conditional sentencing a huge loophole. It is being applied to
violent offenders despite previous justice ministers telling us
that would never happen. We also have a much smaller loophole
being closed by this legislation.
I would like to ask my colleague to comment on the omnibus
nature of this bill and also to elaborate on the RCMP funding
situation.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
raising these points. Certainly there is a great deal that
should be said about many of these things and I welcome the
opportunity to expand a bit on what I previously said.
The overtime situation, or lack thereof, for the RCMP is very
important and very critical for two reasons. First, it is what
the RCMP relies on to get coverage. As he pointed out, they
receive one hour of overtime pay, but they in essence are on call
for an eight hour period. Even now that this has been taken away
from them many members of the RCMP, out of a sense of duty and
obligation to the people in their area whose safety they are
responsible for, still put in a tremendous amount of extra time
for which they are not paid.
I think it is absolutely shameful. The government wastes
phenomenal amounts of money. Members of the RCMP are not very
highly paid, in part because of freezes not only in their pay,
but even in the increments they get in terms of rewarding them
for their growing experience, expertise and commitment to the
job, and they have demonstrated that commitment. The government
has said “No, you cannot be compensated for that”. Now it is
saying “In order to do your job, if you have a sense of
obligation, you are still going to have to go out on your own
time”. But the government will not pay them to stand by.
1045
Further to that, this country right now according to Statistics
Canada, has the lowest per capita law enforcement officer
population that it has had in 26 years. Never since 1972 have we
had such a low number of law enforcement officers per capita.
How does this Liberal government respond to this shortage, a
shortage which necessitates these officers covering an eight hour
availability shift for one hour's pay? And now that one hour's
pay is being taken away from them and they are covering for
nothing. How does the government respond to that? It closes down
the training centre in Regina.
We have the lowest per capita coverage of law enforcement
officers in 26 years, and this Liberal government responds to it
by closing down the training centre and getting rid of the
trainees. No new people are coming on. The government says it
is a temporary measure. It is not a temporary measure and anybody
who says it is a temporary measure is either a hypocrite or they
think that everybody else in Canada are fools. The time has come
to put the training expertise back together, to redevelop and
update the course curriculum, to recruit, to qualify these people
and to schedule.
I went through this in the air traffic control system. The
government was running it at the time. In its wisdom the
government decided to cut back on air traffic controllers because
it thought there were too many. The government arbitrarily,
without doing proper studies, shut down the training system. It
got rid of the instructors and shelved the training so that there
would be no more updates. What happened? The government said
“Gosh, we made a mistake. We need more controllers, not
fewer”. There was an incredible lag, a 10-year lag, in trying
to get back up the steam to bring people in, to train them, to
give them the qualifications.
And now this government is making the same asinine mistake that
was made by the government of the day when it cut back on the air
traffic control system.
We have a problem in this country. When the government says it
is temporary, if we were to use semantics, there is a measure of
truth to it. The trouble that we have today is temporary. It is
not going to stay like it is. It is going to get worse because
this government has no plan for real crime prevention. It has no
plan for making our homes and streets safer.
This government is bringing in a bill forcing law-abiding
citizens to meet new expensive regulations at a cost of hundreds
of millions of dollars. It is cutting back on the RCMP in my
province by an amount of $8.5 million, a pittance against the
amount it is wasting on the useless firearm's registration.
We have to wonder. I do not think for a moment that the
government has any dark and sinister reasons for doing this. I
cannot help but wonder why it brings in legislation that allows
the criminals to walk through loopholes while it cuts back on the
police, the people who catch those same criminals. The
government should be ashamed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on
Bill C-51.
As has been previously stated, this is an omnibus bill which
will amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, as well as the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act. Among the highlights of this bill, we will see
changes to the legislation with respect to homicide, criminal
negligence, child prostitution, conditional sentences,
telemarketing fraud, currency gaming and non-communication
orders.
I must say at the outset that there are some positive aspects to
this bill. Some of these measures indeed have been long in
coming. It is refreshing to see that these changes will be
enacted.
It is also interesting to note on a priority level the way this
bill was described by one of the justice department's own
witnesses who appeared before the justice committee with respect
to the enactment of this legislation. It was described as
housekeeping legislation. As far as priority goes, I would have
to agree with that description.
If we were looking at this in terms of baseball analogies which
have been prevalent in this chamber over the last number of
weeks, I would describe Bill C-51 as an infield single.
It is the bare minimum the government needed to do with respect
to the criminal justice system. It could have delivered much
more and there was an opportunity to deliver much more. Without
getting into the specifics of that, I want to address some of the
improvements that should and could be made to this legislation.
1050
I will review some of the content of the bill in that vein. The
federal government, the provinces and the territories share
jurisdiction over a number of criminal justice issues. This bill
takes into consideration many of the consultations that did take
place between the various levels of government.
It is extremely disappointing that 17 months after the solicitor
general and the Minister of Justice were appointed, they are
producing only housekeeping legislation. When the government
decided to table legislation with new innovative crime prevention
technology, as it did with Bill C-3, it delivered a modest and
potentially ineffective system. That is to say, it did not go far
enough. To use the Prime Minister's favourite sports analogy,
the government is dribbling weak grounders back to the mound when
it could be delivering real serious hits.
Last week we saw the opposite of the minister's relations with
respect to the provincial and territorial governments. It is sad
that the Minister of Justice does not heed the will of most of
the Canadian provinces with respect to bringing in a new youth
justice system. Last December she delivered a speech in Montreal
in which she promised the provincial and territorial ministers
that she would be presenting a draft bill.
On May 13 the minister told the House that she would be
introducing legislation with respect to the youth justice system
this fall. No bill has been seen as yet and there appears to be
no bill forthcoming. The minister broke her commitment to
Canadians who are concerned with respect to flaws in the
government's approach to youth justice. She went back on her
word to her counterparts, the provincial and territorial
ministers. We have no bill as yet to replace the Young Offenders
Act.
Broken promises are not new to this government, in particular to
the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general. Their
credibility is at such a low ebb with the law enforcement
community that the former head of the Canadian Police Association
said several months ago “Frankly we don't care what this
government has to say any more”. That is a shocking statement
from someone in that position. The gist of this is that there is
not any real and meaningful legislation as is required to meet
with the criminal reality Canadians are facing in the streets and
in their communities.
We do have Bill C-51, which is the subject of this debate and I
admit it is a good housekeeping initiative. However, the reality
is that the government has missed an opportunity to bring in real
legislation that would address some of the outstanding problems.
Instead it is putting housekeeping ahead of those major
priorities.
Colleagues on this side of the House have mentioned that Bill
C-51 will amend the Criminal Code in regard to some of the
situations that need fixing, in particular homicide, child
prostitution and conditional sentencing. It also amends the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in terms of dealing with
sentencing and criminal liability for on duty law enforcement
officers. This bill will also amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act to exclude those convicted of organized
crime offences for eligibility for accelerated parole review.
What was missed was the opportunity to enact in the Criminal
Code stiffer penalties for those involved in organized crime
activity. It failed to include mandatory minimum sentences for
those motivated by gang activity to embark upon a life of crime,
crime that inevitably puts people's lives at risk through drug
peddling, prostitution and the type of gang warfare we have seen
in the streets of Montreal and which is spreading to other cities
in Canada.
This bill will remove a provision that in light of advances in
forensic science and health care will also focus in on some of
the technological advances that have been made.
The current Criminal Code disallows the prosecution of
individuals convicted of murder, manslaughter or other offences
after a year and a day has passed. That enactment has been made.
I would embrace it as a positive measure.
Obviously there are situations that unfortunately could occur. A
person whose life has been threatened due to injuries related to
crime and is on a life support system or in critical condition
may through their own will hold on until after a year and a day
has passed.
The perpetrator is then not held criminally accountable under the
old system.
1055
This piece of legislation brings about an amendment to the
Criminal Code that would allow for prosecution after a year and a
day for crimes related to murder and manslaughter. This is a
positive change.
Another amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to Bill C-51
would be to simplify the prosecution of individuals who attempt
to procure sexual services from a prostitute who they know is
under the age of 18. It would also allow police officers greater
access to electronic surveillance and technology to investigate
prostitution related issues.
To touch on some of the comments I have heard from the opposite
side of the House, there is an opportunity here to perhaps put in
place mandatory minimum sentences to act as a deterrent for those
willing to embark on this type of a criminal career. It is
obvious to say that those who find themselves sadly involved in
prostitution are often runaways. Often they are young women from
small communities who are brought into big cities often through
very extreme kidnapping type situations. Often there is a great
deal of coercion, violence, drug addiction and blackmail used to
get these children involved in this type of illicit trade.
It is also fair to say that Canadians are repulsed and revile
this type of activity. Therefore we should have an opportunity in
our Criminal Code to reflect that view which is held by an
outstanding number of Canadians.
One of my colleagues on the opposition benches also brought
forward amendments that have been referred to, specifically to
clause 8 which would address this particular situation of those
who embark upon living off the avails of child prostitution.
There was a suggestion that there would be a minimum sentence of
one year and a maximum punishment of 14 years. This certainly
does give a broad range of sentencing. I might suggest that a
hybrid type of sentencing option might be more appropriate.
I do agree that the initiative taken by my colleague is a good
one. It would at the very least reflect the ability of a
sentencing judge to hand down such a sentence that would send a
severe message of deterrence, not losing sight of rehabilitation
which is something that has to be kept in mind. At least it would
broaden the sentencing options for the judge.
Sadly with respect to this initiative as we have seen numerous
times at the justice committee, the justice committee with the
Liberal dominated majority simply voted it down without any great
deal of discussion or consideration of this useful amendment. It
was dismissed out of hand. Other amendments were proposed as
well. As we saw at the justice committee, numerous times without
any great deal of discussion they were voted out of hand.
We need to break from the partisan discipline that we often see
in this place and in the committees when it comes to issues such
as this one which are so fundamental, issues that have such a
broad ranging effect. Criminal justice issues should not be a
forum for politicians or anyone else to delve into partisan
activity. It is too important, too fundamental to the protection
of Canadians, too important to help rebuild some of the
communities that are under siege by organized crime and those who
perhaps because of the economic system are willing to delve into
criminal activity.
With that being said, we all have to take note of many of the
initiatives in Bill C-51. The government's decision to delve
into the area of conditional sentencing came up very short. This
bill would permit the issuance of arrest warrants until a court
hearing would be held with respect to breaches of conditional
sentencing.
Another component of Bill C-51 is that it would change the
breach hearing limit of 30 days to permit the court to deal with
offenders who cannot be found or brought to justice within the
parameters of the current legislation.
Another is stopping the clock on conditional sentences. That is
to say, if an individual serving time in their community under
conditional sentencing provisions is subsequently arrested and
sentenced to do time on a subsequent criminal act, the
conditional sentence would not run concurrently. It would begin
on the offender's release. I commend this as a positive change to
the Criminal Code.
1100
However, the reality is there could be and should be changes to
the conditional sentencing provisions currently in place in the
Criminal Code.
I think the expression has been clear on this side of the House
that conditional sentencing provisions have been abused by
Canadian judges. They have been used to sentence criminals who
are involved in activities for which the drafters of this
legislation did not intend, specifically crimes of violence and
crimes that have an element of sex or violence in them.
Conditional sentences were never intended for those purposes and
they surely do not reflect the need to protect society from those
willing to embark on that type of activity.
A conditional sentence can be viewed in no other way but one
which is extremely light and in most circumstances meant to be
used only in very special factual scenarios. As well,
conditional sentencing puts greater emphasis on those outside the
traditional criminal justice system, mainly those involved either
in policing services or in the administration of justice or
prisons.
In many cases emphasis is put on parole officers or social
workers to have the discretion to view conditional sentences or
see that conditions are being complied with. These individuals
are often faced with the discretion of do they breach the
offender when they run amok of the sentencing conditions in
place.
I suggest that for serious crime involving violence or sexual
assault where the emphasis is on rehabilitation and protecting
the victims, conditional sentences are inappropriate and not
intended for that type of crime. Sadly the government has missed
an opportunity in this omnibus bill to make those corrections.
We have heard that there are currently sentences pending before
the courts where this discussion will take place. The judges
may, in their wisdom, decide that these type of sentences are not
appropriate. But as long as that discretion exists, and we have
seen this happen so often, lawyers will make the argument.
Lawyers will always try to push the limits and beyond when it
comes to these types of sentencing provisions. If it is there,
the lawyers will ask for it. That is the way the system works.
It is something that should not come as any surprise to us. Why
not simply remove that type of discretion for certain codified
offences?
We need to send a stronger message when it comes to violence.
We need to simply say they are not eligible for that type of
sentencing provision.
One of the more interesting aspects of Bill C-51 is that it
makes amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
These amendments would ensure that offenders with ties to
criminal organizations or gangs no longer receive accelerated
parole review.
To echo my remarks with respect to conditional sentencing for
violent crime, I suggest we have again missed an opportunity.
When it comes to gang activity we could codify in the act in
sentencing provisions that a crime motivated by gang activity or
perpetrated by a person involved in a gang would receive an
additional sentence or the sentence received would be served
concurrently.
That is to say we would view this as an aggravating circumstance
and we would codify that so it was a deterrent not only for the
offender but for those who might decide to model themselves after
people who are involved in the gang.
These gangs, as we have seen in the papers and consistently in
the media, are expanding their width and breadth across the
country. We know they have firmly ensconced themselves in a
number of big cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Calgary. We
are seeing these gangs become more and more prevalent and more
involved in very serious and illicit crimes in smaller
communities as well.
If the Liberal government was willing to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act before the statutory review process
why was it not willing to make some significant changes? There
is in fact a review taking place. We have been told time and
time again that things will be coming in a timely fashion, that
we will have to wait.
1105
This government in its new agenda of 17 months had not tabled a
single piece of significant legislation to address some of the
more serious crimes taking place in the country.
Hopefully the non-partisan view that I spoke of earlier will
prevail when the Corrections and Conditional Release Act review
does take place at the justice committee level.
I repeat my challenge to the government, though, with respect to
its true commitment to crime fighting. As I mentioned earlier,
the solicitor general specifically could be doing a lot more when
it comes to violent crime and when it comes to organized crime.
Nothing has undermined the solicitor general's performance record
more than his inaction on this organized crime front which is
supposedly one of the government's three strategic priorities.
The solicitor general has said quite often in the House and to
the media that organized crime is big business and it is bad
business. Recognizing this and doing something about it are two
different things. Recognizing it, acknowledging it and saying
publicly that he wants to do something about it, that is fine but
the clock is running. When it comes to these types of issues,
when the clock is running people are getting hurt, killed and
things are happening that the government has an opportunity and I
suggest a responsibility to do something about.
The solicitor general has an opportunity to do just that through
legislative initiatives and through resources. Resources of
course are a problem that the government is wrestling with, its
priorities. Where does it spend the money? Where does it cut
the money? Once more to echo comments from the opposition
benches, the priorities and where the cuts seem to be taking
place are extremely disturbing and questionable. All Canadians I
believe are embarked on that process of questioning why the
government is making cuts in the areas where there appears to be
the most need.
One of the areas I would describe as being the most in need is
that of frontline policing and the need of police officers to
have the resources to do the job they have been tasked with.
That is not just partisan bluster on my part. That is the
conclusion reached by the U.S. State Department when it was
viewing areas in the world where organized crime was beginning to
become a growth industry. There was an international report
tabled, “The International Narcotics Control Strategy”. In
that report the State Department singled out Canada as an easy
target for drug related and other types of money laundering. The
same report also listed Canada in the same category as Colombia,
Brazil and the Cayman Islands as an attractive location to hide
illegal cash. That same report also criticized Canada's lack of
legislation to control cross-border money flow.
This is a very serious problem, so much so that York police
Chief Julien Santino, head of the organized crime committee of
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said: “Money
laundering is an easy feat here in Canada. According to these
reports the RCMP has estimated that the value of laundered money
in Canada is between $3 billion and $10 billion”.
I express guarded support for Bill C-51 on behalf of the
Conservative Party. We would have liked to have seen further
amendments as are appropriate under an omnibus bill. There is a
common sense need for more stringent controls and more stringent
areas for the government to look at in terms of sentencing.
We will be supporting this legislation and hoping for greater
initiatives on the part of the solicitor general and the Minister
of Justice.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his comments.
He spoke about the parasites among us who live off the avails of
child prostitution. I think we can all agree that it is a very
serious problem in our communities.
There is a large movement afoot in my province of British
Columbia to have the age of sexual consent between a young person
and an adult raised from 14 to 16 as one possible method of
dealing with these issues, not only dealing with the people who
live off the avails, the pimps, but also with the johns.
I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments on that
proposal.
1110
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has
a real strong and personal commitment to issues of justice and I
commend him for his efforts in that regard.
To answer his question, I suggest that yes, that is a possible
initiative that could be undertaken. As he would know, there was
a time in the Criminal Code when the age of consent was much
higher.
With respect to child prostitution, his apt description of
parasites are those who would embark on making a living by
enslaving young women and in some cases young men to trade sex
for money, something the country has to be very concerned about.
It is something our law enforcement community has certainly
expressed its opinion on.
Surely we can do more. Having it enacted in the Criminal Code
that the age of consent be raised to 16 would take away the
ability of some of the pimps who target children before that age.
Some of these children are as young as 11 and 12 years old.
It is redundant to say we cannot do more to help these children.
If putting tougher measures in the Criminal Code and broadening
the description of who is classified as child would lead to
greater prosecutions, a greater number of arrests and giving
police the ability to charge someone who had sex with a child of
15, it is certainly something I would be supportive of.
Making these types of legislative initiatives, making these
changes, arms the police with the ability to do their jobs, make
a greater number of arrests and to have greater discretion in the
field which they are forced to exercise. This is something we
should be more supportive of not only in the House but in all
parts of Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak on issues of justice. I do not think anything strikes a
more resonant chord with Canadians than a justice system that
works, that protects those who need protection and that correctly
identifies and punishes those who need to have punishment.
I suppose a lot of people do not realize the different parts of
this bill but I am going to talk about one that, as far as I
know, no one has mentioned yet in the House. It was drawn to my
attention by a letter I received yesterday. Because I am not a
justice critic I was not aware of this. I am much more
interested in the justice of financial things these days since I
am one of the finance critics for our party.
However, the topic I want to discuss is the transfer of money.
As an aside, it is perhaps illustrative to know that included in
this bill are provisions that it is not legal to copy Canadian
money unless the size of the reproduction is either 50% larger
than the original or at least 50% smaller or thereabouts.
Being in the finance portfolio now, Canadians would probably
best represent Canada's dollar by reducing it rather than
expanding it because of its value on the international market.
It is against the law to reproduce Canadian money or to make
facsimiles thereof or to transmit it by computer or whatever.
I want to talk about another area proposed here, gambling.
There are some amendments proposed that are hidden in with all
the other amendments, many of which are very important and which
my colleagues have already addressed in this reading, the
previous reading of the bill and in committee.
I draw attention to the fact that we are, by the amendments that
are being put into this bill, big time drawn in to the wave of
public ideas of gambling being an acceptable way of transferring
money from one person to another.
1115
Of course we have this argument that surely people should have
the choice. If I choose to put a dollar on the table and let
someone else take it, I should have that choice. Indeed, I
support that view. If I see someone on the street who has not
eaten yet today, I want to have the choice to say to that person
“You come with me to the restaurant and we will eat together”.
I should have the freedom to spend my hard earned money in
whatever way I wish.
The fact of the matter is that as a society we are buying, in
much too large a way, into the whole idea of lotteries. This
bill, among other things, expands legal gambling to include games
of dice, which have not been included before. We need to be
aware of this as members of the House, and we need to be aware of
this as members of Canadian society.
I simply contend that having our population spend hours huddled
over gambling tables is a tremendous waste of human energy,
effort and time. We should start putting regulations into place
to make that more difficult, not easier.
The bill says that lotteries will no longer be illegal if they
are conducted on international cruise ships within our
boundaries. That is incredible.
I will give a little history. Probably about 30 years ago I met
a friend. He was not the kind of friend that I hang around with
on Wednesday nights, but he was friend. He met me in the hall of
a building and he looked both ways. He looked to the left, he
looked to the right and then he reached into his pocket and said
“Do you want to buy a lottery ticket?” What he had was an Irish
sweepstake ticket, which at that time was illegal. Had he sold
it to me and had I purchased it, then we could have both been
sent to jail. I am sure it is incredible for you to contemplate,
Mr. Speaker, that I should have even considered doing something
that would have sent me to jail. As a matter of fact, I did not
consider it. I said “No, thank you. I am not interested”.
We could talk about the mathematical aspect of gambling. When I
was teaching math or statistics I used as an example one of
Canada's favourite lottery games, Lotto 649. I had the students
compute the probabilities. If a person spends $5 on every draw
of Lotto 649, 104 times a year, twice a week, their mathematical
expectation of winning the big prize would be once in about
26,000 years.
Statistics show that it is often poor people who engage in
gambling because it is their only hope. They are in despair
because of all of the taxes the Minister of Finance loads on them
or the tremendous burden of being unemployed, particularly young
people who are unemployed. A lot of people buy a lottery ticket,
as one person said to me, because it is their one little glimmer
of hope. Their dollar is gone, but maybe it will give them the
big break. They might wait for 26,000 years, on average, if they
spend $5 each time.
1120
I guess I would simply say that if that is not dishonest I do
not really know how to describe it. All of these schemes
indicate that there is a reasonable expectation of winning.
Otherwise people would not put their money down.
Of course, what we are talking about in this bill is gambling
and lotteries on cruise ships. There probably will not be too
many poor people on them.
I guess the reason I am bringing this up is because it is part
of the justice system. There are an awful lot of people who are
living in despair who consider gambling as their chance, their
hope, but what it does is clean them out entirely. No matter
what the gambling scheme is, it is designed to return less money
than is put in. It is just indefensible in our society.
There is an amendment in Bill C-51 which says that if a person
is on a cruise ship they can participate in a lottery scheme.
Then there are these absurd conditions. First of all, all of the
people participating in this lottery must be on the ship. In
other words, they cannot participate in the lottery by phone from
shore, by cellphone or whatever. They must be on the ship. The
scheme cannot be linked in any way to a scheme that is not on the
ship. As well, the ship must be at least five nautical miles
from a port.
We have been cutting RCMP in the west. We do not have money for
it. Now what are we going to do? People are going to be hired,
presumably by the federal government, to ensure, I suppose with a
GPS, that these guys do not come within five nautical miles of a
port.
Furthermore, they cannot board this ship at a Canadian port and
go back to a Canadian port without having stopped, at least once,
at a non-Canadian port. If they do not meet that condition, then
they cannot have this lottery on board. They have to leave the
country for a while. I suppose that here again we are talking
about the Minister of Finance who thinks it is great to take some
money out of the country and not keep it all in Canada.
This law says that a cruise ship which both leaves a Canadian
port and comes back to a Canadian port cannot have a lottery
unless it also goes to a foreign port. That is the height of
absurdity in my humble and unbiased opinion.
The ship must be registered in Canada and its entire voyage is
to be scheduled outside Canada. I shake my head and wonder how
the Dickens we are going to enforce this.
I suppose we will have to buy a cruise ticket on every one of
these ships for one of our trusty RCMP people. I am sure the
solicitor general will be eager to do this with his resources.
He will say that from now on all of those RCMP who should be
fighting crime, robberies, rapes, murders, drug smuggling and all
of these things will be put on a cruise ship so they can monitor
this to make sure the law is being enforced.
I shake my head in wonderment at the government sometimes. This
bill is designed to improve the justice system in Canada and it
has utter absurdities in it which are fundamentally wrong in
terms of what we are trying to do for people. Why should we be
encouraging and permitting lotteries? It is wrong. This
proposal is utterly and totally unenforceable, unless a whole
bunch of money is put into it.
There is no doubt in my mind that if we were to ask 100
Canadians, 100 of them would say that is not where they want
their money to be spent. The system is supposed to be designed
to protect them in terms of their justice system.
I could speak on other things, but this was the one item that I
wanted to get on the record and I appreciate the opportunity.
1125
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member has had an opportunity
to speak with some of the members of his caucus from British
Columbia, whether he has read the bill or whether he has taken
any advice on it. The issue with respect to cruise ships is
simply that cruise ships which are operating outside the country
and which have gambling on board are simply asking for some
assistance in order to carry on with that business.
The interesting thing about this is that it is the ports in the
provinces of British Columbia and Quebec and the ports on the
east coast that want this to happen. They want those ships to
continue to stop at their ports, rather than staying in
international waters, avoiding them. Effectively, he is
attacking communities along the coast of British Columbia. I
find that intriguing for a member of the Reform Party.
Does the member, with his great wish to prevent people, who have
a free will, from gambling, ever think about communities
elsewhere? Does he ever think, for instance, about the city of
Windsor? What is his problem with the city of Windsor
introducing dice to their casino? That will create between 400
and 600 good, new, unionized jobs. They will be organized by the
Canadian Auto Workers. The average income will be around $50,000
a year. Those jobs will feed families. They will keep our
community going. Our community wants that.
What is his problem? Is the Reform Party writing Windsor off
too?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed read the bill. I
have a copy of it in my hand. I scanned it this morning. I
admitted at the beginning of my speech that I am not a justice
critic. I admitted at the beginning of my speech that I am not
an expert in these areas.
I am merely here to communicate what a constituent has asked me
to communicate, that is, why are we wasting our time on this when
we should be addressing the real issues of justice? Why are we
trying to promote and legalize more lottery spending, setting up
a situation which will have the added costs of enforcement?
The hon. member mentioned the jobs that will be created. I am
not sure that a lottery job improves our standard of living one
iota. What does it produce in tangible terms?
The member should look at real economic value. Nothing is
produced by exchanging money from one person to another without
the transfer of a good or service. There is no value attached to
that.
The only weak argument they could make is that it brings money
in from the Americans. That is what I am sure is happening. If
they want to give Americans something tangible for spending their
money in Canada, I would say that would be 100,000 times more
valuable than saying “Come over here and simply throw your money
on the table. We will keep 85% of it”. That is immoral. I
really do not think the government should promote that kind of
lifestyle and justify it by saying “It is good for our
economy”.
If the member wants to defend lotteries, gambling and putting
people at risk that way, she is welcome to do so. I also agree
with freedom of choice. If people choose to do this, fine. But
I do not think it should be promoted and sponsored by government.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without
going into too much detail, I heard the member say that we should
not be introducing laws which would require using our resources
for their enforcement. Is he suggesting that we should cancel
all the laws that we have in place now governing, for example,
hunting or driving licences? All of that requires enforcement.
I would suggest that we should not be trivializing the matter to
the point where if something needs enforcement then we should not
do it.
Rather we should say there is a need in the community to take
action on behalf of the community. We should do what is right
rather than what may or may not require more resources. What are
my colleague thoughts in this regard?
1130
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the government is the epitome
of wanting to regulate everything. When I was a kid, and that
was a long time ago, we did not need drivers' licences. I was
very young at that time. It was around the time when the
automobile was invented; that is an exaggeration. It used to be
that we did not need drivers' licences. We did not need to
license our vehicles.
However the government found out that was a way of getting
revenue. Now we have to buy drivers' licences and automobile
licences every year. We have come to accept that. It is part of
the money that is required to provide roads and to provide safety
on the roads. The enforcement of those rules and regulations is
useful and helps us in terms of our personal safety.
What good is it to have rules that say they must be within five
nautical miles of the port. I bet most people do not even know
what a nautical mile is. Otherwise, if they comes to within 4.8
nautical miles they must shut down their lottery schemes. It is
absurd.
I am just talking about the absurdity of it and the fact that we
will be wasting enforcement resources on it when there are people
literally getting away with murder because we do not have the
RCMP and the physical forces to to find those people and bring
them to justice. Those are the real issues of justice that we
should be concentrating on.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, not too long ago in the House we debated a bill which
would restrict tobacco advertising. The purpose of the bill was
to discourage people from becoming involved in that habit.
Would my hon. colleague from Elk Island agree that there is a
lot of false advertising in terms of gambling? We only see
pictures of someone winning a million dollars. We only see what
can be purchased, such as a dream home and so on. The fact is
that we do not see in the advertisements the results in the
community of massive gambling. They do not show poverty. They
do not show marriage break-ups. They do not show what happens
once a person becomes addicted.
Are we not illegally advertising the gambling industry by only
showing the small percentage of people who win and not showing
the despair that it brings to a community?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is my point exactly. We
are holding out a hope to many people who are desperate because
of high taxation and the real difficulty of getting jobs.
Statistics show that a large proportion of people who engage in
gambling activities—not the ones on cruise ships who are clearly
in a different financial class—are the average people across the
country who buy lottery tickets and play video lottery terminals.
We are telling those people that if they put in some money they
will get more back. That is the expectation and and it is false.
It is an outright lie.
We should be telling those people that there is an extremely
high probability of losing every quarter they put into the
machine and a very low probability of getting even their
investment back. It is just not there. Yes, it is false
advertising.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. chief government whip on a
point of order before we call in the members.
1135
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussion
among the parties and I believe you would find consent to defer
the recorded division requested on the motion for third reading
of Bill C-51 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday,
November 17, 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the chief government whip. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
relative to the matter of Private Members' Business later this
day, discussions have also taken place with all parties and the
member for Vancouver East concerning the taking of the division
on Motion No. M-132 scheduled for later this day at the
conclusion of Private Members' Business. I believe you would
find consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Motion No. M-132, the
question shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed
requested and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders on Tuesday, November 17, 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East is
here and consents. The House has heard the proposal of the chief
government whip. Is there unanimous consent of the House to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs) moved 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.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to discuss Bill C-49, an act to bring into effect a
framework agreement on first nations land management. This is a
significant piece of legislation because, as its title suggests,
it has the laudable goal of giving certain Indian bands across
the country the right to manage their own reserve lands.
It has been a long term goal of the Reform Party to ensure that
Indians obtain authority to manage their own affairs. However,
the bill carries within it many profound implications for both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians and is a Trojan horse.
As the debate progresses it will be seen that Bill C-49 in its
present form will only serve to further widen the gap between
aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians by extending special
rights to a specific segment of Canada's population, solely on
the basis of race. It will also serve to continue the
marginalization of Canadian women of aboriginal descent who live
on reserves.
It is my intention to focus on many of the details within Bill
C-49. However I feel compelled to address first some broader
issues and questions which the legislation raises. Many of them
may explain the perceived necessity of the bill and some of its
shortcomings.
My remarks are in the context of one Canada, equality for and
among all persons, a phrase taken from the blue book outlining
the principles and policies of the Reform Party of Canada. I am
proud to represent a party which holds the view that no one
should be discriminated against on the basis of race as Canada's
aboriginals have been for far too long.
We were recently honoured to have in our midst a great modern
day hero, Mr. Nelson Mandela, President of the Republic South
Africa. What a tremendous privilege it was to hear him speak of
his struggle toward freedom and equality for everyone in his
country. It strengthened my belief in the power of hope, truth
and grace for our country at this time in its history.
1140
To be in the presence of a man who has endured so much hardship
and suffered such loss, to know that he remained triumphant and
resolute against the desire to give in to hate, anger, fear and
bitterness throughout his struggle, has become for me an
indelible memory. I am sure I speak for all of us here today
when I say this.
At the same time I was struck by the apparent contradictions in
the Prime Minister's introduction of President Mandela and his
own sorry record in the matter of Canada's native population. I
can only regard them as either blind ignorance or outright
hypocrisy.
The Prime Minister lauded President Mandela's fight against
apartheid and Canada's efforts in joining this fight. He praised
the ideals of a constitution which recognizes no race and grants
rights and freedoms to all citizens regardless of race, religion
or language. These comments were made against the backdrop of a
government whose current and past policies in respect to
aboriginal Canadians betray such words.
The government's policy with respect to aboriginal Canadians has
actually reinforced a system within the country which has
contributed to inequity of opportunity and unequal protection
under the law. The practice of treating Indians unequally and
apart from the mainstream of Canadian society has created the
worst imaginable social and economic conditions for those who
live on Canada's reserves. This separation has been just as real
and just as injurious to aboriginal Canadians as it was to South
African blacks.
I call upon the government today to reconsider seriously its
course of policy with respect to aboriginal Canadians and the
implications it has for all Canadians. As I will show,
legislation such as that which we see in Bill C-49, as well as
the current convoluted environment in which land claim and treaty
making processes are taking place, is misguided and is
contributing to inequality and segregation on the basis of race.
The past band-aid approaches of the government and those before
it have failed to establish a legislative fiduciary
responsibility by any level of government to aboriginal
Canadians. Instead, what we have seen in recent decades are
governments attempting to make amends for the wrongs of past
actions by creating legislation which changes the outward
appearance of things but does not address the fundamental issues.
Our country desperately needs today a brand new relationship
between aboriginal Canadians and the Government of Canada which
recognizes treaty rights but stresses a commitment to equality,
not inequality.
As I turn now to address the details of Bill C-49 I want to
point out some of the weaknesses of the bill and what needs to
change. One of the primary assertions made by Canadian
aboriginal peoples today concerns what they say is a special
relationship to the land. Given this claim, it follows that land
management could be considered a critical first step toward
achieving self-government and economic security. This is a
fundamental connection to bear in mind when considering the
merits and weaknesses of the bill.
This much granted, while Bill C-49 in title sets out to give
certain bands the right to manage their reserve lands, in
function it amounts to a substantial power of self-government for
each of the individual bands that have signed the framework
agreement on land management.
I am sure the government envisions this being accomplished in
two primary ways: first, by making those sections of the Indian
Act which relate to land management of no effect for those bands
that are signatories to the agreement. Of course this would end
the delegated authority of the minister of Indian affairs over
those sections of the Indian Act. Second, in the vacuum created
by making those sections of the Indian Act of no effect, the
framework agreement would allow the band councils to create and
enforce their own laws with respect to their lands.
I want to state clearly that the Reform Party fully supports
expressions of aboriginal self-government which ensure that all
members of their communities remain full and equal participants
in Canadian society and which uphold the rule of Canadian law and
the supremacy of the Constitution of Canada.
However, Reform is opposed to the creation of any act or first
nations laws that create a level of governance not envisioned
within the Constitution. Yet this is precisely what Bill C-49
does and is the Trojan horse I mentioned earlier. It will extend
powers of governance to the bands which are signatory to the
framework agreement without any constitutional provisions for
such powers having been put in place. We all know that changing
the Constitution is a process far more complex and time consuming
than simply passing legislation because its effects are so wide
ranging.
The legislation in its present form clearly states that in the
event of a conflict between band laws and federal or provincial
laws band law would prevail.
In this sense the rule of Canadian law will not be upheld, which
leads to special sovereign rights being granted to certain Indian
bands. There is no constitutional basis for this at this time.
1145
There is a process for dealing with this problem. Amend the
Constitution. This is difficult to do, and rightly so. The
entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the arbitrary use
and abuse of power by governments. That this proposed
legislation could lead to abuses of power is the subject of the
next part of my speech and a major concern of the British
Columbia Native Women's Society.
The British Columbia Native Women's Society has been raging a
protracted battle with government to address inequalities and the
break-up of families for the previous 15 years without success.
Now the government wants to turn over land management to bands
without first putting an end to the unequal status of reserve
women. The problem will never end for these people. When bands
can make laws governing themselves that do not recognize the
rights of specific members of their bands which are accorded to
them under the Constitution, government is abdicating its
responsibilities. Shame on a government like that, shame on this
government.
When we say that certain laws that apply to non-aboriginal
Canadians no longer apply to aboriginal Canadians we are creating
two classes of citizens, those who enjoy general rights together
with special rights and privileges and those who enjoy only
general rights with no special rights and privileges. This
raises an important point about the concept of self-government.
A number of my colleagues have over the years lived in and
worked closely with aboriginal communities. As members of this
House, many have been meeting extensively with grassroots
aboriginal Canadians to address their concerns about the
deplorable state of many of Canada's reserves. It is tragic that
many aboriginal Canadians, especially those on reserve, have been
the victims of the current regime of inequality, prejudice and
injustice that characterizes this government.
It is true this government is not overtly promoting inequality
or injustice but it has never declared a policy to reinforce
equality and justice. We only ever hear the exact opposite. We
hear how the government is concerned about the well-being of
aboriginal Canadians. It informs us that it has a wide range of
effective programs and services in place, that it is increasing
funding to ensure the long term economic development and equality
of life for individuals and communities. But these are only
superficial and empty words. Something is terribly wrong with he
government's silence on the problems facing rank and file
Indians, its refusal to act and its utter refusal to admit the
facts.
The facts are that living conditions for the majority of
aboriginals on reserves in Canada have for decades actually been
at third world levels. While this government boasts about
Canada's standing among the G-7 countries and about our
consistent top quality of life ranking by the United Nations, it
refuses to address the harsh realities of life on reserve. The
reality is that by using the same criteria used to show Canada is
number one in quality in life, Canada's Indian reserves would
rank 63rd on the same UN list.
What is wrong with this government? Does it only see what it
wants to see? Does it only hear what it wants to hear? Will
this government stubbornly go on accepting a lie and refusing to
admit these realities or will it move to change its present
course of action?
Grassroots aboriginals are beginning to speak out strongly
concerning the desperate need for change in the quality of life
on reserves. Many aboriginals on reserve have no way of life
that they are proud of or happy about. This should not be. These
people have made it clear to us that on issues such as self-government
they are simply not ready.
Listen to what some of them have said. “Most of us living on
reserves today are living under dictatorships”, one middle aged
woman said recently. A man from another reserve asked “What is
the government trying to do with its agenda of self-government,
wipe out the Indian people? In a different way it seems as
though it is setting us up to wipe us out through
self-government”.
Regarding the healing fund another aboriginal on reserve asked,
“How can the minister of Indian affairs ever apologize for the
abusers? What has happened to us has been passed down through
the generations. Do you think money is going to heal us? No
way. Only the Creator can do that. The government talks about
healing yet not one of us will see a penny of the $350 million
for the healing. It is going to go to drive the Indian industry.
The chiefs, the government and their lawyers are the only ones
who will benefit. We must make sure that our rights and freedoms
are protected. I am determined to fight for the future of my
children and my grandchildren. We must stop this cycle of
desperation”.
1150
There are legal concerns surrounding the elimination of major
sections of the Indian Act. These concerns relate especially to
the breakdown of marriage, the status of women and children and
the potential for unfair treatment of certain groups of natives
and non-natives with respect to the possession, occupation,
ownership, enjoyment and use of land.
To be obvious, successful land management is perhaps the first
most critical step toward self-determination and self-government.
Reform supports this insofar as such movement creates a climate
for first nations to achieve greater economic self-sufficiency
and ultimately self-government as full and equal participants
under Canadian law and the Constitution.
The supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law are at
issue here. The bill makes it very clear that in the event of a
conflict between band laws and either federal or provincial laws,
band law will prevail.
What safeguards this is legislation put in place to protect
individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms and to ensure they
are above encroachment by band laws. Essentially there are none
and this is wrong. It is shameful.
The Liberals are washing their hands of responsibility to
protect the weakest, most powerless members of the aboriginal
communities by introducing this legislation.
It appears to be in direct conflict with section 15(1) of the
charter of rights and freedoms:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the
right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based
on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or
mental or physical disability.
Do members not find it incredible, as I do, that the government
is proceeding with this legislation? The government's complete
abdication of responsibility by failing to uphold this section
and indeed to defend the entire Constitution is unconscionable.
Surely the primary role of government is to uphold the
Constitution, but the legislation being contemplated here states
in clause 37 the following:
In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Act
and any other federal law, this Act prevails to the extent of the
inconsistency or conflict.
What guarantee is there that individual rights or freedoms would
be protected in Indian band laws? Surely this House must act to
ensure the supremacy of the Constitution and rule of federal and
provincial laws are strongly affirmed as sufficient. This
legislation is found to be flawed on these grounds alone.
I want to briefly address the fact that this legislation will
make certain sections of the Indian Act non-applicable. While
this is not the first time the government has done this perhaps
it is time for the government to undertake a serious review of
the need for the Indian Act or at least as to whether
comprehensive amendments to it should be introduced.
For many aboriginal Canadians the act has become an
anachronistic burden and a vestige of colonial policies. Many
sections of the act have directly prevented many on reserve
aboriginals from attaining personal wealth, property and
financial independence.
It is not insignificant that many of these sections are the same
ones that would be made non-applicable by this legislation. It
speaks to the many inadequacies of the Indian Act and the
barriers which prevent individuals from attaining personal
wealth.
This is a very important issue which is the subject of another
full speech for another day. However, I wanted this issue to go
on the record today.
What I have been attempting to emphasize here is that this
government's piecemeal approach to the elimination of the Indian
Act is misguided. If the government's intention is, and it
appears as though it is, to remove the burden of the act in order
to give all aboriginals the right to acquire personal wealth and
property which all other Canadians enjoy, then why does it not
declare its intentions and just do away with the Indian Act
altogether? That would certainly be a positive first step toward
true equality of opportunity.
However, if the government's agenda is to slowly erode the
Indian Act in order to give the Indian leadership more power at
the expense of the powerless, even the right to sovereign
self-government but without accountability, then the government
should declare those intentions.
The legislation before the House is nothing more than a thinly
disguised agenda to bring about self-government. But again,
self-government is not the real problem. The problem is what is
not being addressed, the government's unwillingness to correct
the core problems inherent in the system.
The balance of power must change to favour the majority of
aboriginals on reserve, not just the privileged few at the top.
The problem is that all we hear is the minister repeating the
mantra of commitment to partnering with aboriginals to bring
about change. It sounds good. But I wonder if the minister
really knows what that means.
Is she really confronted every day as she recently claimed with
the problems that face the majority of aboriginals on most
reserves? Does she experience every day the third world levels
of health and housing or the fact that many reserves experience
virtually total unemployment? Does she daily experience the
effects of substance abuse and gambling addition? I doubt it.
1155
Further I wonder if she is really aware of how all these things
are linked to the tragically high rates of fetal alcohol syndrome
and family breakdown on a daily basis. If the minister were
aware of these things we would see a drastic change in her
condescending attitude toward questions on these subjects. We
would see a different kind of action and not just words. When
will the partnerships that the minister is so fond of mentioning
include all aboriginals and not just those fortunate enough to be
in leadership? Is it not true that this partnership the minister
talks about extends only to the privileged few? Clearly this is
the way things appear to be.
This is what I would call extreme, extreme injustice. This is
what I call extreme inequity. This is callous indifference to
the needs and will of many grassroots aboriginals. Many see
individual land codes as necessary given the regional differences
and needs of each band. However, it should be noted that this
fact actually strengthens the argument in favour upholding
Canada's Constitution and law in the event of conflict between
Indian band laws and federal and provincial laws which are
designed to protect individual rights.
An additional complication is seen in the creation and enactment
of a band land code. Since each of these will be individually
created and entered into by the bands and since the rule of
Canadian law would not always apply, there is no guarantee that a
national standard of rights will be met. Furthermore, it will be
difficult if not impossible to track cases of inequity and
litigation across reserves since each reserve could have vastly
different land codes and laws within those codes.
It would be instructive for the House and particularly for
members of the government to revisit their recent past. I am
referring to their 1969 white paper which was introduced by none
other than the Right Hon. Prime Minister who was at that time
minister of Indian affairs. Listen to some of the ideas and
words uttered at that time by the Liberal government. As members
listen I ask them to reflect on this government's near
abandonment of those lofty ideals and also to where its departure
from those ideals has led it in the last 30 years. I urge
members to reflect on whether its policy path has really led to
greater equality, a stronger identity and strengthened unity
between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.
The white paper initiative was designed to “Lead to the full,
free and non-discriminatory participation of Indian people in
Canadian society”. The white paper outlined several policy
initiatives which I summarize to achieve that goal.
First, the legislative and constitutional bases which set
Indians apart from other Canadians must be removed. Second, all
Canadians must recognize the unique contribution of Indian
culture to Canadian life. On this point it is safe to say that
the majority of Canadians would affirm this today.
Third, government services to aboriginals should come through
the same channels and from the same government agencies for all
Canadians. The white paper actually recommended dismantling the
department of Indian affairs within five years. This was to have
been a key factor in establishing equality for aboriginals among
all Canadians.
Fourth, lawful obligations must be recognized. Fifth, those who
are furthest behind must be helped the most.
The white paper went on to state:
The separate legal status of Indians—have kept the Indian
people apart from and behind other Canadians. The Indian people
have not been full citizens of the communities and provinces in
which they live and have not enjoyed the equality and benefits
that such participation offers. The treatment resulting from
their different status has been often worse, sometimes equal and
occasionally better than that accorded to their fellow citizens.
What has changed since then? I submit that very little has
changed. I ask members to consider the input this government has
given over the intervening years and what it has achieved in
terms of equality of outcomes. There has not been equality of
opportunity because much of the money spent has not reached the
majority, and as a result there has not been equality of
outcomes.
It is instructive and profitable to read even more of what the
Liberal government of the day was saying at that time. A review
of this part of the Liberal's history is relevant to the debate
today because this successor government has lost sight of a
worthy vision that was short lived.
Although the Liberals did a complete about face in implementing
this policy some four years after introducing the white paper, it
is important to remind them of where they stood.
1200
This government must recognize that in its departure from the
white paper policy, the path it chose to go down has actually
done less to serve and protect the equality rights of aboriginal
Canadians. In a very real sense the government's policy decisions
over the last 30 years were set on a very slippery slope and
today more than ever this is abundantly clear.
It is tragic that the government refuses to recognize that its
policies rest on assumptions that have not delivered freedom from
want and entry into the mainstream of Canada's economy by
aboriginal Canadians.
The white paper even had the full support of then Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau. At the time he said:
We have set the Indians apart as a race. We have set them apart
in our laws. We have set them apart in the ways our governments
deal with them. They are not citizens of the province as the
rest of us are. They are wards of the federal government—they
have been set apart in the relations with the government and they
have been set apart socially too—.We can go on treating the
Indians as having special status. We can go on adding bricks of
discrimination around the ghetto in which they live and at the
same time perhaps helping them to preserve certain cultural
traits and certain ancestral rights—or we can say you are at a
crossroads—the time is now to decide whether Indians will be a
race set apart in Canada or whether they will be Canadians of
full status.
I remind the House that those words were spoken in 1969. Today
on the threshold of the 21st century, sadly aboriginal and
non-aboriginal Canadians are still at the same crossroads. Now
almost 30 years and billions of dollars later we should not be in
this place. Significant progress could have been made and real
changes should have been made.
We know that the majority of Canadians desire to see past wrongs
made right for a sense of closure to be achieved. There is a
desire to move ahead with building a strong and united country.
The Reform Party believes in the common sense and goodwill of the
majority of Canadians to move forward and accomplish change. But
we know that while the majority of aboriginal and non-aboriginal
Canadians desire this change, they also realize that it is not
more money and programs that will achieve this.
There is not currently equality of opportunity, nor is there
equality of outcome despite a history of spending. A person
spending just one day hearing testimony in the Standing Committee
on Indian Affairs and Northern Development proves that. Studying
the human development index report on Canada's reserves will
serve to reinforce this knowledge.
True equality can only be achieved when Canadians are united
together in willing a change. It must be all Canadians,
non-aboriginal and aboriginal together willing equality. One
people, one vision and one goal: one Canada, equality for and
among all persons.
Clearly governments do have a significant role to play in
allowing for the will of the people to bring about this change.
Making things right is never easy. It can only occur when there
is humility and generosity of spirit on both sides.
With this legislation the government is at another crossroads.
It has another opportunity to choose the way of establishing true
equality and justice. I urge the government to rethink its
current course of policy and the approaches needed to make
Canada's aboriginal people truly equal with all other Canadians.
This would be the right thing for the government to do. But I
wonder, does it have the moral fortitude to choose the right way?
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development needs
to be significantly restructured. Decades of DIAND's consistent
mismanagement of aboriginal communities must end. It is time for
a fresh and revitalized relationship between governments and
first nations that will allow them to regain confidence,
self-reliance and greater economic independence.
I have highlighted how DIAND's piecemeal approach to addressing
problems among first nations has consistently failed. First, by
creating programs with no long term plan, it has created a
convoluted landscape of programs and rights that benefit a few
but which fail to reach and benefit the majority of grassroots
aboriginals.
Until such time that the mandate of DIAND is clearly defined in
a modern context and its goals realigned with the priority of
ensuring that aboriginal Canadians are fully equal under the law
and with equal opportunity, Canada's Indian population will
continue to suffer.
DIAND is like a canoe heading down a fast moving river but
without a paddle. That river can be likened to the Niagara, and
we all know how a trip down that river would end up.
There is a great struggle for more than land right now and the
stakes are high.
The current general direction of modern day treaty negotiations
as evidenced in the recent Nisga'a treaty are inconsistent with
the Reform Party's principles and policies and are unacceptable
to the Canadian public at large.
1205
These treaties have not been negotiated in an open, public
manner. Third party interests and the public in general are
being ignored throughout the process and then are expected to
approve the package after the deals have been made and signed.
Current self-government agreements negotiated under the treaty
process go beyond any concept of a form of delegated
self-government.
What is most incredible is that if anyone dares to question
either the contents of the treaty or the process used to arrive
at a final agreement, he is instantly labelled a racist and
troublemaker by those driving the agenda. There needs to be an
openness and acceptance to public scrutiny of both process and
analysis of substantive issues.
I want to conclude by saying that the Reform Party strongly
desires to bring about closure to outstanding grievances so that
aboriginals and non-aboriginals, Canadians all, can move forward
as true equals and partners. It is our desire that Canadians move
forward into the next millennium, not backward to the attitudes
and prejudices of the past. In order to do this, government
needs to re-examine many fundamental assumptions it has been
operating on for decades.
The way to righting wrongs and having a fresh start is not
through unfocused spending and the creation of special rights
and privileges which serve only to degrade the rights of others.
We cannot purchase equality nor buy an end to injustice. If it
were only that easy. These things can only come about by a
change of heart and spirit and this nation desperately needs
renewal of spirit.
Inequality breeds injustice, suspicion and prejudice. If this
government continues on its present course, there will not be
greater equality. It will be diminished as will hope for the
justice which so many aboriginals are crying out for today.
Aboriginal Canadians continue to experience an ever greater
sense of dislocation and isolation from the rest of Canada and
the sense of being fully Canadian. I know this is clearly not
what the majority of Canadians want.
In closing, I want to point out to this House that Mr. Mandela
referred to Canadians as a people. Why can Canadians not refer
to themselves as a people? Why can they not do the same? I
believe that this Prime Minister and his government have at
certain times had a vision of Canadians as a people united and
equal. On June 6, 1994 in his address to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the D-Day invasion on Juno Beach in Normandy,
France, the Prime Minister spoke these ringing phrases:
On the beach behind us,
Canadians gave their lives
So the world would be a better place.
In death they were neither anglophones nor francophones,
not from the West or the East,
not Christians or Jews,
not aboriginal peoples or immigrants.
They were Canadians.
Let us not simply consecrate a foreign battlefield on which
Canadians died with words like these. If we who share this land
can die together as Canadians, why can we not also live together
as Canadians?
This government must regain sight of this vision of Canada. It
must regain it with respect to this piece of legislation, to land
claim and treaty negotiations, as well as with respect to its
overall fiduciary responsibilities to aboriginal Canadians.
It is impossible to move ahead while dwelling on the past. A
weak and halting apology has been extended. Forgiveness, however
grudgingly accepted, was given. It is time now time for all
Canadians to move on into the next century as one people, united
in the principle of equality and strengthened by freedom and
truth.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing
into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land
Management, be not now read a second time, but that it be read a
second time this day six months hence.
1210
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am proud to continue the debate on second reading of Bill C-49,
the first nations land management act.
This bill gives us the opportunity to deliver on a vision that
the government articulated in January when we responded to the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This is a bill that puts
into action the vision outlined in “Gathering Strength: Canada's
Aboriginal Action Plan”. We said that gathering strength was
about addressing the needs of communities. We said it was about
building a real partnership with aboriginal people. We said it
was about working closely together with aboriginal peoples to
define that relationship and shape a common vision of that
relationship between us.
The bill before us delivers on that vision. It seeks to ratify
the framework agreement of first nations land management signed
by the first nations who have been working patiently,
persistently and with tremendous commitment over the past seven
years to establish this new land management regime.
The framework agreement was negotiated government to government
by the department and these first nations. Provincial
governments directly impacted by the framework agreement were
consulted closely throughout the process. The agreement will end
the control imposed by the Indian Act on how these first nations
manage their lands. It is about putting the daily management of
their own affairs into their own hands. In other words, it is
about empowerment.
The Indian Act is a complex piece of legislation and first
nations feel very strongly about it. The Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples recognizes that complexity in its own report.
The Indian Act is paternalistic. At the same time, it confers
recognition that first nations have, contrary to what the hon.
member was suggesting here earlier, a unique legal position in
Canada which includes a special relationship with the federal
government.
There are always ways to get away from some of the more
intrusive provisions of the Indian Act without changing that
special relationship and that is part of the purpose of the bill
before us. It ratifies a framework agreement on first nations
land management in which 14 first nations move out from those
sections of the Indian Act dealing with land management. The
regime represented in this legislation would provide first
nations with control over their land and indeed natural
resources.
As outlined in this bill, first nations will develop a land code
that will set the basic mechanisms for governance, laws that
govern land, accountability and interest in lands and resources.
Each first nation will enter into an individual agreement with
Canada to determine a level of operational funding for land
management and to set out the specifics of transition to the new
regime. Once this bill is passed and once the land code is in
effect and the agreement in place, the land management provisions
of the Indian Act will no longer apply to these communities.
First nations authority will apply on first nations land. First
nations will control the issues of leases, licences and other
interests in their lands. They will also have the commensurate
and compatible authority to enforce their laws by creating
offences punishable on summary conviction and a range of
remedies. They will be able to establish enforcement procedures
including the appointment of justices of the peace to deal with
offences against first nations land laws. First nations will
retain and manage revenue money from the land transactions for
which they will be accountable to their members.
The bill withdraws the expropriation provisions in section 35 of
the Indian Act. It ensures there will be no loss of first nations
lands through sale or expropriation.
1215
In negotiating the framework agreement, first nations have
provided for a series of democratic accountability that will
ensure that communities will have a vote before the land codes
are implemented.
For the first time the agreement will also provide for the
implementation of environmental regulations on their land. These
regulations will be harmonized with those in effect in the
province in which the community is located.
For these first nations the framework agreement ends a system
where officials in my department have considerable involvement
and authority in day to day land management issues. It ends a
system where ministerial approval must be sought even for routine
transactions such as the issuance of licences and permits.
The Indian Act contains provisions regarding the purposes for
which lands may be used. It controls the rights of individual
first nations peoples in possession of reserve lands and the
surrender and designation of reserve lands. It controls the
management of reserves, surrendered and designated lands and
other matters. It gives the minister wide ranging discretion
regarding the use of reserve lands and resources. It gives the
governor in council the right to grant a first nation powers to
control and manage land in the reserve. However, at the same
time it may withdraw that right at any time.
The land management provisions of the Indian Act have caused
delays for first nations that want to proceed with economic
development projects in their communities. Some have wanted, for
example, to develop forest companies. We are told that even
today possibly up to 50 memorandums of understanding exist
between first nations and mining companies to exploit these
opportunities in their communities.
Others have wanted to develop shopping centres but because of
the red tape imposed by the Indian Act, first nations, the
federal government and third parties, in other words business
interests and private interests, have often been frustrated by
these interminable delays. Transactions that off reserve might
take a matter of weeks can go on for months when they involve
first nations land.
As a result, many opportunities are lost and communities are
denied the chance to realize their hopes for economic prosperity
and freedom within the boundaries of their own communities.
There is no reason why the minister needs to be involved in
these day to day operations and in the management of these
reserve lands. Those decisions ought to be made at the local
level.
The framework agreement in this legislation gives the community
the option of taking control over the reserve lands and
resources. These first nations want to get on with creating jobs
and economic growth in their communities without having to turn
to the minister or my department for approval.
This regime places first nations in the position of managing
their lands and resources to strengthen and sustain their
communities. This is what the framework agreement gives them the
authority to do.
With respect to the Indian Act, I realize there is a legislative
gap concerning matrimonial property issues. Therefore to address
this very important matter, on June 9 the minister announced the
establishment of an independent fact finding process to
investigate the issue of matrimonial property as it relates to
reserve lands. Letters of invitation have been sent to our
partners to participate in the meeting where in partnership we
could define the terms of reference and the time lines for the
process. We look forward to making a further announcement on
this initiative in the near future.
I remind the House that although the framework agreement applies
to first nations that have signed it, other first nations are
watching closely to see how effective the new regime will be in
getting those communities out from under the paternalism of the
Indian Act and creating positive opportunities in their
communities.
The provisions in this agreement and the legislation before us
could well become a model for other agreements in the near
future.
As a result of the interest expressed by other first nations to
participate in the new land management regime, a provision has
been included to permit other first nations to be added to this
bill through order in council.
1220
However, before the regime is open to other first nations we
will review the language of the bill.
As this House is aware, federal laws must apply equally in both
common law and civil code in both official languages. None of
the 14 first nations are in the province of Quebec and therefore
the civil code does not apply to them.
My department has agreed that the formal review will be
undertaken during the 12 months and the revision to the
legislation resulting from this review will be included in the
harmonization act which my colleague the Minister of Justice will
introduce.
However, this will not take place until the provinces have been
thoroughly and properly consulted and we have reviewed this
regime within 12 months of its operation.
In the meantime, it is important that first nations get on with
the job of developing and ratifying their land codes and
individual agreements with the government. It is important that
first nations get on with the job of building their economies on
the strength of the new land management regime.
The benefits of this legislation will be far reaching. It will
affect not only first nations communities but will also benefit
the people, businesses and government that have sought to build a
stronger relationship, a stronger partnership, with these first
nation communities.
Most of all, this legislation will benefit the first nations
themselves. It will give them greater autonomy and control over
land and revenue monies. It will create new opportunities for
economic development and strengthen the capacity and expertise in
first nations communities across the country. It will help create
a foundation of self-government and in this way it delivers on
the commitments made in our aboriginal action plan “Gathering
Strength”.
I want to say a few words in appreciation for the first nations
leaders, some of them in Ottawa this week, who have negotiated
the framework agreement and seen it through. They have my deepest
respect and admiration for their tenacity and determination. The
first nations leaders had a goal and they did not waver in
pursuing it. The leaders led this process. This is a first
nations initiative driven by leadership, vision and commitment to
their own people.
I urge the House, particularly the Reform Party, to support this
legislation which ratifies the framework agreement that makes the
first nations vision a reality.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to speak today to Bill C-49. I am delighted because it is one we
were no longer expecting. We had been talking about this bill
for a long time but nothing was happening. I was even told
yesterday or the day before that there was only about a 50%
chance that this bill would be debated on Friday.
So, imagine my surprise this morning at learning, with great
delight, that Bill C-49 was on the Order Paper. Naturally, my
speech was ready. Native peoples also told me there was some
urgency in having this bill introduced.
I would like to thank the parliamentary leaders who arranged to
have this bill come up as early as today.
This week, I met with native people, who made representations to
me. I even invited them here in the lobby. We are very happy to
have the bill now before us.
I thank the leaders who understood the urgency of the situation
and who presented the bill finally, today.
This bill follows directly from the framework agreement signed
in February 1996. What is original about it is that it applies
to 14 native communities scattered across the country. It is a
fairly unique bill. Bills usually apply to one nation or
sometimes to a number of communities, but this one concerns 14
communities across the country. I have here a list of the
communities, which are scattered through British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.
1225
In British Columbia, we have the first nations of Westbank,
Musqueam, Squamish, Lheidli T'enneh and N'Quatqua.
In Alberta, we only have the Siksika nation, but this is a great
nation to which I will get back later on, because I had the
privilege of meeting its members when I traveled to that region.
I will elaborate a little more on the Siksika who is, in my
opinion, one of Canada's great nations.
In Saskatchewan, we have the first nations of Muskoday and
Cowessess. In Manitoba, we have the Opaskwayak Cree. In Ontario,
we have the Nipissing, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the
Chippewas of Georgina Island and the Chippewas of Mnjikaning.
In New Brunswick, we have the first nation of Saint Mary's.
Bill C-49 is an act on first nation land management which will
allow first nations to establish their own land and natural
resources management system.
There is a part in the Indian Act that deals with land
management. What is unusual about this bill is precisely the
fact that the Indian Act will no longer apply to these lands,
which will now come under the legislation before us.
There were some absurd things in the Indian Act, particularly
the part dealing with land management. People had to obtain the
federal government's approval to sell grain or to raise and sell
cattle. As we know, the Indian Act is a century-old act and it is
obsolete. Of course, it would be very difficult to scrap this
act.
Eliminating the act leaves nothing in the way of a legal
guarantee. Aboriginal people are therefore stuck with an
outmoded piece of legislation which affords them a minimum of
protection. But it is heart-warming to see bills like the one
before us today come along, because whole sections of the Indian
Act will no longer apply to these 14 nations in particular.
This means one more step toward aboriginal self-government.
The Indian Act will, however, continue to apply in all other
areas. As I said, the minister will no longer have the
discretionary power to say “No, you cannot sell wheat. No, you
cannot sell cattle.” Of course, the ministers have been far more
attuned to what was going on in the communities in recent years.
I do not think any minister would have been so heavy-handed as to
forbid them to sell grain or cattle.
At the present time, however, that is the way the act is worded.
The principle we are considering will enable aboriginal people
to get out from under this outmoded part of the act.
When we have a bill that gives more autonomy than the Indian
Act, which means that certain specific chapters of that act no
longer apply, consultation with the communities generally takes
place. According to the details we have at present, there was
such consultation. These nations are fully in favour of Bill
C-49.
As I said at the beginning, not only are they in agreement with
the bill, but they are also urging us to see that it goes
through quickly.
I find the reaction of the Reform Party rather disappointing.
This summer, I believe the chief of First Nations met with the
leader of the Reform Party in an attempt to explain to him the
need for a different attitude toward the aboriginal people. For
example, the Reform Party refers to the white paper from the
time when the present Prime Minister was Minister of Indian
Affairs, saying “what was wanted at that time was a Canada that
was uniform from coast to coast”. That is not our philosophy.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe in the principle of founding
peoples, the Quebec people and the peoples in the rest of
Canada.
The aboriginal people are being forgotten, when statements are
made like “In such and such a year the Liberals introduced a
white paper—this much is true—which made the aboriginal people
full-fledged citizens”. They tried to do this, however, by
bringing them into Canadian society and destroying their
culture, their language and their way of life. By that very
fact, there was no recognition that these nations were founding
peoples, exactly the same, in my view, as the Quebec people and
the people in the rest of Canada.
1230
This kind of approach is unfortunate and we are naturally taking
the opportunity to state our opposition to it.
There are certain problems with the bill, including the issue of
what happens in cases of marriage breakdown. Aboriginals will
have to address the issue of division of property in cases of
marriage breakdown. Unfortunately, there is a sort of legal
vacuum right now when a couple decides to separate. Provincial
laws do not apply on reserves and there is nothing in the Indian
Act covering these cases.
We therefore have certain questions about the provisions of the
bill to which I will come back a bit later.
The Bloc Quebecois is going to support the underlying principles
of Bill C-49 because we see them as another step towards the
economic development and in particular the autonomy of
aboriginals. We point out regularly in our speeches that
aboriginals are in a situation of dependence, which has created
all sorts of problems on the reserves and among the people.
Aboriginals are not found only on reserves. There are just as
many of them off reserves as on. There are major housing
problems, for instance, which drive people away from reserves.
According to the statistics, almost 40% of status Indians no
longer live on reserves.
A bill that stresses greater autonomy and self-government will
have the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Autonomy can take
several forms. Self-government is often mentioned.
Self-government is important but, unless it is accompanied by
economic development, it leads nowhere.
This is why bills introduced in the House will often address
both issues: self-government as well as land claims.
We saw it in the case of the Yukon a few years ago, when people
came to study the bill before the House, which dealt not only
with self-government but also with land claims allowing them to
achieve financial independence so they could finally break away
from the federal government.
This is the gist of the bill. That is, it moves away from the
Indian Act and introduces other notions on the management of
their own lands.
White people and native people see things differently. When
native people speak of lands, their idea is that the land
belongs to everyone and exists to be shared.
This is in fact what guided initial relations between native
peoples and the new arrivals, the Europeans who arrived here in
Canada. The native peoples had no objection to letting the
whites take certain lands, cultivate them and raise livestock.
Even now, on the reserves, land is held collectively, whereas we
see things a bit differently. The way we see it is that the
land belongs to us. When we buy land, we quickly have it
surveyed and registered and have the deed signed. A whole lot
of planning goes into making it known that this tract of land is
ours. Sometimes we go so far as to fence it in. Native people
see it all very differently. They see it more collectively,
with the land belonging to everyone.
I think I have explained enough why this bill should be passed
quickly, and the Bloc Quebecois will of course help to get it
passed.
I was saying earlier that, in democratic terms, I see no
problem. The 14 communities were consulted on this bill, and
they agree on the need to act quickly.
1235
I also told you I would get back to the issue of marriage
breakdown. This is an important issue for aboriginal women.
There is a history to this bill and to the issues concerning
women.
Bill C-75, introduced in 1997, did not include any provision on
marriage breakdown. I will tell you later the story of some
women and women's groups who went to court to challenge the fact
that the bill did not include provisions to help settle the
issue in case of marriage breakdown.
Unfortunately, Bill C-75 died on the Order Paper when the
previous Parliament came to an end.
However, the Bloc Quebecois decided, with the support of some
parties in the House, to quickly bring back that legislation
during this Parliament and to ensure its swift passage because,
as I indicated earlier, of the urgent nature of the situation.
Given the court challenge and the quick reintroduction of the
bill before the House, government officials and aboriginal
representatives looked at provisions that could be included in
the bill to achieve the objective of protecting aboriginal women
in case of marriage breakdown.
Let me read clause 17 of the bill, which is aimed at correcting
this flaw in the initial bill.
17. (1) A first nation shall, in accordance with the Framework
Agreement and following the community consultation process
provided for in its land code, establish general rules and
procedures, in cases of breakdown of marriage, respecting the
use, occupation and possession of first nation land and the
division of interests in first nation land.
Bill C-75, which has now become Bill C-49, was amended to provide
for a community consultation process to establish the land code
that will include a mechanism in case of marriage breakdown.
Of course, that procedure may not be comprehensive and it may
not be the same everywhere, because the 14 first nations will
ultimately have to prepare their own land code.
I could add that there will be up to 12 months for incorporating
rules concerning breakdown of marriage in the land code.
I wanted to touch on the women's objections, to which I have
already referred. One of the ways women's groups reacted to the
first reading of the bill last June was by writing to the Globe
and Mail. These groups included the British Columbia Native
Women's Society and the Native Women's Association of Canada,
headed by my good friend Marilyn Buffalo. Their reaction was
“While we realize you have made an effort with clause 17 to
include procedures in the event of marriage breakdown, what is
there does not suit us in the least”. They decided to file an
injunction to get the courts to block the bill.
The case has not yet been heard. The bill is currently under
consideration.
Although there has been no court decision, it seems to me that
it would be hard for the women to block the proceedings of the
House of Commons with a court order. That is not part of our
tradition, but we do need to realize that they have objections
and that clause 17, which I have just read, needs to be
tightened up considerably.
I raised this human rights matter with the chair of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission, Mrs. Falardeau-Ramsay, whom I had the
pleasure of meeting—last year, I think it was—in a delegation to
Geneva. She indicated to me that she was a bit uncomfortable
with the fact that aboriginal women were in a kind of legal
vacuum at the moment. In the event of marriage breakdown, they
are forced to leave the reserve and to leave all their family
heritage behind.
Quebec has family heritage legislation, called in fact la Loi du
patrimoine familial, with provisions for marriage breakdown.
As I was saying, this does not apply on the reserve, however.
These women are, therefore, left in a legal vacuum and an effort
absolutely must be made to correct this.
1240
However, as I told women's groups, we cannot, as a matter of
principle, in the case of a bill providing greater autonomy to
first nations, oppose the legislation on the grounds that the
provision dealing with them may not be supportive enough of
their cause.
We must not block Bill C-49 on the grounds that its provisions
are not specific enough.
The minister did react to the legal challenge. She decided to
set up some commission to take a more comprehensive look at the
issue and to avoid having women's groups block each of the bills
on native issues when they are introduced in the House. The
minister struck a committee to look at what happens when a
marriage breaks down on a native reserve.
In so doing, the minister acknowledged the existence of a legal
vacuum. Therefore, I ask her to act quickly regarding this
issue. When we inquired about the progress made regarding that
commission, we were told that the investigator had not even been
appointed yet. I remember reading a press release—in July or
August—in which the minister announced that this commission
would be established. Now, several months later, that commission
has not even begun its work.
I therefore urge the minister to speed up the process in this
regard.
Whenever a bill dealing with native issues is introduced in the
House, there is a risk that it could be systematically opposed,
because the basic issue was not settled.
The Bloc Quebecois will, in parliamentary committee, take a
close look at clause 17, which I read earlier and which deals
with the breakdown of marriages. The approach is innovative, and
concerns land management. The provisions of the Indian Act are
being replaced because they are very restrictive. The government
is now proposing a bill and a land code that will allow first
nations not only to manage the resources on their lands, but
also to decide how they wish to dispose of such lands.
This week, for example, I met representatives from one reserve
who will have to renew their leases next March. So members can
just imagine, if the bill is not passed, what a hard time they
will have renewing, because they will have to come before the
House of Commons, the minister and cabinet to obtain permission
to continue the leases. The idea with this land code is that it
will no longer be necessary to seek the minister's permission.
Another provision of the bill concerns expropriation. This was
and remains a hateful provision. The law is antiquated. It has
existed for some 100 years. Right now, a municipality, a
province or the federal government can say “We want to
expropriate part of the reserve”.
Before a major tribunal known as the specific native claims
tribunal, which reports to the House of Commons and where most
cases were heard, a municipality would decide at one point “We
have finished cutting down the forest at this point, we would
now like to encroach on the reserve. We request permission to
expropriate the reserve or part of it so we can continue our
work”. This sort of request was almost always automatically
granted, resulting in great injustice and the fact that we had
to go to court or before commissions in order to untangle these
things and return to the native peoples the land that belonged
to them.
So this bill puts paid to injustice. The minister of Indian
affairs is now the only one who can and, if she does so, she
will have to provide land or financial compensation with the
approval of the reserve.
The government is trying, clearly. We can no longer allow
municipalities or provinces for different, often valid, reasons
to expropriate part of a reserve. That period is over.
The bill also contains provisions for environmental assessment
plans.
1245
I think it is important to mention that, if ever a group was
respectful of the environment, it is certainly aboriginals.
However, when giving them responsibility for land management,
care must be taken to harmonize environmental legislation.
Naturally, we cannot allow standards on a reserve to be well
below those in a neighbouring village subject to provincial
laws. The land code will resolve this.
There will also be a procedure for harmonizing environmental
legislation, so that standards on the reserves and in the
province will be largely the same.
There is even provision for the provinces affected, because many
are affected by the bill, to be involved in the planning of any
subsidiary environmental agreements.
As for the structure of the land management agreement, it was
first proposed by chiefs in 1987. There were several
negotiations. I would even go so far as to say that we are
surprised that any agreement at all has been reached after
eleven years. It seems like a relatively long time. Other
bills introduced in the House have also been a long time coming;
the Yukon bill, for instance, has taken 21 years.
Negotiations with aboriginals are still taking place today and
have been for 30 years. It has been an on-again, off-again
process. Ten years is quite a long time. That is why it is
important that today we give aboriginals what they need.
I also wish to point out the agreement is not a treaty and that
it will not be protected under section 35. This is a bill that
leaves participation optional. Right now, this means that 14
first nations are covered in the bill and listed in the
schedule, but other first nations will always be able to say
that, having examined Bill C-49, they too would like to manage
their lands.
There are several ways this could come about. As I have said,
it could be through self-government and land claims. They could
also say that they have lands and that they wish to take part in
the process and manage their lands without relying on the
provisions of the Indian Act.
I have spoken with first nations' representatives and they are
not always aware of what is going on elsewhere, so they find
this a highly practical approach, and to their liking. Some
first nations are in fact involved in exploring the possibility
of adopting the same type of land management arrangement.
I think it is important to speak of the 14 first nations
involved, at this point. I listed them quickly already, but I
would now like to give a brief historical overview of each.
They are the ground-breakers, the ones that decided to move ahead
toward self-government. I feel it is important to give the House
a brief rundown on each of them.
First, there are the Siksika, of Alberta. They are a very
sizeable community in Alberta, with 2,795 members living on the
reserve and another 1,635 living off the reserve.
As I have already said, close to 40% of aboriginal people have
left the reserve for one reason or another. The reserves are
getting over-crowded. Aboriginal demographics are such that the
population is growing twice as fast as the Canadian population
as a whole, and so people are being systematically forced off
the reserve. This is what has happened with the Siksika.
Their language is part of the Algonquian family of languages.
Present-day Edmonton and Calgary are on their land. They
administer a number of programs. Theirs is a beautiful area. I
had the pleasure of visiting this great people, and they took me
to see a sacred mountain that is currently the object of a land
claim, Castle Mountain, in Banff National Park.
This situation continues to be of concern to them.
Incidentally, I would like the Siksikas listening today to know
that their file is still with me, and we are still trying to
settle the dispute.
What they would like is for the part of Banff Park where the
sacred mountain is located to be aboriginal territory. I feel
this would be in the best interests of both aboriginal people
and whites. This is a beautiful area, and having a sacred
mountain on aboriginal land within it might be of great interest
to the white population.
1250
We speak of “aboriginal lands” but they do not have the same
concept of property as we do. It is not a question of fencing
in a surveyed lot, or something else that has been registered
with a land office. For them, there is the concept of sharing.
They want to share Banff National Park, which has moreover
always been part of their land claim, and they want this
mountain to be theirs. I mention this in passing, because I
felt it was important to raise this issue and wanted them to
know it is not a dead issue.
The Muskoday First Nation reserve is located 19 kilometres
southeast of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. It covers 23,832
acres.
Here again, 411 members live on the reserve and 623 live off the
reserve, which confirms the trend that 40% of aboriginal people
live off the reserve.
Their economy is mainly agriculture-based, hence the importance
of passing this bill so that they may lease or develop their
lands and to make use of them without being constrained by the
Indian Act.
The other first nation in Saskatchewan, the Cowessess, also
makes its living from agriculture and tourism. Its population
totals 2,544, 411 on the reserve and 1,133 off the reserve.
The Chippewas of Georgina Island are located in the county of
York—Simcoe, north of Toronto. Historically, these are the
descendants of a larger band, the Chippewas of Lake Huron and
Lake Simcoe. In 1818, the Chippewas gave up a large parcel of
their land south of Georgian Bay.
In 1830, Sir John Colborne settled them on lands between
Coldwater and Lake Couchiching.
They subsequently divided into three separate bands. One group
went to Georgina Island around 1838, another went to Beausoleil
Island in 1842 and the chief of the Yellowhead and his band went
to Rama in 1838. The reserve was confirmed with the Williams
treaty of 1923.
Although 81% of the population speaks English, most form part of
the Algonquian family of languages, but few have kept their
language.
The Mississaugas of Scugog Island, like the Chippewa of Georgina
Island, have been displaced a number of times. This big reserve
measures some 1,951,000 acres. On two occasions they gave up
part of their lands. Their reserve, like the others, was
confirmed by the Williams treaty in 1923.
The Ojibways may be found in Ontario, in the great lakes region.
I will shortly be speaking in a few aboriginal languages. I
have asked for the translation of a passage I particularly
wanted to read. A number of communities have sent remarks,
which I will read, along with their translation. I hope I will
be forgiven if I have difficulty getting my tongue around some
words, as some things are quite hard to pronounce. However, I
think that they will enjoy having an MP wishing them good luck
in the House in their own language.
I would also like to mention the Westbank first nation, because
the chief, Robert Louie, is directing the operations concerning
the bill before us. I raised the problem of marriage breakup.
It was about his first nation that the supreme court—in 1981, I
think—gave its first decision in Derrickson. Mrs. Derrickson
is Robert Louie's mother-in-law.
The supreme court was forced to acknowledge a legal void, that,
in the case of a marriage breakup, provincial law did not apply
and the Indian Act contained no provision to settle the problem.
I think it important to talk to you about the Westbank first
nation, because Mrs. Derrickson, who behind the Derrickson
decision of 1981, comes from there. This first nation is
situated in the Okanagan valley.
1255
This summer, I travelled to British Columbia. Unfortunately,
Mrs. Derrickson was ill and I was unable to visit Robert Louie,
but there will be another time and I look forward to going back.
I realize that time is running out and that, since there are 14
nations, it would take a while to give the history of each one,
and I do not wish to go over my allotted time.
I wanted to say, in various native languages, what our wishes
for aboriginals are. Since I have eight minutes left, I think I
can manage.
I have four translations to read. Please bear with me as I try
to get my tongue around them, because Ojibway, Cree, Salishan
and another passage in Ojibway are involved. My pronunciation
may not be completely perfect, but I did want to say a few words
in these languages to wish aboriginals well.
What I am about to say in these native languages can be
summarized as follows.
The Bloc Quebecois is always supportive of aboriginals in their
quest for greater autonomy.
This bill furthers that quest and we wish the 14 communities
involved the best of luck.
I sometimes make life difficult for the interpreters when I
speak a native language. I will now try to speak Cree.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[Translation]
I will be attempting to say the same in Salishan, which is used
by the Squamish nation on the west coast; it was they who sent
me the translation of my text.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Salishan]
[Translation]
It took only a few seconds to read the passage aloud in French
but, when we were sent the translations, we were told that there
are many more figuratives in aboriginal languages. That is why
each translation takes a little longer to read.
Next comes Ojibway. This covers the whole Great Lakes area in
Ontario. The Objibways sent me a translation of the same
message. Theirs reads as follows:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Ojibway]
[Translation]
“Mnaabmewziding” means “good luck”.
I have one last message in Ojibway, but it is in a different
dialect spoken by the Chippewas of Georgina Island. It was sent
to me by Chief William McCue, to whom I send my best wishes.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Ojibway]
[Translation]
Members will understand not only that the Bloc Quebecois
supports the bill, but that it will try to ensure its quick
passage, so that these people can be released as quickly as
possible from the provisions of the Indian Act, and can achieve
financial autonomy and self-government, and also deal with land
claims. They will thus be able to live a life that will be far
removed from the current dependency on the government.
1300
Finally, I wish them good luck in their new venture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before resuming debate, I
wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Jean. It is very
difficult to speak other languages.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my party I am pleased to have the opportunity to
address this act to implement the framework agreement on first
nations land management.
This bill is a long overdue step forward in the process of
returning to first nations control of the land that is rightfully
theirs. It is also a major advancement to the eventual goal of
first nations self-government.
The New Democratic Party has long supported first nations
inherent right to self-government. We have supported the First
Nations through this century while successive Liberal and
Conservative governments have pursued shameful and reprehensible
policies of assimilation.
The official policy of assimilation may be a thing of the past
but it cannot be denied that aboriginal people are still an
oppressed minority.
If we look at any social indicator, whether it be income, life
span, disease rates or suicide rates, aboriginal people make up
the bottom rung in virtually every category. These social
problems are wounds that still have not been healed.
It is a testament to the strength of the first nations cultures
that they have survived and persevered through all these
generations of oppression.
I support this bill because it is a ground breaking step in
giving first nations the rights they deserve and have so long
been denied. Turning control of their lands over to first nations
governments will go to a long way toward restoring
self-sufficiency.
I would particularly like to extend my thanks and
congratulations to the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, signatories to
this framework agreement, and to Chief William Lathlin as well as
former chief and now Grand Chief of MKO Francis Flett.
Both these first nations leaders have been tireless in their
efforts to improve the lives of their people both in the
Opaskwayak Cree Nation and the whole of the MKO region of
northern Manitoba. Their leadership in bringing the Opaskwayak
Cree Nation into this agreement was important to its progression
to this stage.
I am sure members of this House will join me in congratulating
Chief Lathlin as well as Grand Chief Flett and in wishing Grand
Chief Flett all the best in his recovery from recent heart
surgery.
The contributions of Chief Lathlin and Grand Chief Flett are
particularly noteworthy in light of the efforts of the Reform
Party and others with a right wing imperialistic agenda who have
been trying to undermine the legitimacy of first nations
government.
Like wolves in sheep's clothing, Reform cloaks its anti-first
nations rhetoric in populist language. But Reform's true
intention toward the first nations is clear. Reform's real
intention is the assimilation of the first nations. That is why
Reform constantly tries to undermine first nations governments.
The Reform Party and their right wing allies try to take extreme
examples and try to paint all first nations governments with the
same brush.
Chief Lathlin and Grand Chief Flett are two of the many
excellent first nations leaders who proved the Reform Party's
generalizations about first nations governments to be dead wrong.
This bill is a rare moment of fairness to the first nations by a
government that has otherwise chosen to ignore them. I want to
make it clear that I support the bill for the contributions it
makes toward the eventual goal of self-government.
However, there is an important outstanding issue that the bill
before us today does not address. The Dene people of northern
Manitoba have a longstanding concern regarding their land
entitlements in Nunavut. Long before Europeans set foot on this
continent, the Dene hunted caribou on lands that will soon become
part of Nunavut.
As members know, caribou herds migrate vast distances throughout
the year. Traditionally the Dene were a nomadic people and
followed the caribou herds.
One of the Canadian government's most abhorrent crimes against
any first nation was when it forced the Dene into reserves back
in the 1950s.
1305
Forcing a nomadic people into a settled, sedentary way of living
is social engineering of the worst kind and represented one of
the lowest points of Canada's shameful policy of assimilation
toward first nations.
The social problems caused were staggering and, as I have said
in this House before, still require compensation from the federal
government.
Besides these tragic social consequences, another outcome was
that the Dene people were divided. Two bands, the Sayisi Dene
First Nation and the Northlands First Nation ended up in Manitoba
south of the 60th parallel.
I should not have to remind the House that caribou do not
recognize provincial and territorial borders. Even though these
two Dene bands reside in Manitoba, their traditional hunting
ground extends north to the 60th parallel into the territory soon
to be known as Nunavut.
This bill establishes a framework to transfer land management
power to bands but what needs to be clarified and guaranteed is
the Dene people's right to apply this framework in their
traditional lands north of 60 as well as south. I am looking
forward to addressing this shortcoming when the bill goes to
committee.
The government should not take my accolade and support for this
bill to mean that I think its duty toward first nations people
will be met with this one piece of legislation. This is far from
the case.
The social problems facing many first nations continue to exceed
anything experienced in the rest of Canada and each problem
requires the government's immediate attention. Housing
conditions are third world standard in many communities, with no
running water and inadequate sanitation. Disease levels are
significantly higher than in the rest of Canada, with HIV,
diabetes and kidney disease particularly serious problems. There
is also a chronic shortage of qualified health care
professionals.
Unemployment levels in many first nation communities are
astronomical, exceeding 90% in some areas. These issues need to
be properly addressed.
A report was recently released by MKO, the Manitoba ministry of
family services and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada that
looked into food and nutritional problems in isolated first
nations communities. This report paints a distressing picture.
It states that the high cost of perishable food and the
inadequacy of social assistance food allowance to cover the cost
means that the availability of fresh nutritious food in remote
communities is very poor.
The impact on health in these first nations is massive. The
report states that to cover the cost of nutritious food for a
family of four will require a 35% increase in monthly social
assistance food allowance. Adequate nutrition is a basic
necessity that the government must ensure is provided for every
first nation person. There is no reason why the conditions in
first nations communities I have listed should exist in Canada.
They are of third world standard and are totally unacceptable in
a country of the relative wealth of Canada.
I recently sent a letter to the minister of Indian affairs
requesting her to implement the recommendations of the MKO
report. Today I have not received a response and I cannot help
but question, despite the advances in this bill, whether the
Liberal government has any serious intention of meeting its
responsibilities to the first nations.
I take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments I
heard from previous speakers, certainly from the member of the
Reform Party.
With his comments about everyone in Canada being one people, I
cannot help but wonder how veterans felt when they came back from
the war and had to give up their treaty rights and their right to
be part of their own first nations. The speeches by the
governing authority given in residential schools in Regina
commented on the fact that when these men came back from war they
would want to be treated as equals and we just could not do that.
No wonder we have the feelings we have in first nations today.
The concerns raised by the native women's group are valid and
should be addressed to their satisfaction. I also believe that
had there not been interference by previous governments in Canada
in the past the equality they are fighting for would have
happened already.
Reform's comments that the majority of aboriginal people do not
want this process are just not valid.
1310
Opposition parties have questioned this government on its
patronage appointments, its wasted dollars, its misplaced
priorities and even the credibility and integrity of its
solicitor general. Would I suggest we throw away the right of
Canadians to democracy and to elect their own representatives?
Never. I will put my faith in Canadians to see this government
for what it is, a government shirking its responsibilities to
Canada and Canadians.
I trust the members of first nations are taking an active part
in electing their leaders. Turning land management powers over
to first nations is an important step toward self-government. I
offer my support for this bill, but let us be clear that this is
no substitute for tangible action to alleviate the horrific
social conditions to which many first nations people are subject.
There are still many wounds to be healed.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened closely to the member's speech and I heard the passion
in her voice. I believe she believes that what she is saying is
correct. It is important that what we say in debate be recorded
in a factual manner and that we not mislead the people watching
this debate or other members of parliament. Certain statements
were made to Reform, its right wing agenda and its friends. I am
not sure who she was talking about. She talked about there being
a century of NDP support for the social agenda and for the first
nations in Canada. She may have her terms of reference a bit out
of whack. Maybe she went back a little further than the party
does.
I will give an example of the real issue. There was an
emergency meeting last night with aboriginal affairs committee
members of the Senate and the House concerning the tragic
situation that has developed in British Columbia. I am not here
to stick up for the government or for the Reform Party. I
attended that meeting last night as a member of the Progressive
Conservative Party. A Liberal member, a Bloc member and a Reform
member were there but there were no NDP members.
If the member is going to tell the House that she supports first
nations then let us see her at the committee meetings, at the
drudgery and the work that there is no fun in, where there are no
cameras and no glorious speeches.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem
addressing the fact that one member may not have been at one
meeting. What is more important is an honest and true commitment
to changing the position of the government toward aboriginal
people. I will stand behind my party's position and my own
position. I do not have to worry that the aboriginal people from
my area and throughout Canada will question that. We have seen
the proof come out of New Democratic Party members as well as
governments. That does not happen.
If the member takes the right wing, imperialistic note to mean
the Conservative Party, by all means he should go forth and take
it. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have had
opportunities over the years to change the situation but they
never did. It is time the government does that. It has been a
long time coming. It has been happening because we have more New
Democrats here to ensure that happens.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some of the rhetoric I have heard from the member for
Churchill is not worthy of an intelligent conversation. Prior to
the last parliament in this House there was not a single piece of
aboriginal legislation that did not get all-party consent in this
place. Nobody ever challenged the status quo. There are do
gooders and people who do good. I place myself in the latter
category. I challenge the status quo which has led us to the
reserves having the worst statistics in the nation.
The member for Churchill has blinders on in terms of thinking
we cannot challenge the status quo and fix what is wrong with
many of the aboriginal communities in Canada.
1315
If it is wrong to challenge the fact that we do not have
accountability in many areas, if it is wrong to challenge that we
do not have a democracy in full flower in many of those
communities, if it is wrong to say that equality is not something
to strive for, if it is wrong to be opposed to sexual and other
abuse which is rampant in some of these communities, if it is
wrong to think that we can fix fetal alcohol syndrome, I would
apologize to the member.
Those are all worthy goals. Members of my caucus and I are
pursuing these things with vigour. We are getting better results
than the all party cloak of silence that resided in this place
prior to our arriving in the last parliament.
We are challenging what is wrong and we are starting to see
major fixes. That is not to say that the signatories, the bands
that are signatories to the legislation, fall into that category.
In many respects I am quite sure they do not. Some of them may
not at all. I do not want to be appearing to tarnish all as the
same because they are not. One of the reasons the legislation
exists is that these are some of the more progressive, wealthier
bands that have a lot of private property concepts and other
things going for them.
In many respects there are objectives in the legislation which I
find admirable. I have some problems with the legislation and I
will talk about them later. If the member wishes to comment on
my comments, she is welcome.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, nobody is opposed to all
the things the member mentioned. There is not a first nation
leader in the country who is not striving for the same things.
The difference between the Reform Party and the New Democratic
Party is that I will not tell first nations people what they have
to do. That has been the problem for too long.
If ever there is to be change within a community or a country,
it needs to come from within. That is the truest strong change.
That has been how democratic governments have progressed.
We sit here and complain. I tried to indicate that when I
commented on patronage. We in Canada have had the good
government we talk about for 131 years and we are still worrying
about patronage and different things happening. Does that mean
that aboriginal people, first nations people, should not have the
right to go through a process of their own self-government
because one party suggests that it knows best, that it knows the
way? First nations people can make that decision and do it a
heck of a lot better than we have done in the past.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree that 131 years have not brought anything close to equality
of opportunity or equality of outcomes. It is partly because
governments did not listen to the people. The B.C. Native
Women's Society contacted us and said that we have to defeat this
legislation. That is not failing to listen to the little person
like we were accused of doing. That is taking very seriously the
concerns of the person who will be affected by the legislation.
The Reform Party is committed to that.
I resent any implication that we are not acting in the best
interest of the people to be affected by the legislation. I
challenge members from all other parties to attend the grassroots
aboriginal meetings being held throughout Canada to find out what
the grassroots aboriginals are saying.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I assure the member from
the Reform Party that I have spoken to a number of grassroots
first nations people. I have some 26 first nations in my riding.
I have family members, aunts, uncles and cousins, who are part of
two of the first nations in Saskatchewan. I have been there and
I have spoken to people there.
I know these first nations have worked hard to improve their
communities. I know that all other first nations will do the
same. I believe that with my heart and soul. I know that is the
right way to go for aboriginal people.
1320
There will be problems here and there along the way the same as
any democratic government has problems as it progresses over
time. The first nations people have the right to make that
decision. This is the best move for them. They have discussed
it in numerous communities. They have talked about it with their
people and want these changes so that they can continue on and
become more self-sufficient. That is what is needed for all
first nations. That is the true way to make change for first
nations people. They should be given the right to control their
own interests.
It is not right to suggest in any way, shape or form that the
land to which first nations people are entitled under treaty
rights is not really theirs or that it is not equality if they
have treaty rights.
The hon. member mentioned women's rights. Nobody argues that. I
absolutely support the right of first nations women to pursue the
changes they want. They have that support and they will continue
to have that support. As I indicated, I am sure they will make
the changes that are needed because anybody who knows first
nations women that have been involved over the years knows they
are strong people who have worked hard to improve conditions in
their communities.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-49, an act providing for the
ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework
agreement on first nations land management.
This piece of legislation has been almost 10 years in the making
beginning in 1989 as the lands revenue and trust review. That
agreement encompassed a number of areas, land management being
one of them. While that agreement fell through, a number of
first nations persevered with negotiations for land management.
The bill was formerly introduced as Bill C-75 on December 10,
1996, but died on the order paper. Bill C-49, while similar to
the original bill, has some important amendments to address the
concerns of native women. I will discuss them in greater detail
later.
I congratulate the 14 first nations that are signatories to the
framework agreement. They are Westbank, Musqueam, Lheidli
T'enneh, N'Quatqua and Squamish, all from British Columbia;
Siksika in Alberta; Muskoday and Cowessess in Saskatchewan; the
Opaskwayak Cree from Manitoba; the Nipissing and the Mississaugas
of Scugog Island, the Chippewas of Mnjikaning and the Chippewas
from Georgina Island, all from Ontario; and the Saint Mary's in
New Brunswick. These first nations have worked hard to have this
legislation reach this stage of the process and are anxious to
see it become law.
Bill C-49 allows the 13 first nations who signed the framework
on February 12, 1996 and the Saint Mary's from New Brunswick who
joined in May 1998 to assume control of land management and move
out from under the provisions of the Indian Act. This does not
affect other first nations that are not signatories to the
agreement. Nor does it diminish the authority of the Indian Act
for areas other than land management.
The legislation is an incremental step toward self-government
and should be a positive move for the affected bands as they have
greater influence over economic development on their reserves.
The framework agreement will allow the first nations the
opportunity to manage their land and resources through the
establishment of land codes.
The framework agreement may become a model for other such
agreements on land management once the legislation passes and the
first nations are given the opportunity to implement it. Thirty
or forty first nations have already expressed an interest in the
framework agreement. I expect many more to do so as they are
able to see the benefits of the legislation.
We are all aware of the faults of the Indian Act. As I
mentioned, the legislation will allow first nations to move out
from under the restrictions of the Indian Act and provide
opportunities for first nations to manage their own land and
resources. This will be done through land codes that they will
develop to meet their own requirements.
The first step for each of the first nations will be to develop
that land code. It will outline the rules necessary for land
management, covering such things as what land is affected by the
land code, rules for use and occupation of the land, revenue
collection, amendments and a dispute resolution process among
other things.
1325
Not only does this transfer authority from the federal
government to the first nations, but through the land code it
also encourages stronger community participation. Land codes
must be ratified by the communities and voted on by first nation
people living both on and off reserve. This is an onerous job
but one that the first nations felt was very important and
warranted the extra work.
It is worth mentioning that the land codes must be ratified by
the community but not by the federal government. Following
ratification each reserve must enter into an individual transfer
agreement with Canada. The transfer agreement will include the
development and operational funding to be paid by Canada to the
first nation and the details on the transfer of administration.
The community must ratify both the land code and the transfer
agreement. First nations will manage their land and resources
under Bill C-49 including the associated revenues, except for oil
and gas revenues which remain a federal responsibility.
Only 14 first nations have signed the agreement, a very small
percentage of the 633 first nations in Canada. One of the
reasons for this small number relates to land management under
the Indian Act. While it is possible under the Indian Act to
request delegated authority from the federal government to manage
lands, only 9 of the 633 first nations have done so.
Dissatisfaction with the limitations of the delegated authority
was the impetus behind the framework agreement and the
legislation we are discussing today.
Another reason for the relatively small number of signatories to
the agreement is concern by a number of first nations that these
agreements would be similar to the proposed amendments to the
Indian Act that have met with resistance. This agreement however
is reserve specific, affecting only the bands listed in the
agreement. Furthermore the agreement is not a treaty and does
not affect treaty or constitutional rights of aboriginal people.
The reserves remain a federal responsibility under section 91(24)
of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the lands continue to be
protected from surrender of sale.
At the same time these 14 first nations will have the
opportunity to manage their own land and the legal status to
govern their own land and resources. The only difference from
other land owners will be the inability to sell that property.
As I mentioned earlier, the legislation is long overdue and
eagerly awaited by the first nations that are anxious to begin
implementation. There are however some concerns regarding the
legislation as outlined by the British Columbia Native Women's
Society.
Although I have had some difficulty contacting the British
Columbia Native Women's Society, it is my understanding of its
position that it feels the legislation transfers responsibility
for equality on reserve, particularly for native women upon the
breakdown of marriage, from the federal government to first
nations. It sees this as an abdication of federal power that
demonstrates the government's lack of commitment to equality.
In addition, there is no minimum standard provided in the
legislation for the division of property such as exists in
provincial law upon the breakdown of marriage, which increases
the possibility that inequality will not be dealt with in an
acceptable manner perhaps by the first nations involved.
These are legitimate concerns that stem from the flaws of the
Indian Act that established and perpetuated an inferior position
for women in the legislation. The first nations that are
signatories to this agreement listened to the concerns of the
British Columbia Native Women's Society and drafted amendments to
the framework agreement to address its reservations.
The amendments require the first nations to establish community
process in their land codes regulating use, occupancy and
possession of reserve land should a marriage breakdown occur. At
the same time it places the onus on the first nations and their
respective members to adequately provide regulations for division
of matrimonial property. This ensures that the process meets the
requirements of the first nations members and avoids the age old
problem of having the federal government dictate to the first
nations.
While I feel it would have been useful and informative to have
met with the British Columbia Native Women's Society to discuss
its concerns, my request for meetings were not answered. I look
forward to hearing the society outline its position as we discuss
the legislation in detail at committee.
While there are concerns with the piece of legislation, the
objective or the impetus of Bill C-49 to allow first nations to
move closer to economic independence is long overdue. As the
Nisga'a treaty in British Columbia demonstrates, first nations
want the opportunity to govern their lands and people and are
prepared to accept the challenges of doing so.
1330
The positive effects of such legislation will be evident as more
first nations take steps toward self-reliance and independence.
The chiefs of the first nations with whom I have spoken have all
expressed their support for this legislation and the
opportunities it offers them and their respective first nations.
As I have mentioned they are prepared to begin implementation of
this bill once it completes the legislative process. Currently
three first nations have land codes prepared and five more are in
development.
I look forward to examining this legislation in committee. I
welcome the opportunity to hear my colleagues' comments on this
legislation, Bill C-49.
In summing up I would like to add a few points. The hon. member
from the Bloc mentioned a concept which many of us take for
granted, that of fee simple land ownership. I would dare to say
that there are many people who sit within the halls of this
parliament itself who do not understand the Indian Act. Certainly
I am not pretending in any way, shape or form to be an expert on
the Indian Act but I have read it and it is a terrible piece of
legislation.
The whole concept of fee simple ownership that we take for
granted is that one can actually own a piece of property. For
instance the first nations reserves in Nova Scotia may have a
piece of woodland of a couple of hundred acres that they may want
to cut timber on but they do not have the ability to that. First
they have to apply, they have to go on bended knee to the federal
government to get permission to carry on work on property that
they own but which is somehow being held in trust for them by the
federal government.
This bill is about the whole concept of land ownership. It is
about not having to apply to someone else if they want to have a
gravel pit on their property, if they want to build a road to
access timber resources, if they want to utilize those timber
resources for the economic benefit of the reserve, if they want
to look at the mining potential for the property. These are all
things that private ownership takes for granted. It does not
even think about because it is a foreign concept to think about
it any other way, but first nations do not have that ability.
There are some problems with the bill and issues it does not
address. However, it does address a very important point for
economic renewal, the ability for first nations to have economic
activity and bring themselves out from under the Indian Act and
actually have some activity in Canada and take their place as
equal citizens on the property which the rest of us take for
granted.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of comments and a question.
The British Columbia Native Women's Society is looking for the
same type of rights to protect them in the event of a marriage
breakdown as is currently offered by the provinces. They do not
believe that protection is in place which is a serious concern.
The issue of comparing land management to fee simple ownership
would be a little closer to reality if the land was not closer to
fee common which means that it is not held individually.
Therefore for individuals to make these quick and easy decisions
that the hon. member talks about, of course it is not possible to
make those kinds of decisions.
Municipalities must obtain permits to do just about anything or
they must go to the people who live in the community. They are
governed by regulations established by senior levels of
government. To make their own regulations without submitting
them anywhere else to see if they meet a basic standard for
rights is not the way municipalities work.
Does the member support fee simple ownership since he seems to
think it is the best way to handle these types of situations?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's question. It is a legitimate question. I heard a
couple of questions in there so I would like to answer everything
the member spoke about.
First of all the British Columbia Native Women's Society and the
entrenchment of matrimonial rights under the legislation or under
Indian affairs versus what is offered for protection under
provincial legislation is a very important point. It is one that
is going to require a great deal more study.
However, the division of property on the breakdown of a marriage
can be met within the land codes which are all voted on in a
democratic process and come before both on reserve and off
reserve members of each individual first nation.
1335
I did not say that this legislation was perfect but it is a step
in the right direction. Far too often in the history of this
country we have looked at legislation, and all legislation is
inherently flawed to some degree, but instead of moving forward
and allowing 99% of the legislation to be good, we get hung up on
1% of it. This is the case.
The first nations are responsible themselves in their land codes
to decide the division of property on the breakdown of a
marriage. I expect they will do that in a democratic process,
although there may be some room for abuse of that process.
The other issue is fee common ownership. That is a very good
analogy. I used fee simple because fee simple is what most of us
understand. The member is absolutely right about fee common.
Again a democratically elected chief and tribal council will
decide what activity is going to be carried on. The whole idea
of common ownership for the greater good is not one that all of
us are familiar with. I am a private landowner and a sixth
generation farmer. The whole idea of ownership of property is
something that is inherent to my culture and the way I was
brought up.
However, the idea of a common ownership of land is not
completely foreign to us. There is no reason why they still
cannot have democratic representation through common land
ownership with the chief and the tribal councils being
democratically elected.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk about fee simple ownership. It is
a rather critical sticking point with a lot of discussion in
terms of how things should be structured to make them better.
In Campbell River on Vancouver Island, the community I live in,
the Campbell River Band has a unique circumstance. When the
agreement was signed by the band to put the four lane bypass
through the reserve, a land transfer was effected. The bottom
line is the reserve now has reserve land and a big section of fee
simple land. The band had a business proposal that included all
of the land. After several years it is now one of the major
developments. It is a major shopping area in the community and
serves the whole community. It is highly successful.
The difference to the band is that it has a much easier time
administratively dealing with the fee simple land. It does not
have to go through the minister, through the Indian Act and all
of the red tape and bureaucracy. That is the upside. The
downside is that there are taxation ramifications. In actual fact
what I have heard from some who are in that business is they can
spend so much avoiding taxes that they end up not running a very
good business.
With the test of time we may see demonstrated that despite the
rap it has received from what is essentially a collectivist
static encumbrance placed upon land ownership by the Indian Act,
fee simple ownership may turn out to be the way to go in the long
run. Philosophically I agree with that.
I wonder if the member would like to comment on what he thinks
about what I just said.
1340
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, again I think it is a
pertinent point, the whole principle of fee simple ownership.
However, it is not the case within this piece of legislation and
it is protected within the legislation from reverting to fee
simple ownership.
I will not speak for first nations as they will speak for
themselves, but first nations may find that is the direction in
which they want to head. They can incorporate that. Once there
is some economic activity and the chance for advancement, jobs
and everything that comes with economic activity on reserves,
that whole idea of land ownership may be a principle or idea that
will be more fully embraced by first nations. It may not. I am
not trying to speak for them.
They have a system of government which has worked for a great
deal of time. Many of us have a great culture the same as the
first nations do and a lot of history that has evolved over a
period of time. I would hesitate to say all Canadians will be
governed in 100 years by the same governments and the same types
of policies we have now because things change. Things may change
in the future.
We are not dealing with the future but with the present and the
possibility that something that is closer to fee simple ownership
or fee common ownership will enable first nations to utilize
their land without having to go to the federal government every
time they want to carry out any type of economic activity. That
is the situation now. Anything that takes us away from that
situation is a good thing.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to be speaking to Bill C-49, the first nations land management
act.
The agreement that served as the impetus for this legislation
allows the signatory first nations to opt out of the land
management sections of the Indian Act and establish their own
regime to manage their lands and resources. This is a form of
self-government developed in full partnership with the first
nations to promote self-management that will result in among
other things improved economic development on reserves which the
last speaker spent some time suggesting.
The government and its partners have worked to further improve
this agreement to include another first nation, bringing the
total to 14. It has also been improved by now including the
application of the Atomic Energy Act and the use, occupation,
possession and division of interests in first nation land in the
case of a marriage or marriage breakdown.
This agreement is the result of a process that started in 1987
when the Mulroney government was in power. A previous version of
the bill was introduced in the last parliament and passed second
reading before the dissolution of parliament in April 1997.
I will be the first to admit that past federal governments
operated in a less than admirable fashion when it came to our
First Nations. However, as a member of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have seen two
ministers of Indian affairs who have been willing to work with
the native communities to initiate policy at the behest of the
first nations. These ministers have ensured that Canada will no
longer work in an aloof paternalistic fashion to push policy that
is not wanted and that does not address the needs of our native
communities.
I cite the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
and the response of our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to that report.
Bill C-49 is the result of native initiative. Two governments
over 11 years have worked in partnership with the first nations,
the provinces and other interested third parties to provide
change. I congratulate all those involved for developing
legislation that shows the value of partnership between our
native communities and the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Bill C-49 provides a positive model for the future transfer of
land management to other first nations.
1345
As a result of other first nations showing an interest in
entering this agreement, a provision has been included to permit
others to be added to this bill through an order in council.
However, this will not take place until a review of this regime
is completed within four years of operation.
The language of the bill has been reviewed in accordance with
the government's bijuralism policy and the provinces have been
consulted.
Provisions have also been included to address the concerns
raised by native women.
As background, in March 1997 the British Columbia Native Women's
Society and two individual plaintiffs mentioned the framework
agreement in a suit launched against the government in the
federal court.
The plaintiffs claim that the federal government has failed to
fulfill its fiduciary obligations to married Indian women with
respect to the division of the matrimonial home upon the
breakdown of a marriage. While the suit is in regards to the
Indian Act, the plaintiffs also claim that a process should be
included in the framework agreement to address this issue.
The bill does address this matter by requiring a mandatory
community consultation process for the development of rules and
procedures applicable on the breakdown of a marriage in relation
to the use, occupancy and possession of first nation land and the
division of interests in that land.
The positive benefits of this legislation are that it provides
opportunities for the first nations to build experience and
expertise, which will give them some empowerment. It fosters the
development of environmental protection regimes which will be
harmonized with federal and provincial regimes and will be
negotiated and approved by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
and the first nations.
The legislation allows first nations to generate revenue through
economic development. It ensures community decision making by
requiring local approval of the land code which enhances
accountability of chief and council to the membership. It
protects third party interests by continuing contracts, terms and
conditions that are currently in place and provides a dispute
resolution forum for any disputes.
I would like to share with members comments made by the minister
when Bill C-49 received first reading this past June. The
minister said “This initiative is a key sectoral component,
developed in full partnership with these first nations. These
communities are leading the way in changes to land management by
implementing a new land management regime and opting out of the
Indian Act. This legislation will provide control at the local
level and eliminate the involvement of my department in the day
to day land management decisions and activities of these first
nations”.
Once again we hear the word partnership from the minister. It
is a word that is very welcome in the lexicon utilized in
relations between Canada and its first nations.
Having worked with the minister on a number of issues in Ottawa
and in the riding, I know that she takes this partnership very
seriously and this legislation is a fine example of it.
The First Nations involved—the Westbank, Musqueam, Lheidle
T'enneh, N'Quatqua, Squamish, Siksika, Muskoday, Cowessess,
Opaskwayak Cree, Nippising, Mississaugas of Scugog Island,
Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning and Saint
Mary's—realize that this partnership does exist and will work.
I might indicate that it is a far cry from the reaction to the
suggestion some years ago from Prime Minister Trudeau that we
scrap the Indian Act. Some of us will remember that the chiefs
reacted negatively. The chiefs probably reacted negatively
because they did not trust us and because they felt that by doing
that they would lose their fiduciary right and any rights they
had to inherent self-government.
I think we have come a long way from those days. I know the
previous minister of Indian affairs tried by simple omission to
allow first nations to make some decisions on their own despite
the Indian Act.
1350
According to the Indian Act, a farmer on a reserve cannot sell a
cow without the permission of the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
The then minister, Mr. Irwin, simply refused to make any
decision on those matters and left it up to the first nations.
It is good to see, however, that this recognition, this respect
and this provision of ownership and stewardship to the first
nations finds a way around the fiduciary stranglehold of the
Indian Act.
I look forward to Bill C-49 coming before the Standing Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the near
future. At that time I will enjoy discussing this bill with each
of the first nations involved and with other interested parties
to ensure that this sense of partnership is evident at every
stage of this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very interested in some of the comments and remarks which the
hon. member made. Certainly toward the end of his speech he
mentioned the inherent right to self-government as being one of
the key goals and objectives that we are seeking, to ensure it is
recognized.
As we know, some of us think it was a missed opportunity when
the Charlottetown deal fell through because that would have
promoted or guaranteed that inherent right. I would like the
member to comment on that.
There is another issue I would like the hon. member to comment
on. In recent months we have been hearing speaker after speaker
from the Reform Party challenging, denouncing and condemning
native leaders and communities, implying that there is
widespread, rampant corruption, almost an irresponsibility in
terms of handling financial matters, as if they are not capable
or not ready to take control of their own destiny with true
self-government.
Upon hearing these things over the last few months, one cannot
help but think of similar charges which were made about the
leadership of the civil rights movement in the southern United
States. As those people started to get very close to the
prospect of true social justice, critics in the southern United
States, from groups like the Reform Party, felt that the easiest
way to challenge this kind of evolution in terms of human rights
and civil rights was to denounce the leadership, to take potshots
at the leadership, to criticise them and to try to convince
people that that group of people was not ready to take their
first struggling steps toward true participation.
I would like to hear the member's comments on both of those
things: first, the failure of the Charlottetown deal, which
might have taken some steps toward self-government for aboriginal
people and, second, the obvious connection between other civil
rights movements and the extreme right wing in those areas taking
shots at the leadership of those movements to try to discredit
them.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's
comments. I served on the yes committee in my riding for the
Charlottetown accord. I agree that probably for the first time
Indian rights, self-government and so on were included in a
constitutional type of document.
I think there was an error made in that document, despite my
support of it, and in my riding it passed by a narrow margin. I
think it said far too much and was very unclear. Many people did
not understand what it was getting at.
I remember having some trouble explaining it and having trouble
in my own mind. One had to say that it really did not mean what
it sounded like, so it had to mean this. Yet we were not able to
find out what in fact it did mean. I share the member's concern.
With respect to some of the Reform Party's agenda, its members
have hammered unnecessarily and unfairly, saying that there has
been a lack of accountability with respect to the moneys used on
first nations reserves.
1355
The first nations are going to make the same mistakes and have
the same problems running their governments with respect to taxes
and money as many of our communities.
We sometimes forget that in every province there is an office
which sends administrators and accountants to municipalities if
they get into difficulty. They take over the administration of
affairs until matters are straightened out. These things do not
happen very often because we have been developing our system for
a long time, but our native people have not had much time to
develop their system.
We have to remember that on April 1, 1999, five months from now,
we will have a new territory in which the language is going to be
Inuktitut and where 50% or more of all of the employees for
government services, including health services, social services
and community services are going to be Inuit. They are working
very hard with our help now to train the people who are going to
be needed for those public administration posts.
We have not heretofore done enough of that with our aboriginal
people, but we are doing more. I think with practice, with
responsibility, with recognition and a little less emphasis on
some of the negatives we will see before too long some real
results.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have three
minutes before Statements by Members. Perhaps the hon. member
for Vancouver Island North could keep his comments very brief.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is tough to be brief when there has been so much said
that reflects on this side of the House. The NDP-Liberal love-in
on this file seems to continue.
The member talked about the chiefs not trusting the government.
I have news for the member. In The First Perspective, a
first nations magazine, a survey was done and in that survey 83%
of the band members who responded said they did not trust their
own chief and council.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in
any factual information the member has on that issue. I am aware
that there are problems because individual members of native
bands have come before the committee and told us about them.
On investigation, however, some of them proved to be not very
well founded. They also proved to be a matter of opinion, just
as we have in many of our municipalities regarding whether the
mayor did the right thing.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as it is almost 2 o'clock, we
will proceed to Statements by Members and we will take up this
very interesting debate after the question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION WEEK
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to help celebrate National Crime Prevention
Week and encourage crime prevention at the community level.
My community of the Waterloo region has been a pioneer in this
area. In 1993 we founded the Waterloo Regional Community Safety
and Crime Prevention Council which served as a base for the
National Crime Prevention Council, established by the Liberal
government in 1994. In April 1998 we celebrated our 20th justice
dinner in the Waterloo region.
Crime hurts people and makes them feel unsafe. It decreases
quality of life and changes the face of our communities.
The evidence is conclusive. The most effective way to prevent
crime is to ensure healthier children, stronger families, better
schools and more cohesive communities.
The results are less violence, safer communities and significant
cost savings in the justice system and elsewhere.
I congratulate this government and the Waterloo region for their
initiatives in recognizing that crime prevention at the community
level is the way to go.
* * *
BREAK AND ENTER CRIMES
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the justice ministers of Manitoba and of my home province of
Alberta took a leading role in addressing the issue of break and
enter crimes.
Proposed changes include a minimum two year sentence for repeat
offenders and toughening up parole eligibility.
1400
In my riding of Calgary East 80% of break and enter crimes are
committed by the same 4% to 5% of professional criminals. The
police know exactly who these criminals are yet are unable to
stop them because the justice system slaps them on the wrist and
sends these offenders back on to the streets.
Break and enter crimes have emerged as a major concern for the
people in my riding and it is clear that a new approach is
needed. I urge the justice minister today to work with the
provinces on this issue and allow Canadians to reclaim the safety
of their own homes.
* * *
SIKHISM
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Sikh community around the world is
celebrating the 529th birthday of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the first
guru of the Sikh religion.
The basic ethical beliefs that Sikhism holds are democracy,
non-violence, peace, religious identity, hard work, human
equality and justice.
The basic lesson of Guru Nanak's teaching are truthful living,
with emphasis on selfless service, tolerance, compassion, love,
contentment, equality, humbleness and well-being for all.
The goal of a Sikh is not only a spiritual uplift of the
individual but the advancement of all human beings, regardless of
creed, colour or race.
* * *
NATIONAL SENIORS SAFETY WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that November 8 to 14 is National
Seniors Safety Week.
In Canada injury is a major cause of death and hospitalization
among seniors. They account for almost one third of all cases of
hospitalization. Injuries experienced by seniors lead to a loss
of independence, self-imposed inactivity due to fear and anxiety,
admission to an institution and yes, death; not to mention the
psychological and social consequences of these injuries to
individuals. They are immeasurable.
Seniors want to live in safe and supportive environments that
reduce accidental injuries and help seniors maintain their
independence.
I urge everyone to join the Canada Safety Council in promoting
National Seniors Safety Week and its theme for this year,
pedestrian safety, to make living environments safer for all.
[Translation]
I invite you to join me in congratulating the Canada Safety
Council—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has the
floor.
* * *
[English]
POLISH COMMUNITY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Polish Canadians, Poles
worldwide and in particular to the Polish community in my riding
who will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the rebirth of
Poland's independence on November 11.
This day will be celebrated in Poland and throughout Canada by
approximately 600,000 Polish immigrants and their descendants.
After the second world war November 11 was commemorated to
reflect on Poland's proud heritage and dream of being independent
once again. This dream was realized in 1989 with the advent of
the solidarity led government. Since then Poland has made great
progress toward strengthening its democratic institutions and
rebuilding its economy.
Polish immigrants have made significant contributions to our
society, especially during the world wars.
Today veterans organizations form the backbone of the Canadian
Polish Congress which has its seat in High Park and represents
numerous organizations throughout Canada. I am proud to offer my
best wishes.
* * *
CENTRAL AMERICA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since hurricane Mitch ripped through Central American
tens of thousands of people have been killed, hundreds of
thousands left homeless, infrastructure has been destroyed and
crops decimated. One hundred thousand are homeless in Guatemala
alone and diseases such as malaria, typhoid and dysentery will
ravage thousands of people weakened by starvation.
We must act now to ameliorate this disaster and I challenge
Canada, Mexico, the United States, the OAS and the United Nations
to provide urgent essentials such as iodine tablets,
non-perishable foodstuffs, emergency medical equipment and in
particular antibiotics and rehydration supplies.
Helicopters and heavy equipment must be barged down. All must
be acted on now. I also implore hospitals and other private
sector companies and pharmaceutical companies to donate what they
can now.
Act now and we can save lives. Procrastinate and people will
die.
* * *
1405
VETERANS
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
Canadian, as a father of three young children and as a duly
elected member of parliament I want to say thank you to all
veterans of the Great War, World War II and the Korean War, to
those who paid the ultimate price and to those who came back from
these wars and built out great country.
The very fact that we are able to stand in this House,
democratically debate and decide the policy and direction of this
great country is wholly a credit to the sacrifice of our veterans
paid in order to defend our way of life.
My children have grown up in a society that did not have to
experience war. Ours and future generations have the privilege of
living in a free and democratic country. Over 68,000 lives were
lost in defence of these principles. For all these facts and
many more I say thank you, thank you to the veterans of
Simcoe—Grey and thank you to the veterans of Canada.
Veterans, I pledge to you this. The results of your sacrifice
will not be forgotten.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIO TREMBLAY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since 1962, the title of professional portrait photographer of
the year is awarded to the artist whose work receives the
highest marks in the competition organized by the professional
photographers of Canada.
A few weeks ago, this prestigious award was given to Laval
photographer, Mario Tremblay. From among over 1,000 subjects,
an international jury selected four works by Mr. Tremblay, who
accordingly won two prizes—in the female portrait and group
portrait categories.
This is the sixth time a Quebec photographer has won this honour
and it is thanks to artists of their calibre that Quebec
photography is famous. Mr. Tremblay's work bears fine witness
to the fact that excellence in this area, as in so many others,
combines with originality, skill and innovation.
On behalf of the people of Laval Centre, I am proud, Mr.
Tremblay, to recognize your talent.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all Canadian war veterans I am honoured to underline
this year's Veterans Week and Remembrance Day ceremonies. As
members know, this is the fourth year the Prime Minister has
declared the week leading up to Remembrance Day Veterans Week in
Canada. I am proud to participate in Veterans Week. I look
forward to honouring on Remembrance Day the men and women who so
valiantly served our country during the wars throughout this
century.
I draw comfort that all Canadians, including those who reside in
Simcoe North, will on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th
month pledge to honour and remember the selfless sacrifices of
our heroes. Today on behalf of all residents of Simcoe North I
sincerely say thanks and we will remember them.
* * *
JULIANA THIESSEN
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to welcome a very special visitor to Ottawa and to our
gallery. Juliana Thiessen was born in Regina, Saskatchewan. To
be born in the Queen City was an appropriate start for her.
This April Juliana was crowned Miss Canadian Universe and went on
to represent our country at the Miss Universe pageant in Hawaii.
Juliana's beauty is much deeper than her appearance. She is
using her newfound publicity to promote worthy charitable causes.
Here is just one. Juliana is travelling to storm ravaged
Nicaragua next month as part of a charitable relief mission with
Samaritan's Purse, an organization our own son Brent worked with
for several years. Along with many other Canadian volunteers,
Juliana will distribute Christmas gift boxes to children who need
all the help and hope they can get. It is no wonder Juliana was
named as one of Calgary's young women of distinction.
I invite all MPs to join me in welcoming and thanking this
remarkable young woman.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly Mr.
Bouchard is caught in his referendum.
Before students, he shouts loud and long that Quebec must
separate from the rest of Canada. Before another audience, he
back pedals away from his referendum on Quebec independence.
The PQ is maintaining a level of confusion, which is costing
Quebec dearly. This confusion is breeding uncertainty unhealthy
for economic growth and is causing decisions vital to Quebec's
development to be put off.
On November 30, Quebeckers will finally be able to decide once
and for all by voting Liberal, by voting for economic growth and
by voting for an end to the referendum on Quebec separation.
* * *
[English]
MUSEUMS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
it was announced that the Halifax Regional Museum in Dartmouth
will be closing due to lack of operating funding. Recent
announcements from the heritage minister do nothing to address
the crisis of a lack of operating money facing the 2,000 regional
and local museums in Canada. To keep their doors open our
museums are now selling valuable artifacts, auctioning off their
art, cutting staff and reducing hours. Too many are closing.
1410
These museums play a critical role in maintaining our heritage.
Last year there were over 57 million visits to Canadian museums,
more visits than to the movies and professional sports. These
visitors see an all Canadian product for no or low cost.
I call on the Minister of Canadian Heritage to allocate
emergency operating funding now for local and regional museums so
that treasures such as the Halifax Regional Museum may remain
open.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some of the
parties to the pre-budgetary consultations organized by the Bloc
Quebecois in the Quebec City region minced no words in calling
the present government's use of the employment insurance fund
surplus immoral, robbery and the injustice of the century.
While one organization in my region has been forced to hire a
full-time employee to help people with problems related to
employment insurance, the Liberal government is using the
contributions of workers to camouflage the fact that it is
trying to manoeuvre through a fog with nobody at the helm.
I accuse the Minister of Human Resources Development of being an
accomplice of the Minister of Finance in robbing and overtaxing
workers. I accuse him of having diverted funds from the
employment insurance fund for purposes for which they were not
intended. If the minister has a crumb of dignity left, let him
make improvements to this poverty insurance employment insurance
has become.
* * *
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers have a right to know the true intentions of the Parti
Quebecois as far as the referendum on the separation of Quebec
from the rest of Canada is concerned.
Quebec must demand transparency of the Parti Quebecois, must
demand that Lucien Bouchard admit for once and for all that a
vote for the PQ is a vote for a referendum, as the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois has admitted to us.
Quebeckers can also count on the Quebec Liberal Party, whose
option is clear. A vote for the Liberals means no separation of
Quebec from the rest of Canada. A vote for the Liberals means
no referendum on separation. A vote for the Liberals means
Quebec will be assured of the economic growth it needs.
A vote for the Liberals means a government that will work in the
true interests of Quebeckers.
My vote will be for the Liberals, and I invite all Quebec MPs to
follow my example.
* * *
[English]
DOWN'S SYNDROME
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, communities
across Canada officially recognized this week, November 1 to 7,
as National Down's Syndrome Awareness Week.
Down's syndrome is a common chromosomal abnormality that causes
delay in physical and intellectual development and affects 1 out
of every 700 children born in Canada. Given this fact, every
community, including my riding of Markham, has been affected.
The Canadian Down's Syndrome Society is working to raise public
awareness of the unique abilities, strengths and contributions of
Canadians with Down's syndrome. Its mandate is to enhance their
overall quality of life. The society and its 45 affiliate
organizations will be holding a variety events this week to
honour the many individuals who have Down's syndrome.
These Canadians should be duly recognized for their valuable
contribution to Canadian society. Many harmful myths exist about
those who are affected by Down's syndrome. It is time to realize
that these myths are wrong and destructive. The fact is many
individuals with Down's syndrome are productive, happy members of
society.
I am honoured to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
* * *
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE CANADA
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday, November 9 Environmental Science and Technology
Alliance Canada will hold its annual technology day at the
Toronto airport Holiday Inn.
This non-profit, industry led alliance funds research at
Canadian universities. This research is commercially relevant,
highly innovative and consistent with federal government
priorities.
Technology day will showcase current research and allow
technology transfer between university professors, their students
and industry personnel.
We in this place must continue to support this investment
partnership between Canadian industry, Canadian universities and
the federal government.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week federal, provincial and territorial ministers
responsible for justice met in Regina.
Recognizing that organized crime is a serious and growing
problem in Canada, the ministers unanimously endorsed a joint
statement on organized crime. The statement underscores the
ministers' commitment to work together in partnership to combat
this problem.
Under the leadership of the federal government the statement
builds on work already done to develop an effective strategy. The
statement brings Canada one step closer to having a Canada-wide
plan against organized crime.
But ministers recognize that no single group can win this battle
alone.
To win the fight we must work together, pool our resources and
co-ordinate our efforts to become more organized than those who
prey on our communities.
1415
That is why the principles endorsed last week represent such a
milestone for Canada. They represent the resolve of governments,
officials and law enforcement agencies to put their differences
aside, to work together to make Canadians—
The Speaker: Oral questions, the hon. member for Medicine
Hat.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister actually told parliament that he
pays employment insurance taxes. We are willing to give the Prime
Minister the benefit of the doubt. We do not think he was trying
to mislead the House. In fact, we just think he happens to be
living in a fantasy world. He has imaginary homeless friends. He
thinks he is Mark McGwire and now he is pretending to pay taxes
that he does not actually pay.
In the real world, Canadian workers are paying $350 too much for
employment insurance and it hurts. When will the Prime Minister
come back to earth and let Canadians keep that $350?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is the leader of a government which
since it has taken office has reduce EI premiums each and every
single year. The member opposite belongs to a party that
recommended throughout that period that there be no reductions in
premiums, except that it would go to the deficit. Then when they
did admit to a reduction in premiums, they wanted them to go only
to employers and not to employees.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just like George Bush's amazement at a grocery store scanner, the
Prime Minister was amazed to discover that he does not pay EI
taxes. Well we have news for him. Twelve million Canadians do
pay EI taxes and they are getting pretty sick of it.
When will the Prime Minister wake up and give Canadians a $350
tax reduction? It is their money. They deserve it. When is he
going to let them keep it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of waking up and smelling the roses, the hon.
member ought to take a look at what happened last year. There
was a $1.5 billion reduction in EI premiums. Each and every year
since we have taken office we stopped them from going to $3.30.
We froze them at $3.07. Each and every year we brought them down
against the opposition of the Reform.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister is trying to ignore what we are saying here.
Three hundred and fifty dollars might buy a couple of rounds of
golf for the Prime Minister, but it will buy a lot of groceries
for a lot of Canadians. Now he might not feel it, but Canadians
feel it right in their pocketbooks.
The Prime Minister is so out of touch with Canadians that he
does not understand that $350 is a lot of money. Is that the
position of the finance minister and the Prime Minister? Do they
not understand that $350 is a lot of money to a lot of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at this record of the Prime Minister
and of this government. A $42 billion deficit eliminated. The
child tax benefit brought in and increased by $1.8 billion. More
money put into research and development. More money put in to
help poor and moderate income Canadians.
What the Prime Minister has done over the course of the last
five years is to effect a social and economic revolution that
makes this country much the stronger for it.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact of the matter is that this finance minister still
collects $350 too much from every worker and $500 too much from
every employer.
In fact yesterday when talking about the EI premiums, the Prime
Minister stated “If I am not covered, that does not bother me”.
He had to be told by the HRD minister that he does not pay into
the EI fund.
Millions of Canadians pay into this fund and in fact overpay
into this fund. Why will the Prime Minister and the finance
minister not do the right thing and simply give the money back to
hard working Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members of the opposition can repeat the same question
time and time again. It is not going to detract from the
fundamental fact that this government has reduced those premiums
each and every year and the Reform Party opposed it, that the
government has reduced them for both employees and employers and
the Reform Party would leave the employees out in the cold.
1420
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister continues to misrepresent Reform's
position on this matter.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the
word misrepresent.
Mr. Grant McNally: I withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker.
We continue to ask this question of the finance minister because
we are not getting an answer. In fact the Prime Minister, who
probably has not checked his pay stub for over 30 years, might
not think that $350 is a lot of money, but that will buy a lot of
groceries for hard working Canadian families.
Why does the Prime Minister and the finance minister not simply
do the right thing and give hard working Canadians their
hard earned money back? Why not?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is a direct quote from fresh start not in fact
representative of the Reform Party's position, or are Canadians
not entitled to rely on what the Reform Party says? I guess we
know the answer to that one.
The Reform Party's 1995 taxpayers budget is still on its web
site. The Reform Party recommends the establishment of a
permanent reserve fund; until the budget is balanced, funds would
be applied against the deficit. It is still on the web site, or
do Reformers never read their own web site?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister surprised us again yesterday.
He did not even know he was not paying EI premiums. He is not
the only one either. Several of his ministers were unaware of
the fact as well. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Minister of Revenue told me so in person yesterday.
Now that he has the facts, will the Minister of Finance finally
understand why we have been telling him from the beginning that
it is unfair and profoundly immoral to use the EI fund to give
everyone a tax break when not everyone is contributing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just said that, every year since the government took
office, we have lowered EI premiums. It is certainly our
intention to lower them in future.
If I understood correctly, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois is
saying that it is immoral to lower Canadians' taxes. I am
sorry, but that is what we want to do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
profoundly immoral to dip into the pockets of unemployed workers
and those with jobs in order to give a tax break to members here
and to ministers—
An hon. member: Right.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: It is profoundly immoral to protect one's
ships rather than unemployed workers.
An hon. member: Right.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The government has been telling us for weeks
and months that it is studying the matter, but what sort of
study is it doing when ministers and the Prime Minister do not
even know who is contributing to the plan and who is not? What
kind of study is this gang of incompetents doing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we were able to lower taxes in the last budget, $7 billion over
a period of three years, if we were able to remove 400,000
Canadians from Canada's tax roll—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Minister of Finance has the floor.
Hon. Paul Martin: If we were able to lower taxes as we did in
the last budget, and if we are going to be able to lower them in
the next budget, it is because economic activity in our country
is on the upswing; it is because there are more Canadians
working; it is because there are more businesses growing; it is
because the country is in good shape. And all this is because
of the good management of this government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Prime Minister finally learned he does not contribute to EI.
He
told us that, since he did not contribute, he was not covered
and that it did not bother him. Perhaps the Prime Minister is
indeed not bothered by the fact that he does not contribute and
is not covered.
1425
But does the Minister of Finance know that there are thousands
of workers who are bothered about paying premiums and not being
entitled to the benefits of the plan, especially when they know
that he is preparing to lower our taxes with their
contributions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the
opposition here that the Prime Minister is not the only one not
to pay EI premiums. No elected official in Canada, no mayor, no
city councillors, no Bloc Quebecois members, pay premiums, and I
would point out to the opposition—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I would also point out to
the member for Roberval that 78% of workers are covered by the
employment insurance system, contrary to what he is trying to
insinuate once again in this House in order to upset the workers
who are still covered by the system.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know there
are things that cannot be said here, but I would simply give the
minister a warning. For the last time, I ask him to stop
repeating what he has just said.
It is clearly stated on page 47 of the study you commissioned—
The Speaker: I wish to remind the hon. member that remarks must
always be addressed to the Chair.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly advise the
minister once and for all to read his own studies. The figures
provided on page 47 are wrong.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 78% of workers who have lost
their job or left it for a valid reason are covered by the
Canada employment insurance system.
The point the Bloc keeps trying to make is that people who have
never contributed to the employment insurance system, young
people who are newly arrived in the labour market and those who
have left their jobs without a valid reason are not covered by
the system. These are the people they are talking about.
Seventy-eight per cent of workers are covered; that is the real
figure.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health claims that he opposes the American style two
tier health care system. Yet we have details of a
federal-provincial agreement that this government has entered
into with Alberta to expand opportunities for private sector
involvement in medicare.
Which is it? Does the government support increasing
privatization of health care or does it not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal Party of Canada introduced medicare in this country.
The Liberal Party of Canada is responsible for medicare. This is
a government that is committed to its principles, committed to
the best and most responsive public health care system in the
world. That is our philosophy. That is our commitment. That is
exactly what we intend to do.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about what is actually happening to health care in this
country. The minister claims that he views privatization as a
threat. Yet this government entered into a deadly pact that will
kill our public health care system, a pact that is a virtual
road map to privatization.
To protect the integrity of medicare, will the health minister
agree today to renegotiate that deadly pact?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member does not know what she is talking about. I am the
Minister of Health who wrote to the College of Physicians and
Surgeons in Alberta to express our opposition to the
privatization of hospitals in Alberta.
There are two ways to kill medicare. You can do what the Reform
Party wants to do and repeal the Canada Health Act, or you can do
what the NDP wants to do and bankrupt the country by refusing to
make the tough decisions to prioritize and invest where
investment is needed.
This government knows how to do it. We will reinvest in health
care. We will ensure the future of medicare in this country.
* * *
1430
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, lawyers representing the RCMP at the complaints
commission will ask the federal court to quash the commission's
hearings. This further compromises the credibility of the
commission which never had the mandate to investigate political
interference in the first place.
I have a question for the solicitor general. Who are the
government lawyers taking their instructions from? What is the
purpose of continuing this charade? When are we to have a
judicial independent inquiry that gets at the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I refer to a news release issued yesterday by the
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association which reads:
We continue to believe that the Commission can bring to light all
the evidence about the RCMP's conduct during the APEC conference
at UBC last year, and the federal government's role in that
conduct. We want our complaints heard.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. In an absurd move
the Nova Scotia government made a deal to force its
public-private partnership through on the Trans-Canada Highway
under which the Nova Scotia government signed over control of the
speed limit, the weight restrictions and the policing on the
Trans-Canada Highway to a company whose major shareholder is
Hercules Holdings in the Cayman Islands.
This company has more control over the Trans-Canada Highway in
Nova Scotia than the minister of transportation for the province
of Nova Scotia.
Will the minister make his announcement yesterday retroactive to
the highways of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick regarding
restrictions on toll proposals for the Trans-Canada Highway?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member is asking this
question today. We had two hours in committee yesterday. I told
him that what the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia governments had
done with respect to the tolls on sections of the highways in
those provinces was perfectly legitimate and within the powers of
the provinces to put into effect. They did not violate any
federal-provincial agreements.
I also said that we would look at all future federal-provincial
cost sharing to take into account private-public partnerships as
to whether or not federal funds should be allotted to such
highways where tolls are levied.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has been introduced to his
paystub even he might notice that the CPP payroll taxes will take
still another hike on January 1. That will destroy thousands
more jobs, jobs Canadians desperately need.
Will the finance minister save those jobs by returning the EI
overpayment that he has been scheming to keep?
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to be very judicious in
their choice of words. I will let the hon. minister answer the
question.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the underlying basis of the hon. member's question is
that she is advocating Reform's traditional position that the
Canada pension plan be destroyed. That will not happen.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government, together
with the provincial government, put in place a plan that will
make sure the Canada pension plan is there for young Canadians as
it was for their parents.
We will continue to do that because it is upon the confidence of
the Canada pension plan that Canadian entrepreneurs will start
business and that Canadians will have confidence in their future.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is clearly blinded by his own prejudices
about our position which he continually misrepresents. I said
nothing about Canada pension plan premiums. I am talking about
the overpayment that workers are making into EI and that the
minister is trying to get his hands on and keep.
Will the minister offset the job destruction of the CPP payroll
tax by returning the moneys that are clearly being overpaid into
the EI fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as the EI premiums are concerned, I have already
answered that question some five times. Obviously what the
member is driving at, because she repeated it again in the
preamble to her supplementary, has to do with the CPP premiums.
The fundamental fact is that economist after economist across
the country has said that it is the confidence in the Canada
pension plan that will create jobs because Canadians will know
that it will be there for them. The Reform Party simply refuses
to understand the true reality of the Canadian economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, an owner of six restaurant franchises in my
riding, Claude Rioux, wrote me as follows: “I am completely
against using the money in the EI fund to pay for anything but
employment insurance. The government must lower premiums, or it
will continue to hurt job creation”.
1435
If the Minister of Human Resources Development does not like a
few home truths from the Bloc Quebecois, what does he have to
say to this employer in my riding who is dead set against his
policies?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank Mr. Rioux for
sharing his point of view with us. I can assure him that what
he thinks is important in the present debate and that we will
bear it in mind.
Obviously, no decision has yet been taken. There are decisions
ahead of us; that is the role of government. I know that
opposition members do not have to worry about running the
country. It is an extremely difficult thing to do, and there
are difficult choices to be made.
We could be irresponsible and do any old thing. There are
difficult decisions ahead of us and we will make them in the
best interests of Canadians.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the President of Treasury Board
smilingly told journalists that they were getting to the heart
of the matter when they said that the EI plan was becoming a tax
on jobs.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development aware that his
portfolio is being taken over by all his colleagues, people who
do not even know how the system operates?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): That is absolutely not the case, Mr. Speaker.
Another thing one knows as a member of government is that one
must be a team player. We know what a team is. We are a team
and that is the advantage of working as a team. Bloc Quebecois
members would perhaps like to know how to work as a team. We
could show them.
This side of the House will be governing in the best interest of
workers. We are going to continue to introduce measures to help
young people enter the job market.
Getting Canadians into the job market remains a priority of this
government.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1993 two Canadian soldiers were killed while on duty in Bosnia.
According to access to information documents their commanding
officer, General MacInnis, allowed their bodies to lie in a
basement unattended for three days before being prepared to come
back to Canada.
Given General MacInnis' disrespect for his soldiers, can the
minister explain why this general is now teaching ethics and
leadership to the next generation of senior officers at the
Canadian forces college in Toronto?
Some hon. members: Cheap.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think cheap is correct. I think we saw
a demonstration of it yesterday by that party and by that member
in a shameful exploitation of people who served in the Canadian
forces.
As to this specific matter I do not rely upon any information
that he would give and I will certainly check into the matter.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
40 other officers and soldiers witnessed this horrible sight.
Instead of disciplining the general the government gave him a
lucrative contract to teach his brand of twisted ethics to other
officers. Why?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were really interested
in an answer he would have submitted this information previously.
What he is doing is casting aspersions on a senior officer of
the Canadian forces. I think that is shameful. Any of these
accusations will be looked into.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the
Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec has come to
Ottawa to support the Bloc Quebecois's initiative of introducing
a bill on opting out of the millennium scholarship plan with
full compensation.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to
support this initiative and thus comply with the wishes of the
Quebec students, who do not want anything to do with the
millennium scholarship program?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, students will be very glad to have assistance from the
Canadian government for their studies.
At any rate, the National Assembly voted unanimously on an
arrangement that has been approved by the Canadian government
and does not contain any right to opt out with financial
compensation.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the Quebec
students want is scholarships based on need, not scholarships
based on merit. That is what they want.
1440
Even certain members of cabinet are not doing a very good job at
disguising their desire to respect the wishes of the Quebec
coalition and to allow Quebec to withdraw from the millennium
scholarship program, receive its financial share, and use it
according to its priorities.
Why is the Minister of Human Resources Development still
obstinately rejecting the Quebec consensus on this matter?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not presume to speak for all students, as the hon.
member has.
Let us look at the figures. Since education is what we are
talking about, from 1994 to 1998, the PQ government made cuts in
education of around 8%, while other provinces were putting 10.8%
more into education.
Political choices were made, and the political uncertainty has
cost Quebec and Quebec students dearly.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform's defence critic was not casting aspersions on the
soldiers. He was casting aspersions on the minister and the
government.
Yesterday the minister said he cared about military personnel.
He has now had 24 hours to look into Matt Stopford's case so he
must be aware that his officials removed the doctor's report
which indicated Matt Stopford had been exposed to radioactive
waste while serving in Bosnia.
Has the minister instructed officials to return the doctor's
report so Matt Stopford can get the medical attention he
deserves?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter of pensions is a matter of
privacy. It is a matter that is before the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
As to the other allegations, those are matters that are being
looked into. I do not rely on what members of the Reform Party
say. Most of the time they get it quite wrong.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Matt
Stopford has a copy of the doctor's report that was put in his
file originally. When he had this file returned under access to
information the report was missing. The minister ought to know
that. He has had 24 hours to look into this matter.
There are 3,200 other soldiers at least who were exposed to this
radioactive waste. Will the minister ensure that the doctor's
reports are returned to their files so they get the medical
pensions they deserve?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again those are allegations. I believe
they are creating unnecessary harm. They are fear-mongering and
creating harm for our armed forces personnel. Without the
evidence they are just shameful allegations.
Any case that is brought to our attention will be properly
examined and an appropriate response will be given.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we had to
wait until the Minister of the Environment was actually at the
Kyoto conference on greenhouse gases before we learned what
Canada's position was.
Now the minister is leaving for Buenos Aires and this is her
last day in the House before her departure.
Would the minister be good enough to tell the House what she
will be saying, on behalf of Canada, at the meeting in Buenos
Aires?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the meeting that will be taking place
next week, which is now in place in Buenos Aires, is very
important for Canada and the world.
Canada will be taking a leading role in helping international
communities to develop timetables and targets for the reduction
of greenhouse gases through defining flexibility mechanisms.
We will also be encouraging developing nations to take a role
and to help them to understand how this issue is a win, win, win
situation. It is a win for the environment, a win for
sustainable development in development countries, and a win for
our economy and our goal to achieve greenhouse gas reductions.
* * *
[Translation]
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the secretary of state responsible for the
economic development of Quebec.
We are all aware that technological innovation is essential to
this country's economy. Among the sectors of technological
development that are located in the Montreal region, the
Biotechnology Research Institute and the Space Agency play an
important role.
What then is the government doing, not just to assist
technological development in this region, but also to continue
to enhance it?
1445
Hon. Martin Cauchon
(Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for
the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his important question, which demonstrates the importance
this government attaches to the greater Montreal region.
Since February 1996, we have developed a five-point response
strategy which has enabled us to take action in one of the
fundamental areas, science and technology.
In this connection, I take pride in saying that this government
has invested in excess of $650 million in the greater Montreal
region, for a total of over $2 billion in investments. As a
result, we have been able to create or maintain 9,500 jobs at
Behaviour Communications, the Biotechnology Research Institute,
and Bombardier, to name but a few.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the APEC commission has turned into an expensive joke.
Yesterday lawyers for the RCMP announced that they are going to
ask a judge to remove the commission's chairman because he is
biased.
The RCMP believes the commission is biased. The students
believe it is biased. The public believes it is biased. The
Prime Minister and his government are the only people happy with
the commission because it is covering the Prime Minister's
tracks.
Why will the Prime Minister not appoint an independent judicial
inquiry to look into his involvement at APEC?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to interfere with this process once it has commenced by
virtue of a complaint issued by a complainant would be political
interference of the worst kind. We will not do it.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first the Prime Minister directed police involvement at APEC.
Then he refused to answer any questions about it. He set up a
toothless commission without real court powers to look into it.
The solicitor general allegedly prejudges the commission and the
Prime Minister refuses to release any key evidence. He refuses
to pay the students' lawyers. Finally, the commission chair may
have jeopardized the outcome of the inquiry.
When are we going to get an independent judicial inquiry from
this government?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the real question is: When will we allow the
commission to get to the truth and past all of this political
rhetoric?
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. This
morning in Regina his colleague, the minister of agriculture,
speaking to a UGG convention, said that the net farm income of
Saskatchewan farmers has dropped 70% in 1998 and will probably
get worse in 1999.
This is a real crisis that demands immediate action. I do not
believe farmers can wait until the February budget.
Instead of waiting for the February budget, can the minister
tell us when we can expect an announcement from the government of
a national disaster relief program for prairie farmers?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
afternoon the minister of agriculture convened a meeting with his
counterparts in the provinces and with farm leaders to discuss
the very serious question of the downturn in farm incomes.
Today the deputy ministers are meeting. The next steps will be
taken. We are addressing the problem of farm incomes.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Poverty and homelessness in
the Shamattawa First Nation have led to a suicide and solvent
abuse crisis. There have been over 100 suicide attempts since
1992. Eighty per cent of the community's youths, children as
young as four, are addicted to solvents.
On September 10 Chief Paddy Massen urgently appealed to Indian
affairs for treatment beds and a healing centre to address these
urgent health needs. It has been two months and he has heard
nothing.
Why has this government ignored this first nation's appeal?
When will it take direct measures to address these problems in
Shamattawa and in other first nations?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for the question.
The Government of Canada is concerned about the level of
poverty, in particular in the community of Shamattawa. We are
very aware of the problems in this first nation. They have been
going on for many years. We are working closely with the first
nation's community to resolve these issues, as we are in a number
of other communities.
I share the member's concern about the children and the gas
sniffing. I can assure all members of this House that we are
working diligently on these problems and we will address them.
* * *
SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in September the auditor general reported that our social
insurance number system was in total disarray.
1450
According to the auditor general there are approximately 311,000
valid social insurance numbers for persons over 100 years of age,
even though most of these individuals are deceased.
Related fraud cases are costing Canadian taxpayers millions of
dollars. Not one department is willing to take responsibility
for SIN reform. Not one department has given the taxpayers a
timetable for the completion of this project.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development step forward,
take responsibility and act now?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very clear
yesterday when I said that my department was the lead ministry on
this file.
We have already begun to address the situation by setting up
five working groups. One will be involved in cleaning up the
registries. It involves working with the provinces, as they are
responsible for births and deaths. They keep those registries.
We need that information.
We are already working very hard at improving the security
features of the card.
I also hope the standing committee of the House will help us.
We are making major improvements in this area. To do a better
job we need the assistance of our colleagues in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government says it has no money for the victims of hepatitis C,
it has no money for the unemployed, it has no money for farmers,
it has no money for health care.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development explain why
his government can afford to pay out millions of dollars to
people making fraudulent use of social insurance numbers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear
that we have begun to work very hard to eliminate this fraud.
We have considerably stepped up our efforts in this regard.
I would however like to return to the premise of the question
asked by the opposition member: that we have no money for
workers and for the unemployed. We have considerably increased
funding for active measures to help them return to the labour
market—up to $2 billion annually.
In the next two years, we will increase the tax credit by $1.7
billion in order to improve the situation of children living in
poor families. We have invested $300 million in the
transitional jobs fund. These are achievements—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
All Canadians share the pain of the people of Honduras and
Nicaragua. We are pleased, moreover, that the Canadian
government has contributed $1 million in aid.
But I would like to know what the minister's intentions are with
respect to future permanent residence or visitor visa
applications by people from these countries.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying how
distressed the people of Canada are by the dreadful consequences
of the hurricane on the lives of thousands of people in Central
America. That is why Canada is monitoring the situation closely
and providing the aid we can afford.
As for immigrant applications for family reunification, visitor
visas or student visas, I can assure the members of this House
that steps will be taken to ensure that all necessary
humanitarian consideration is given in such situations.
In addition, people from these countries who are currently
visiting Canada have the possibility of extending their visitor
visas at this time.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at a
meeting I attended yesterday, the members for Davenport and
Lac-Saint-Louis accused Health Canada of incompetence, negligence
and using Canadians as guinea pigs regarding the use of the
manganese gasoline additive MMT.
During the MMT debate in the House, Health Canada categorically
stated that MMT did not pose a threat to the health of Canadians.
I ask the health minister: Who is telling the truth, Health
Canada or these two members?
The Speaker: I will let that question stand, but we are
getting close.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
he may be getting close, but he is not getting close to the
truth.
The truth is that Health Canada—
The Speaker: I wish we were playing horseshoes. The hon.
minister is now even.
1455
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, Health Canada oversaw the
work done on research into MMT and the health effects. We made
the results of that research available to other departments.
Indeed, work continues to examine the health effects on humans,
in particular children, with respect to MMT. As that science is
done, using research not only here in Canada but around the
world, we will continue to make the results available to those
who are making policy.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN PASSPORT
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the new
incident involving passports shows there is a problem
controlling the circulation of Canadian passports, but not
necessarily a problem of passport security per se. The minister
says this is the most secure passport in the world.
If the passport is so safe, why is the Minister of Foreign
Affairs preparing to take away the contract of the Spexel
company in Beauharnois to supply security paper in favour of
foreign countries?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we review the technology of passports on a five year
basis. No other country does that, but we think it is
appropriate in order to keep up in the most modern way possible.
What we are now working on is a new photo digital imaging system
which would make it virtually impossible to forge any kind of
passport. That will require a very different technology. Of
course, all that technology will be available for bid by Canadian
companies and I hope that we will be in a position to start
distributing it to Canadians next year.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the health minister.
Now that the government has addressed the legal challenge
surrounding MMT by paying Ethyl Corporation $20 million, when
will the minister table the report that endorsed MMT? When will
the study begin, a comprehensive study with money, to determine
the health risks to Canadian children?
Hon. Allan Rock (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have already said, work continues on research and the effects
of MMT, which is a subject of inquiry not only in Canada but
around the world.
As more is known about the health effects of MMT, government
policy will reflect those research results.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week I
asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for a firm
commitment on aid for Canada's farmers, in particular those
drought stricken farmers in my riding of West Nova. His reply
was to wait until he met with his provincial counterparts on
November 4.
Today the parliamentary secretary said that the deputy ministers
are meeting to discuss the issue.
How much longer will our farmers have to wait before the
government steps in with some kind of emergency relief?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated, the three partners in agriculture, the federal
government, the provincial governments and the producers, did
meet yesterday. They recognize the extent of the downturn and
the impact it is having on Canadian farmers. That was only the
first step. It was a major step.
The hon. member's problem is being addressed through that
process. In due time I think he will be very pleased with the
results.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada has signed a United Nations accord on heavy
metals, committing Canada to reduce emissions of mercury, cadmium
and lead by 50% over eight years.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment and
ask her when targets and timetables for the reduction and
elimination of these metals in Canada are likely to be announced.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for the
health of Canadians. The protocol that we signed in Norway in
June will be ratified by us before the end of this year.
The impact of this will be that it will prevent a lot of heavy
metals coming into Canada from abroad. But Canada will continue
to take its own actions. We have reduced levels of mercury to
64% below 1980 levels already, well beyond the protocol
requirements.
We will continue to reduce levels of mercury. We are working
through the harmonization agreement with ministers of the
environment of the provinces and we will be making our
announcement—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
THE HOMELESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Homelessness has reached crisis proportions across Canada. In
response, apparently a cabinet committee will study the issue. I
will save it the time.
Two hundred thousand Canadians are homeless. The lucky ones
find temporary beds in shelters. Thousands of others sleep on
park benches and huddle in doorways for warmth.
We know what keeps them there. No federal funding and no support
for social housing.
1500
Will the Prime Minister scrap the hypocritical doublespeak and
commit real dollars to the homelessness emergency in Canada?
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the
word hypocritical, please.
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I will.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government is concerned with the problems of
poverty in this country, including homelessness. Federal
ministers are looking at the matter. They are working on it with
provincial counterparts. The important thing is to recognize
what we have already begun doing through the child tax benefit,
for example. That is producing now and in future years an
additional one and a half billion dollars to help poor families
and children. That shows our concern, that shows our commitment.
It goes beyond the words of the hon. member. I cannot say they
are hypocritical because the Speaker—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to withdraw the word
hypocritical.
Hon. Herb Gray: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: This has been a rather good week for us
in parliament in the sense of the visitors we have welcomed.
I draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery
of a group of Canadian performing artists of extraordinary talent
and accomplishment. They have devoted their lives to enriching
our cultural lives in Canada.
[Translation]
They received the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards for
1998, the highest tribute Canada can pay to performers.
[English]
I will call out your names, my dear recipients, and I would like
you to stand and be recognized by the House: Paul Buissonneau,
Bruce Cockburn, Rock Demers, Arnold Spohr, Jon Vickers, Joseph
Shoctor, and a group we will all recognize, the cast of the Royal
Canadian Air Farce with Roger Abbott, Don Ferguson, Luba Goy and
John Morgan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: There will be a reception for this group in
Room 216. I invite all of you to meet the recipients.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as deputy opposition House leader I rise on behalf of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ask the government House leader the
agenda for the next sitting week and the remainder of this week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is no doubt the best question asked today. Today we
will continue with the second reading of Bill C-49, the first
nation lands bill. In the event that this is completed we will
then resume Bill C-48, the marine parks bill.
Friday we will take up the Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the
Judges Act. If any time is left we will then return to measures
on which debate has begun today but has not yet been completed,
including Bill C-49, should that not be completed, Bill C-48 and
Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims bill.
Next week is a recess week for Remembrance Day. On Monday after
the recess we will continue with Bill C-37, should that debate
not have been completed. We will then consider report stage and
third reading of Bill C-53, the small business bill if this
available, in other words if it has returned from parliamentary
committee on time. Otherwise, we will take up the report stage
and third reading of Bill C-42, the Tobacco Act amendments.
On Tuesday we will consider report stage and third reading of
Bill C-53 if this has not already been completed. With any time
left we will continue with measures on which the debate has begun
but not yet completed in the following order of priority: Bill
C-42 and then Bill C-48, Bill C-49 and Bill C-56. On Wednesday we
would continue with whatever is left of the agenda I have just
described.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order regarding a motion that was passed
yesterday evening. The motion adopted the 13th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The report had all-party agreement at the committee level and
yesterday was adopted unanimously in the House. The report
recommended standing order changes regarding Private Members'
Business.
Mr. Speaker plays a very important role in this matter. You are
the protector of the private member and the keeper of our rules.
In my point of order I will argue that some of the
recommendations in the report could clearly be implemented now
and some may require the assistance of your clerks to draft
standing order changes.
I argue that recommendations Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8 should be
implemented immediately. These changes are very briefly as
follows.
When a division is taken on a private member's item, the calling
of the vote will begin with the sponsor and will then proceed
beginning with the back row on the sponsor side of the House and
then the back row on the other side of the House. This
recommendation is intended to protect private members from being
intimidated by the front benches.
There is now a process in place whereby a law clerk and a
parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons will be appointed
to be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting
services for members.
That person or persons will be provided with sufficient staff.
1510
Priority will now be given to the drafting of private members'
bills and motions for members who have not previously had a bill
drafted during that session of parliament.
Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 would require standing order
changes. I will comment briefly on these changes.
An item outside the order of precedence that has been jointly
seconded by 100 members will be placed at the bottom of the order
of precedence. If a bill or motion has merit, it will now move
forward instead of being subjected to the lottery draw which is
often frustrating and humiliating for the sponsor.
There is protection from the threat of prorogation. A private
member can now reintroduce a bill at this stage.
The Speaker: We are sort of getting into the debate and
the explanation. I would hope the hon. member would stay focused
on the point we are discussing now rather than getting into the
merits or whatever it is. If the hon. member wants to point out
something to the Chair I am more than willing to listen, but his
point should be quite succinct. I would ask him to direct himself
to that and maybe take another minute to wrap up.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Since
the one I described is not a government initiative but a report
drafted and adopted independently by members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and subsequently adopted
independently by the House, the onus to implement these rules
changes is on Mr. Speaker.
Last June the House asked the Clerk to draft new rules regarding
changes to the supply process. When the House returned in
September these rules were in place. There was no need for a
second step since the request was clear and the House order was
in place.
The circumstances today are identical. We are coming up to a
break week. I would like to know if the rules recommended in the
13th report that require standing order drafting could be in
place by the time the House resumes on November 16.
I would also like Mr. Speaker to confirm my observations as to
which rules are now in place and do not need a standing order
change.
I suggest that when these rules are drafted, you solicit the
support from private members and avoid the usual solicitation
from the party leadership, particularly the cabinet. The cabinet
has absolutely no say in this matter of Private Members'
Business.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and
address the point. If I understood correctly, what the hon.
member is trying to get at is that he has now recognized that the
passage by rather surreptitious means yesterday afternoon of a
report does not change the standing orders the way he initially
thought it did and now he is asking the Speaker to change them
unilaterally. That is what I understand his point to be.
I read the eight clauses of the committee and my reading tells
me that six of them require an actual drafting of rule changes.
The drafting presumably would have to be approved by the House
afterwards because draft rule changes are not in six of the eight
items that refer to particular changes. The other ones I
recognize are matters which are under the purview of the Speaker
or the administration of the House, but six of them have
particularly to do with the rule changes.
If the hon. member across sees fit to raise this issue with the
Speaker, it is because he has recognized that this artificial way
of getting this motion through yesterday did not change the rules
the way he initially thought it did, otherwise he would not have
to bring it up right now.
Now he has asked if the Speaker or others will arrange to have
actual words put in place in time for the House to come back.
1515
Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour, the clerk or anyone else around
here wants to prepare draft rule changes, that is certainly their
prerogative. My submission to the Chair respectfully is that
once those draft rule changes have been prepared by the Chair,
assuming that the Chair would be so inclined, it would be up to
the House to decide whether or not it likes those draft rule
changes. If it does, subsequently it would adopt those draft
rule changes if and when it sees fit to do so.
The mere fact that the member has raised this today in the House
does not change the rules of the House. Heaven forbid if we ever
get into a situation where one member of the Reform Party decides
himself to change the rules for the rest of us around here,
democracy would take a beating that day.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this point of order
in support of the Reform member's recommendation.
First of all, this is a report that we as the House of Commons
moved concurrence in last night, which we have the authority to
do. Second, it is a report that was tabled from the procedure and
House affairs committee of which I am a member and on which the
Liberals have a majority membership. It was approved by that
particular committee and tabled in this very House.
I am puzzled as to why the hon. government House leader would
make reference to “artificial means” or “surreptitious means”
when it came to making this particular report something that is
going to be substantive and that will convert into actual rule
changes. His definition of surreptitious means is that a motion
was moved in the House last evening and the motion was given
unanimous consent. Every single member of parliament who was in
the House last night gave unanimous consent to have this
particular report embraced and adopted. If the government House
leader calls that surreptitious, we have a huge problem in this
country because it was a democratic decision. It was nowhere
near surreptitious.
What is surreptitious is when the government House leader stands
in this House and attacks democracy like that from behind the
cover of his cabinet post.
My view is that the report was tabled by a committee dominated
by Liberal MPs. It was embraced by all MPs in that committee, of
which the chief government whip is a member. We are now asking
to have all of these recommendations of the report made into
standard operating procedures of the House of Commons effective
as soon as possible.
I would support the Reform Party's move on the basis of those
particular points.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
certainly like to concur with what the member just said in the
sense that what we are talking about here is some pretty basic
democracy.
This is a decision that has been made by this House. It is
definitely in the interest of private members and private members
who are largely marginalized in this House by the rules. Those
rules were suggested to be changed by the committee.
I take great umbrage at the House leader making the implication
that somehow what we are doing is wrong. What the government is
doing is wrong. When a motion has been presented in the House,
when concurrence has been moved, and then the government does not
act at all on it is what is in violation of democracy.
I concur very, very heartily with what my NDP colleague has said
and I certainly concur with the point of order.
1520
The Speaker: As we all know the sequence
of events, this matter occurred late yesterday afternoon.
I had reviewed the situation before coming in, but now that I
have heard further information from you, my colleagues, I wonder
if you would give me a few hours. I will come back to the House
today. I will make a decision on this particular matter before
adjournment today. With your concurrence of course I will take
time.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
point of order concerns a couple of rulings today and I am
looking for some consistency. Before I am finished I will bring
up a point from an earlier edition of debates.
The word “misrepresent” was used twice today. My colleague,
the member for Dewdney—Alouette was required to withdraw the
word “misrepresent” when it was used in his second question. In
a later question the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill was
allowed to continue speaking when the word “misrepresent” was
used in her second question.
I would like to point out that in the Debates of October
10, 1980, page 3591 the then Minister of National Health used the
words “that she is misleading the House”. The member for Yukon
at the time raised the question and the Speaker ruled that this
expression was allowed provided it was not qualified by the words
“intentionally” or “deliberately”.
I think it would be consistent if we applied that rule to the
word “misrepresent” so that members of this House might know if
that word is acceptable. It is possible to misrepresent someone
not even intentionally and I do not think it is necessarily
unparliamentary to say so.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for bringing
that up.
A few weeks ago we had the question of some words being used in
a certain context. As you know, many times here in the Chair
when these words come up, sometimes they cause a disorder in the
House and sometimes they do not.
As a general rule there is no word which in and of itself is
unparliamentary. I should not have but I gave the explanation
the last time how to use the word “liar” and then lo and behold
it was brought in virtually the next day.
All this to say that it has to do not only with the word but it
has to do with the tone and with the context and if there is any
disorder caused in the House.
As you pointed out and rightly so my colleague, there are
certain times when the word “misrepresent” can be unintentional
and perhaps that is conveyed in the tone with which it is
delivered. At another time “misrepresent” could be taken that
it is a very serious accusation. That has always been left to
the Speaker to decide.
I cannot give you any greater direction other than to say that
when a word is used, if I feel that it is unparliamentary in the
sense that it is causing a disorder in the House and disruption,
then usually I will interrupt. Sometimes I will ask for a
withdrawal. Witness the word “hypocritical” today. I should
not even use those words in the sense that I know I am going to
be faced with them probably next week. I would prefer that these
words not be used.
On the other hand what are you to do? You have to use words to
express yourself, so I am left with deciding at that time in that
usage is it unparliamentary or not. I guess that is the best I
can do to give you direction on that. Good luck the next time
that you use it.
A final point of order, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
1525
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of the hon. government
House leader's recitation of the business. On Tuesday the
government House leader indicated that Bill S-13 would be a
matter for discussion at the House leader's meeting. That did in
fact take place.
I am asking now if the government House leader will confirm that
it is not the government's intention to assume responsibility for
the carriage of Bill S-13. As well, is the government stating
that it will not provide time for debate on this particular bill
in this House?
The Speaker: I take that as a question of
clarification and I am going to permit it. I am going to permit
it because it had to do with a statement which was made by the
government House leader.
I think in these circumstances because there was a referral to
Tuesday's business, if the hon. government House leader wishes to
address himself to it, and I do not want to get into a debate and
I do not want another question and answer, I am going to permit
the government House leader to answer this question if he so
wishes.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all Bill S-13 is not a
government bill so the government does not call it. Precedence
for private members' bills either from this House or the other
place is derived by way of the subcommittee of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs charged with private
members' business.
We are hardly in a position to debate this bill on the floor of
the House. It has not been introduced.
The Speaker: I hope that this is some clarification.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
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.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are some legitimate concerns about Bill C-49. It
goes to the heart of some of the things that were being said
prior to question period.
The British Columbia Native Women's Society has complained quite
bitterly about this legislation. I want to quote a few of the
things they have said in their letter. They are very important.
To put this in context, B.C. native women have already been
through an experiment promoted by the federal government in 1992
and 1993. A native justice pilot program was started on southern
Vancouver Island. It came to a rapid, screeching halt after a lot
of politically correct thought went into trying to create a
system that would be sensitive to the native communities.
What ended up happening in that grandiose experiment was that
people who committed grievous offences in aboriginal communities
in that area, largely men, were found right back in the same
community the day after their sentencing. The old rules were
thrown out, the justice system was thrown out, and a new system
more sensitive to the needs of that community was put in place
run by the very cronies of the people that were perpetrating the
offences.
Guess who were the loudest complainants and the ones that got
this travesty stopped? It was the native women. When we look at
who is organizing, who tends to be out front in trying to correct
the wrongs that are happening in great abundance on some of our
reserves, who do we find at the forefront? We find native women.
They may not belong to a formal organization or they may be
fighting to establish a formal organization. Whatever the case
may be, we had better listen because they have something to say
and they have everything stacked against them.
1530
The Canadian Human Rights Act is a basic and fundamental piece
of legislation which we would assume covers all Canadians. It
does not. It excludes any discrimination flowing from the Indian
Act. That is a big problem. It does not protect native women
from many of the things they are complaining about. They cannot
win if they have everything stacked against them. I will quote
from the letter:
Whenever we find inequality under the terms of the Indian Act we
find that the Indian Act is dependent upon defining who is a
status Indian. In order to do that it goes through great
gyrations. When governments certify ethnic or racial status it
can become very complicated. It does not matter how hard
government tries. There will be inequality in the definition of
status Indian. I does not matter who designs the system. It
could never be designed not to lead to some form of inequality.
It tends to be stacked against Indian women. It is also stacked
against others.
This has many permutations in how other legislation that affects
aboriginals because the definition of status Indian is a basic
building block. It is an inappropriate way to do things.
Every piece of legislation over time has taken away sections of
the Indian Act, including the most comprehensive and contemporary
treaty in Canada, the Nisga'a agreement in northwestern British
Columbia. Only one part of the Indian Act is kept under that
agreement. We do not have to guess what part of the Indian Act
it is. They kept the part that defines who is an Indian because
the whole thing will unravel if they do not have some form of
definition. It is an artificial definition. The longer things
go on and the more human nature exhibits itself, the more
dysfunctional the whole arrangement will become.
Many things have been said today by members of other parties.
There is always an attempt to pigeon hole and stereotype. It
very discouraging that people like to do that when talking to an
issue that is potentially charged with racial overtones because
we are talking about status Indians and the Indian Act.
They love to stereotype and try to pigeon hole where one is
coming from. This is why I was greatly concerned about what the
member for Churchill was saying earlier concerning what motivates
members of the Reform Party in terms of some of this legislation.
1535
There is an unholy alliance which I describe as a love-in
between the Liberals and the NDP on some aboriginal legislation.
I remind members of the House that we are now in the second
parliament of this administration and we have yet to see a piece
of aboriginal legislation that originated with the government.
All the legislation we saw in the last parliament and what we
are seeing in this parliament is legislation initiated in the
days when Brian Mulroney and the Tories were in government. All
their initiatives are still being milked. All their excesses are
still coming out from the legislative boiler room, wherever it
might be. There are no original ideas. There is no new
direction. It is apparent that is what is needed.
Further, the bill we are dealing with right now dates back a
number of years. I cannot locate all the details, but this
legislation under different formats has been worked on for a
number of years. A lot of money flowed to participants who were
developing a proposal that was turned into legislation. It is a
very expensive initiative. It probably cost several millions of
dollars. It could be over $10 million. It seems like that is
always the case. Very little is accomplished for an awful lot of
money, and I have concerns about that.
We all know that there is very enlightened band governance in
Canada. We could all name examples. We recognize that the
current policy framework of the department of Indian affairs is
ineffective in allowing people to get rid of unenlightened
governance.
When we cannot get rid of the bad apples the barrel tends to get
tainted. That is what we are trying to change. We want all
accountability mechanisms to be put in place because that is what
people deserve. In actual fact we are finding out that is what
people want. It is only the established powers that tend to
resist because the status quo serves them quite well.
Bill C-49 purports to provide for the establishment of an
alternative land management regime that gives first nations
community control over the lands and resources within their
reserves. In other words, Bill C-49 was drafted to give
aboriginal people more control over the lands they occupy.
I have some very major concerns about the bill.
The framework agreement on first nations land management will be
ratified by Bill C-49. It extends to band governance broader
powers than those extended to municipal governments under the
various provincial-municipal acts. This is very troubling,
especially from a local perspective. After all, it is at the
local level that lives are lived. That is where things get done.
That is where co-operation is developed. That is where families
grow. That is where everything happens.
1540
The bill has the potential to significantly impact relations
between bands and local governments in a number of areas such as
land use planning, environmental regulation and protection of
third party interests. Again the federal government is imposing
its will in terms of creating legislation that will destruct
local and provincial relationships without saying what it is
doing.
This kind of legislation is always wrapped up in a pretty
package and the contents are allowed to seep out over time. There
is no attempt to quantify what the consequences of the
legislation may be even though the implications are vast and
potentially far reaching.
Last year the union of B.C. municipalities and the lower
mainland treaty advisory committee both expressed major concerns
about the predecessor piece of legislation, Bill C-75, which was
introduced in the dying days of the last parliament. It died and
has now been resurrected a year later. To summarize their
concerns, there was little or no consultation with the British
Columbia government, local government and the public in general.
This was my critic area in the last parliament. The minister of
Indian affairs, Indian lobbyists, backbench Liberal MPs and the
minister's staff hounded the opposition House leader, the Reform
House leader and me in the dying days of the last parliament
prior to the election call. Everyone knew the election call was
coming on the last weekend of April 1997. Everyone knew the June
2, 1997 election would be called in April. There was incredible
pressure brought to bear on us to allow Bill C-75 to go through
all three readings and obtain royal assent before parliament
recessed due to the election call.
We refused to be stampeded because of our concerns, as I have
just explained, about the lack of consultation with anybody
involved other than the aboriginal band leaderships set out in
the agreement. Despite this major and serious concern no
substantive change has been made to Bill C-49 which evolved from
Bill C-75 to ensure a smooth and harmonious relationship between
local and band governments, which I also consider to be local
governments.
The department of Indian affairs works in mysterious ways. I
must admit that I have lost my grapevine having moved on to
another portfolio. What has happened with this legislation is
typical of many other pieces of Liberal legislation. The
government gets stampeded by internal lobby groups. The minister
commits himself or herself to action. Pressure flows from the
minister's desk to staff and caucus. They all try to infect the
opposition with a sense of undue haste and urgency. Then, if the
legislation does not go through either in the dying days of a
parliament before an election or prior to a recess, when we come
back to the House, lo and behold the haste and urgency have
dissipated.
1545
It has been more than a year since the election and we are just
seeing this piece of legislation slowly winding its way through
this House.
I do not like this piece of legislation because it fragments the
statutory framework whereby we have about 630 bands across Canada
administered under the Indian Act.
We are trying to take 14 bands out from under some of the
provisions of the Indian Act. However, far too much of the
Indian Act will still apply to those 14 bands. It is piecemeal,
partial, non-satisfactory legislation.
Another concern I have is about the leaseholders on reserve
lands. The leaseholders have had, in some cases, multiple
decades of holding their leases under agreements supervised by
the department of Indian affairs. Perhaps there has been an
eroding federal presence, but certainly this is a tremendously
significant departure from previous lease arrangements for
homeowners, cottage owners, long term land leases and other
situations.
These people are going to be faced with a whole new set of rules
with attendant uncertainties. Should they be unhappy with the
new arrangements, should they consider that they have a
legitimate beef, their concerns are not really addressed in this
bill.
There is no protection against one sided land quotes which may
totally devalue the investments they have made in improvements.
That could really be considered a form of expropriation.
I think we can argue that natural justice would say that
compensation should occur if land quotes impact negatively on
people, but there is no mechanism for this to happen in the bill.
This bill is coming back to us again a year and a half later and
not a thing has changed in terms of band, local or provincial
protocol on environmental or land use issues.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will just make the comment that aboriginals also helped to defeat
the Charlottetown accord.
We talk about the community consultation review process and the
impacts of that. B.C. native women are concerned about what
happened to the results of the process.
Who in this country would be satisfied with the community review
process if their rights were at stake or if their land and
property were at risk and a ruling was made that had no prior
government oversight? What if they were at the mercy of a local
band and council and did not have a higher law to set limits on
government? What if there were no limits to the powers they
could exercise in relationship to their property, to the place
they bring up their children?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, every system needs checks
and balances in order to operate in the long term in an
enlightened fashion. We have seen the pendulum swing a long way
toward there really being no effective checks and balances under
the Indian Act.
The department of Indian affairs became compromised by the fact
that it was sitting on many things that were wrong. It really
did not want anyone to discover what all of those things were.
The department started a cover-up operation a long time ago. It
is a bureaucratic response to a problem. It would happen in
every organization where there are no checks and balances.
1550
There is no other department with a mandate for activities on
the reserve. This has become a very large problem.
We are now developing some ad hoc mechanisms. The First Nations
Coalition for Accountability, for example, has now developed
enough of a membership and enough credibility as a grassroots
organization, through its networking and contacts with provincial
government cabinets, the media and so on, that there are now
times when they can identify a problem on a reserve. They can
then phone and tell them to fix the problem or heat will be
brought to bear, and the problem gets fixed.
This is all brand new and it took five years of tough fighting.
An awful lot of people put themselves in a very susceptible
position.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I just want to help the hon. member a bit. He is quite wrong to
suggest that no consultations were held with respect to this
bill, particularly in his home province.
Indeed, there have been 12 meetings involving the B.C.
municipalities, I think on four occasions. There was an advisory
group on three separate occasions. Two to three letters were
written to the province of British Columbia. In fact there have
been a number of letters exchanged with relevant stakeholder
groups in British Columbia, as well as the 12 meetings with the
union of B.C. municipalities.
Is the hon. member not aware of these consultations even in his
home province?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of how the
government pays lip service to consultation. I am also aware of
correspondence from a member of the treaty negotiation advisory
committee and from the union of B.C. municipalities about the
real level of consultation that actually occurred, and the
absence of what they termed consultation.
We have discovered over the past five years that the Liberal
definition of consultation and the stakeholder definition of
consultation are often diametrically opposed.
The proof is in the pudding because there has now been an
additional year to carry on lots of further consultation, because
of the great unhappiness and because it was admitted that there
was a problem, and not one thing has changed in the legislation
to address any of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as an
associate member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill C-49 and to share my comments.
The aim of this bill is to ratify and implement a framework
agreement signed on February 12, 1996 by a group of first
nations and the federal government. This agreement concerns the
management of first nations' lands and is intended to enable
them to establish their own land code to manage the lands and
resources.
This agreement is necessary to permit the first nations that are
party to the agreement to withdraw from the application of the
sections of the Indian Act governing the management of lands.
1555
First nations and governments all agree that the Indian Act
gives the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
discretionary power. It also gives public servants too much
leeway, thus preventing aboriginals from exercising direct
control over the management of the lands within their reserves.
It is in order to rectify this situation that a bill to ratify
the framework agreement was introduced.
We tried to introduce legislation addressing this issue in the
previous Parliament. Bill C-75, as it was then called, was
passed at second reading, but the process came to an abrupt end
when Parliament was dissolved. Last year, my party pushed to
have this bill put back on the agenda.
It was introduced in its new form as Bill C-49. I am pleased
that we are prepared to go ahead with second reading today.
It is vital that the signatories to the agreement be given the
tools they need for their cultural and economic development.
This bill recognizes the fundamental right of 14 first nations
to manage their lands and their resources and constitutes
another important element in their self-government.
The first nations are also glad to have the opportunity to
exercise greater control over the lands and resources within
their respective reserves and say that these changes will enable
them to react more rapidly to opportunities for stimulating
their economy. Control of the decision-making process will
therefore enable them to improve management of reserves.
In other words, we feel that Bill C-49 is essential and very
consistent with the recommendations for self-government made by
the royal commission on aboriginal peoples and self-government.
Furthermore, several native leaders have supported the bill and
indicated that they are in favour of its speedy passage through
the House. Being of the same opinion and wanting to see first
nations exempted from the sections of the Indian Act concerning
land management, the Bloc Quebecois and myself therefore support
Bill C-49 in principle.
Second reading of this bill nonetheless provides me with an
opportunity to address certain aspects that we feel pose
problems. We are worried about one aspect in particular, and it
concerns protection of aboriginal women.
Naturally we support the principle of giving back to first
nations control over the management of lands that until now have
been under federal jurisdiction and governed by sections of the
Indian Act.
It is essential that first nations be able to manage the lands
and natural resources within their reserves themselves. The
requirement for a community process to establish land codes is
also an important and promising one.
The bill provides that rules on use, possession and occupation
of lands will be arrived at through a community consultation
process. In theory, all the members of a first nation living on
or off reserve will be able to take part in the decision-making
process through this community mechanism. However, certain
groups of aboriginal women are opposed to Bill C-49, saying that
it would be disastrous for them. Their fears have to do with
the bill's wording with respect to the division of interests in
cases of breakdown of marriage.
1600
They say that the clauses on this issue do not protect them at
all, that the framework agreement contains no provision on the
division of property in the case of separation, apart from the
community consultation process mentioned in clauses 6 and 17.
The British Columbia Native Women's Society is lobbying
vigorously to show the weaknesses of the bill in the area of the
division of marriage property. They criticize the government
for not having done its homework in this matter, despite the
gross injustices criticized more than 12 years ago.
They add that no effort has been made to resolve the problem
even after the establishment of the charter of rights and
freedoms to ensure equality for all.
This is why last year they asked the federal court to issue an
injunction against this framework agreement on land management.
Even though the bill comes from their own department, the
minister of indian affairs and her officials also seem to think
there may be an injustice. In June, the minister appointed an
investigator to examine the impact of marriage breakdown on
property rights. An independent inquiry is therefore set to
study the matter.
In other words, the government recognizes the existence of a
legal void in the matter and the negative consequences it may
have on the protection of women.
However, the government says it has changed the former C-75 so
that the new C-49 requires a community process to manage the
division following the breakdown of a marriage, which, in their
view, resolves the problem.
According to clause 6, a community process is one of the
requirements associated with the adoption of the land code,
which is to be defined collectively by each of the 14 first
nations.
However, a closer examination of the matter reveals that,
despite this clause, native women have no protection whatsoever.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member.
You have some 11 minutes left, but I had promised the House I
would give my ruling on the point of order as soon as possible.
With your permission, I will give my ruling now and you can
continue afterward.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS—SPEAKER'S
RULING
The Speaker: After question period
this afternoon the hon. member for Surrey Central raised a point
of order concerning the events of yesterday evening when, by
unanimous consent, a motion for concurrence in the 13th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was
presented and adopted in the House.
[Translation]
As hon. members know, the report comprises eight recommendations
on the way the House handles Private Members' Business.
[English]
I thank the hon. member for Surrey Central, the hon. government
House leader, the hon. whip of the New Democratic Party and the
member for Elk Island for their contributions. I am now prepared
to explain how the Chair will proceed on this matter.
Recommendation No. 5 concerning how recorded divisions on
Private Members' Business are taken will be implemented
immediately since it is a matter of practice.
[Translation]
Recommendation 8 on the priority for drafting private members'
bills will be implemented immediately, because this is an
administrative matter.
1605
[English]
Recommendation No. 7 lies within the purview of the Board of
Internal Economy. That will be taken up there.
With regard to the other recommendations, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6,
these in the opinion of the Chair call for substantive amendments
to the standing orders and require various technical
interpretations. I have therefore asked the Clerk to draft
proposed amendments to the standing orders which would implement
recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and to submit that draft to
the House leaders.
As soon as the House has pronounced itself on the specific text
of new standing orders to give effect to the recommendations it
adopted last night, the Chair will be governed accordingly. In
the meantime, however, because the Chair has no mandate to
unilaterally change the text of the standing orders, the Chair
will continue to be guided by the existent standing orders.
* * *
[Translation]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and 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.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had
reached the point of discussing the rights of aboriginal women.
I was saying that these were treated as secondary.
The main problem, of course, is not with the bill per se, but
with the 1986 Indian Act.
Canadian courts have decided that provincial legislation would
have no precedence where property on reserves was concerned, and
that the Indian Act would govern everything. Unfortunately,
that legislation has nothing to say about matrimonial property
when a marriage breaks down. There is a serious problem,
therefore, a legal vacuum, which places women's status in a
precarious position.
Family legislation in the various provinces does not apply on
reserves. In other words, aboriginal women find themselves in a
precarious situation, one which does not allow them to aspire to
the same protection as all other women in Canada, because
provincial legislation governing property division does not
apply on reserves, as the Indian Act takes precedence. This is
a source of considerable concern, in my opinion.
While there is a will to look at the issue and to try to find
ways to fill the legal vacuum, nothing has been done yet.
We should look at the possibility of including a clause
providing minimal protection to women under this agreement on
first nation land management.
It is clearly indicated that the standards and penalties
relating to the environment that will be set or amended by the
14 first nations must be at least as effective and as tough as
those of the province in which the first nation lives.
We should consider providing similar minimal protection to
women, in case of marriage breakdown. Issues relating to
marriage and marriage breakdown are always sensitive, since they
directly relate to the cultural values and the structure of the
societies concerned.
It is the same for basic environmental issues. The environment
and natural resources are integral parts of native culture.
Still, this should not prevent us from legislating to make sure
that minimum standards are recognized, with the approval of all
the parties concerned.
1610
We must find a way to ensure that the protection afforded native
women in case of marriage breakdown is at least equivalent to
that enjoyed by other Canadian women.
I am not in favour of interfering and I believe that the
community consultation process will give very positive results.
However, should major disagreements occur, we must make sure
that native women enjoy a minimum of protection, like other
Canadian women. Along with the first nations, it would certainly
be possible to find a way to legislate and provide some form of
legal recourse for these women in case of injustice.
In fact, knowing how long it often takes to amend legislation
such as the Indian Act, I am concerned about passing a bill that
regulates land management without a more direct reference to the
problem.
I think it is important that we look at whether the legislation
provides us with means of legally protecting aboriginal women,
as required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And
if it does not, a remedy should be introduced now, while we are
at this stage of the proceedings.
A minimal guarantee of protection is required, in my view, so
that aboriginal women, like all other Canadian women, can enjoy
certain fundamental rights ensuring their well-being and the
well-being of their children.
It is important that the position of first nations on this issue
be examined in committee and that possible ways of ensuring a
minimum guarantee be studied further.
It is not a question of interfering in first nations' efforts to
achieve self-government. On the contrary, we are merely trying to
raise the issue of the legal vacuum when it comes to the
division of property and to give thought to the best way of
protecting all citizens.
If aboriginal women, represented by credible organizations like
the British Columbia native women's association, are of the
opinion that such an agreement is a threat to their well-being,
we must at least take this into account and give the matter
serious consideration.
Of course, the different provisions in each province complicate
the already very complex issue of division of property in cases
of marriage breakdown, but precautions can nonetheless be taken.
The community process within the first nations that signed the
agreement will certainly suffice, like their various decisions
on the whole of the land code. However, once again, in order to
ensure minimum protection, solutions must be provided.
In closing, I say once again that the Bloc Quebecois will
support Bill C-49. I would however point out that we have
questions on the possibility of making amendments to respond
more directly to the problem of the division of marriage
property, with priority given to the community process and to
the decisions of the first nations.
There are avenues to be explored and we will explore them, my
colleagues and I, in order to prepare for the meetings of the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for York North for letting me speak
for five minutes on this important bill.
The bill goes to the heart of a very important issue that I know
members from across party lines are very interested in, the fate
of aboriginal people in the country today.
1615
What is happening today is a travesty. It is a tragedy beyond
proportions that most Canadians understand. This past summer I
was at a medical clinic in northern British Columbia. I saw once
again in the flesh, in the trenches, what is taking place. There
are children with infectious diseases that I have not seen since
I worked in Africa. People are suffering from enormously. There
are high rates of substance abuse and suicide attempts. There
are communities with rates of tuberculosis and diabetes three
times higher than the non-aboriginal population. The soles of
communities are being torn out. Why is this so? Why has this not
changed despite billions of dollars being put in by successive
governments?
The answer is that we non-aboriginal people have to engage in a
paradigm shift in the way we treat aboriginal people. The Indian
Act has created an institutionalized welfare state. We have
segregated aboriginal people, have made them separate from the
mainstream.
The result has been a marred system. In some areas the money is
not getting to the people. Grassroots aboriginal people are
dislocated from their political masters. Is is between the
political and intellectual elites and between aboriginals and
non-aboriginals on how we deal with aboriginal people. We leave
out the grassroots aboriginal people. They are suffering in
horrendous ways that can only be compared to third world
conditions.
I implore the government, and my colleagues will agree, to stop
the segregation. Stop the separate development. The rights of
aboriginal people to engage in their traditional activities is
enshrined in the constitution, thankfully. Let us invest in
aboriginal people to help them help themselves. Only if they have
the tools to help themselves, to gain employment, provide for
themselves, their families and their communities will they get
back that sense of self, that sense of pride they so desperately
need.
It does not entail separate development. It does not entail a
lands claim process. The essence of bill says “You are
aboriginal people. You are different from non-aboriginal people.
Therefore you are going to be treated differently”. Grassroots
aboriginal people do not want political emancipation that is
different from anybody else. They merely want equality. They
merely want to be treated as equals and have the opportunities,
benefits and responsibilities of non-aboriginals.
This bill is flawed. The history of dealing with aboriginal
people is flawed. It is flawed in saying that aboriginal people
are somehow different. They are removed and segregated away from
mainstream Canada. They have sustained and suffered under the
yoke of non-aboriginal people putting their feet on them and
segregating them.
I thank the hon. member for allowing me to speak now because I
have to catch a plane.
Again, I implore the government not to treat aboriginal people
differently. Give them the tools so they can help themselves.
Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can work together to develop
a united forward looking country. We can mutually respect each
other and develop together for a more positive and beneficial
future for all.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the hon. member's intervention and I appreciate his
role as a medical doctor and his good work in aboriginal
communities. Having worked in these communities, both he and I
know of the tragic and difficult circumstances.
The hon. member wants to do a paradigm shift, if not to take it
off the map. Under this proposal in bringing all aboriginal
people from their communities in the north and moving them to
Vancouver, to Edmonton, to Winnipeg, to Toronto, surely to
goodness the hon. member knows and would consult with other
medical practitioners that there are many aboriginal people
living off reserve in these cities.
They are still in poverty. Stripping away their constitutional
and land rights I would suggest respectfully would be disastrous.
It has been disastrous for 100 years. This is bad public policy,
it is a bad idea and it is a bad paradigm shift.
1620
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. parliamentary
secretary were interested in giving back land rights, he would
enable aboriginal people to have the same land rights as
non-aboriginal people have, which he knows full well they do not.
Rights are given to a collective in aboriginal groups. They are
not given to individuals. That is part of the problem. The
individual aboriginal person does not have the same rights as a
non-aboriginal person.
I know the hon. member is interested in this issue very deeply
as we all are. I know he has experienced this himself. If he
really wants to do a favour to aboriginal people, he will take a
message to the minister. He will say to her that we must not
segregate and separate aboriginal people. We must give aboriginal
people the same rights and responsibilities as non-aboriginal
people, which includes land rights and land ownership.
Aboriginal people off reserve are sustaining horrendous
circumstances. They do not have the tools and abilities to fend
for themselves. Part of that lies in the lack of accountability
which occurs as to where moneys are going in the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
If the parliamentary secretary wants to do another important
job, he can take another message to the minister. Do forensic
audits in those reserves where aboriginal people are looking for
answers. Billions of dollars are put into those reserves. The
money is not getting to where it is supposed to go. It is being
siphoned off somewhere, be it in the department or in the
aboriginal leadership. I suggest that he find out where that
money is going. If he does that, he will be providing an
enormous service so those people can get the resources to be
fully functional and to stand on their own two feet.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member
suggesting that by definition all band finances have to be the
question of a forensic audit? Is the hon. member suggesting to
the House and to the first nation people in Canada that because
of the circumstances they suffer, for example that today raised
in the House, the Shamattawa children sniffing gasoline and glue,
that somehow this is traced back to a forensic audit? Is
bringing in SWAT teams of police the answer to this? Basically
we bring in the RCMP, investigate them, move them off reserve,
strip away their rights under section 35 of the constitution, is
this what the hon. Reform Party member is suggesting?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Just so I understand the protocol here, I understood the first
question in question and comments was from the member who is now
asking the second question. There were others who stood.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, that is not the
order. The decision on debate in question and comments is the
prerogative of the Chair. As long as there are members standing
who do not represent the same political party as the person in
debate, across the aisle will be given precedence, whether it is
from one side or the other side.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I understand what you just
said. However, if it is the same individual, does it still apply
in that case?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The answer is yes it
does. There is always preference, at least when I am in the
chair, to go across the aisle in questions and comments so that
we get real debate.
In response, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up
an important question. I am glad he asked it.
There are aboriginal reserves that are run wonderfully and there
are those which are not. The reserves we are talking about today
are the reserves that are not run well, reserves I might add
where aboriginal people have asked for over 10 years as to where
the money is going.
There are millions of dollars put into some reserves that have
very few people on them. While the band leaders are living in
opulence down in Vancouver, those people are living in squalor.
Representatives of those people have asked the minister
repeatedly, in fact they have begged the minister, for a hearing.
They have begged her for answers. What have they got? All they
have got is the cold shoulder.
While that is happening, those people are living in third world
conditions. People are committing suicide. They are getting
diseases at rates far higher than anybody else. They are
suffering from unemployment at levels that are unparalleled in
this country.
Those are the reserves the member and the minister should be
looking at, not for our benefit nor the leadership and the
aboriginal group's benefit but for the aboriginal people who are
suffering from diabetes, tuberculosis, high rates of suicide and
unemployment. They have been suffering for so long.
1625
The resources are there. The member knows full well that those
resources are not getting to where they should be going. Find out
where those resources are going and do these people a service.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, this is quite an
interesting debate.
The hon. member as a medical physician raises the very real
concern about the rate of diabetes in aboriginal communities
because they do not have the proper food. Would the hon. member
support the Minister of Health bringing forth measures through
the Department of Health to help these people, to help these
women and children, the families in these aboriginal communities
deal with questions of diabetes? When these things come forward
in the February budget, will he live up to his own words? If he
truly believes what he is saying today in this House, will he
stand at budget time and support these measures, support Nisga'a
and support Nunavut?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend
and colleague from across the way that it was the Reform Party
that put forth a private member's motion in May of this year
which received unanimous support. It concerned a national
headstart program that we now see the government, to its credit,
starting to adopt in aboriginal communities. It is expanding
that to aboriginal communities outside reserves.
We support those initiatives. We support investing in these
people in order for them to stand on their own two feet. But we
do not support the government merely tossing money at aboriginal
groups without any accountability. That does a huge disservice
to the aboriginal people who ask why it is that the chief and
council live in beautiful houses, have cars and skidoos while
they do not have enough money to feed their children. That is
partly why they are living on Coca-Cola and macaroni. That is
what is happening.
I beseech the minister and the parliamentary secretary, do not
go on a fancy trip to meet with the aboriginal leadership. Go to
the people on the ground. Get rid of the entourage. Meet with
those people. Go by yourself. Do not go on an official visit.
Find out what is going on. Listen to what those people are
saying because they will tell you that all is not well.
The solutions are not difficult. Some of these solutions
require that paradigm shift. Give aboriginal people the tools to
provide for themselves and they will do well. Do it under the
guise of equality for all so that aboriginals and non-aboriginals
can work together as brothers and sisters to build a stronger
country for everybody.
Aboriginal people, ensuring that their traditional rights and
responsibilities are enshrined in the constitution, which they
are, can teach us a lot about their culture. We will certainly
benefit from that.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to point out to the hon. member opposite that perhaps he has
not actually read this legislation.
I have been honoured to have a very good association with a
native community in my riding, the Chippewas of Georgina Island.
They have been involved right from the beginning on this
legislation, in spearheading this effort. The thing that
convinced me this was good legislation was that Chief Bill McCue,
who has shown tremendous leadership in this area, told me that he
and the members of his community want to be treated exactly like
every other Canadian. They wanted to have control over their own
economic destiny. Perhaps the hon. member should read the
legislation because that is what the legislation allows them to
do.
1630
Today I rise in the House to speak to and support the second
reading of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act. As
the minister of Indian affairs has indicated, the bill will
enable the 14 first nations which are signatories to the
framework agreement on first nation land management to opt out of
the land administration sections of the Indian Act and assume
direct control over their reserve lands and resources.
As the member of Parliament for York North, I am honoured to
represent the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation who are
members of my constituency and one of the signatories of this
agreement.
In March 1997 the Georgina Island First Nation voted
overwhelmingly, 150 to 21, to adopt its own land code and
implement its own land management system. I congratulate Chief
William McCue, the council and the members for their vision and
for their determination.
Two other communities, Chief Rennie Goose and the Mississaugas
of Scugog Island First Nation in Ontario, and Chief Austin Bear
and the Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan, have also voted
overwhelmingly to assume control over their reserve lands and
resources. I congratulate them for their vision and
determination.
The 14 first nations that developed a framework agreement have
the goal of assuming community control over their reserve lands
and resources. They signed a government to government agreement
with Canada in February 1996 at a ceremony hosted by the Georgina
Island First Nation. I was deeply moved by the experience of
attending this historic event in my constituency and witnessing
the signature of the previous minister.
The responsibility of the 14 first nations under this framework
agreement is to develop their own land management process and
conduct their community votes to ratify the agreement. Bill
C-49, now before the House for second reading, represents
Canada's responsibilities to ratify the agreement.
The framework agreement and Bill C-49 are founded on the
principle that first nations should develop their own laws in
relation to their reserve lands and resources. This is
consistent with the principles proposed by the royal commission
on aboriginal peoples with respect to self-reliance.
I am honoured to bring to this House the words of a concerned
citizen and a respected elder of the Chippewas of Georgina
Island. Charles Warren wrote to me about the effects this
legislation will have on his community:
Land management includes development of business, farming and
recreational entertainment.
The saying “strike while the iron is hot” cannot apply to us.
When opportunity knocks, it takes so long for others to make
decisions for us that the iron is no longer hot.
We need business here to provide jobs for our people. We need
to be free to hire persons and companies who will act quickly and
to our benefit. Now we are told who to hire and have to wait for
okays from Indian affairs constantly. Those wheels turn slowly.
Registration of leases takes six months to several years.
Sometimes they are lost and have to be redone. The money from
such leases are tied up without gaining any interest.
We need control of pollution, of our water and a recycling
system. We have a natural swamp area with rare species of birds,
animals and plant life. We need some of our people trained to
safeguard this area. We have many fruit trees which need to be
cared for to be productive.
There is an excellent gravel pit which could provide for the
needs of ourselves, plus earn income from outside our community.
There is land that can provide golf courses, fish farms and clean
factories.
The native people of Georgina Island have all that is needed for
their great future if they could have a free hand to develop it.
Charles Warren and his community need swift and speedy passage
of this legislation.
The framework agreement and Bill C-49 establish principles for
the exercise of self-government in the area of land management.
These principles include full, democratic participation in
fundamental decision making by all adult members of the
community, both off reserve and on reserve; financial and
political accountability to the membership; community dispute
resolution mechanisms; equality of all members, both on and off
reserve; and equality of female and male members.
The framework agreement and Bill C-49 are consistent with the
approach to self-government advocated by a number of aboriginal
groups appearing before the royal commission.
1635
The agreement and the bill provide the model proposed by these
groups, that is community control over reserve lands and
resources. This approach is in accordance with traditional first
nation practices and customs and reflects the communities' desire
for economic self-sufficiency.
I quote Chief Bill McCue on the importance of parliament's
passing this bill promptly to facilitate transition from federal
government control over reserve lands to first nations decision
making:
Once the framework agreement is implemented by this legislation,
our community will be able to make timely responses to future
economic opportunities, beginning as early as April 1, 1999,
which will generate employment and revenues for our people.
These 14 first nations have faith and confidence in their
ability to take the first step to controlling their own destiny.
They have demonstrated this ability during the last decade as
leaders in the area of land management.
I urge all parties to pass Bill C-49 as promptly as possible so
that these 14 first nations can implement their own decision
making processes for their reserve lands and resources. Other
first nations undoubtedly will wish to pursue this same goal,
control over their reserve lands and resources.
I have had the privilege of representing the Chippewas of
Georgina Island for the past five years. I have many friends
there. I have great confidence in their ability to undertake
activities that will ensure the future for their children.
I would also like to say to members of this House that those who
believe in social justice, who believe that people should have
control over their own destinies, who believe that people should
speak their voices and allow their voices to be heard will
support this legislation.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know Liberals love to attend grand openings and announcements
where there are well dressed people and people with lots of money
and influence in this country.
When there were grassroots aboriginals meeting in the basement
of an airport hotel in Winnipeg last weekend, where were the
Liberal members? Where was the parliamentary secretary for the
poor, the downtrodden, those people who have no voice in this
House?
The aboriginal head start program is a good idea. It made good
television. We had all the chiefs fly in to make their
presentation and to be seen on television. They had lovely
children, children who did not need a head start program. Where
are the children who need this program? They are still sleeping
on filthy mattresses in filthy basements of of houses that have
been burned. Where were the Liberals when those people were
telling their stories?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted
to tell the hon. member where I have been. I have been in the
community of the Chippewas of Georgina Island. When I talk about
community I talk about people who live, work, get educated and
play in that community. These are the people who voted in their
own referendum, something the Reform Party pushes at every
opportunity it can. These people voted in their own referendum
overwhelmingly to support this.
Is the hon. member denying the Chippewas of Georgina Island the
right to have a say in their own economic future? Is he denying
the right of these people to enter into a referendum to state
very clearly what their position is? That is not what I have
heard the Reform Party purports to believe in.
I have listened time and time again to comments from the
opposite side, the way they demean first nations of this country,
the way they demean the aboriginal people of this country.
1640
I point out an occasion when a member opposite made some
incredibly demeaning comments about my chief, Chief Bill McCue,
who has shown tremendous leadership and vision working with his
community on this issue. He phoned me with great disgust and
hurt that a member of this House could make those demeaning
comments. He also wrote me letter, which I read with great
pleasure in the House, to overturn their objections to the first
nations of this country.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, we have the Nisga'a
treaty going on in my province of British Columbia right now. The
provincial government is sending out its version of the facts and
has been going into a lot of the schools. I have been doing the
same thing, except my version of the facts seems to be different
for some strange reason.
When I go into the schools I like to draw analogies so that
students have something specific to relate to. Students study
history and one of the things they study is the old feudal system
where the lord and a group of lords own the land, the resources
and the revenue that comes in. They allow the serfs to build on
the lands, to occupy the lands and to harvest the lands, but they
control the revenue produced as a result of this.
Our concern is that each aboriginal individual should have the
right to determine their own destiny. Instead, they are being
locked into an old-fashioned feudal system we grew out of
centuries ago. They are being locked into it by the style of
negotiations taking place. There is no other explanation for what
is happening. That is the situation in these settlements as they
take place. Individuals do not have property rights. They do
not get their share of the financial resources transferred to
them when these agreements are made.
Does the hon. member think this is a good system or does she
think that it would be more appropriate for individual aboriginal
people to be allowed their land and their financial settlements
so they can determine their own destinies?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, from part of what
the member is saying it sounds as if he would be in agreement
with this legislation. This legislation puts control and
decision making in the hands of aboriginal people.
The Chippewas of Georgina Island get a lot of their money from
cottage leases. That money goes to Indian affairs. They then
have to ask for their own money back. This is an insane
situation. I hope the hon. member understands that.
On his ridiculous claim about a feudal system, if the hon.
member understood anything about history he would understand that
native people have a system of resource allocation and use of the
land which predates feudalism by thousands of years. It is a very
sane system because the land is held in common with a common
respect for the land and a common respect for the next seven
generations that follow.
The hon. member continues these false myths about first nations
people and about Inuit people. It is a shame that they are
allowed to use these words in an honourable place like this.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to enlighten the House on a bit of history.
The member mentioned the Chippewas. The Chippewas of Sarnia
have a different story to tell. It might be a lesson for hon.
members.
1645
The Chippewa of Sarnia by way of warfare in defending the
Canadian interests over American interests had a treaty and an
alliance with the British government. Under the War Measures Act
they were allocated lands around the Sarnia region. Because it
was under the War Measures Act, the council of the day held the
land in trust to a financial institution. The financial
institution in turn called on the collateral. The collateral of
the land was then owned by the bank and not by the first nation
of Sarnia, the Chippewa.
If we go to Sarnia we see the Chippewa of Sarnia have their
reserve and right beside it there are petrochemical companies
polluting their lands and their livelihood. The land those
petrochemical companies own was the land recalled by the
financial institution.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where
the hon. member was going with his statement, but it is important
that the House understand the very unique nature of the culture
of first nations and other aboriginal groups.
Members must understand we have commitments with these people
that go back decades, that go back hundreds of years. It is time
the government lives up to those commitments. The legislation is
the first step in a long number of steps that have started and
will continue to be made to live up to our commitments to
aboriginal people.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a great honour for me to speak to the topic of land
management for first nations.
I will use my first language for some of the terms because a lot
of the issues are hard to interpret. To continue with where I
was leading with the Chippewa of Sarnia, it was the area of land
rights. Once a chief and council or an individual on first
nations land has the right to own the land, that land is
transferable and diminishes.
In Cree we call it aski-kahna which means all the land was once
first nations land. All the land was aboriginal land. Aski-kahna
means what is left of the treaty obligation. It is like a
corral. Aboriginal people and their livelihoods have been
corralled in these reserves. That is why we see the sick society
that exists in the cycle of no future among our communities. The
traditional lands beyond the reserves have to be considered. I
think the bill does not address that. It only addresses the
administration of lands.
When the Chippewa of Sarnia lost their land to the petrochemical
companies, they lost it forever. It is no longer Chippewa land
because it was covered under the War Measures Act. It is still
under the Indian Act. Until the first nations of the country
come to terms with the existing treaties with the nation and the
Indian Act which governs and administers the process, that
process evolves and will come to light in a very short time.
In the meantime, of the 14 nations we have the Cree nations of
Muskoday, Cowessess and Opaskwayak Cree from Manitoba. I will
use Cree to explain to them what my thoughts are.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
I understand that as aboriginal people we have allowed people
from all over the world to seek refuge, raise their children and
have a joyful and fruitful future on this land.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
1650
[English]
I understand that allowing other people to create the nation we
call Canada also recognized the first nation sovereignty of
aboriginal nationhood as in Cree nationhood, as in Dene
nationhood, as in the Chippewa nationhood and the Inuit.
A very crucial definition of the Metis comes into play. The
hon. member mentioned that aboriginal people were defined under
the Constitution, but it does not go any further than that. There
is a huge dilemma with that definition. The term first nations
does not cover every obligation with all people. There are
treaty, non-treaty, off reserve, on reserve treaty, status and
non-status Indians. There are Metis and Inuit. All these
different definitions used in English terminology do not mean
anything to an aboriginal person. It is all for administrative
purposes.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
I understand the makings of the law.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
In Cree we have a name for the Constitution.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
It is the legal rights of the land written on a piece of paper.
This is the highest order of the country's definition of the law.
The Constitution gives powers to the House of Commons and all the
symbols of government in the province right down to the
municipalities. However there is a dilemma. We have certain
parties that would like first nations to be municipal
governments. That is a very major shift in our obligations
between the treaties and the Indian Act in recognizing first
nations as they really are. Are they the third level of
governance?
If we wanted to respect the rightful ways of entering this land,
maybe the first nations and aboriginal people should be occupying
the Senate and having the final assenting powers on all laws
since they were the first occupiers of the land. Then they would
have a higher structure as we see with the Iroquois confederacy,
a united nations. There is no united nations among all
aboriginal people that unites from coast to coast to coast. There
is no higher level of accountability at their levels. Nothing has
been designed.
In the stories of creation on Turtle Island there was a wish and
a prophecy that the first nations would have eventually united as
united nations. Columbus came ashore and brought a whole
different set of rules, governance and religions to this country
as a colony and disrupted that process. That shift in the
country will have to evolve and create a reality between the
aboriginal world view and our world view. Those two will have to
come into play.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
It is the understanding, the wish and the prayer to see the
future of our children grow. When decisions are made here, they
should not be made for the decisions of the day. They should be
made for our children's, children's, children's children, for the
seventh generation. Until then it is taken over for another
purpose.
Land opportunities have been mentioned. Specific statements
have been made. I am honoured to say that our party supports the
act because land ownership stays with the first nations. They
are not allowed to sell the land. If they start selling land
people are dispossessed.
In my neighbourhood there are communities that were never
urbanized. For example, the community of Losh is the largest
Dene community in the country with 4,000 Dene people living
there. It was never that large before but they are amassed
between the first nations boundaries and the municipal
boundaries.
They have no decision making on the traditional lands, the
water, trees and mineral rights that exist beyond. That is the
economic cycle which needs to drive our purpose for the future.
We have had land allocated to settlers who came from Europe and
from all over the world and railroads were built to accommodate
that.
We have never accommodated the needs of aboriginals in terms of
land, resources and livelihood.
1655
Allowing a sample of 14 nations to make administrative decisions
concerning the management of their lands is a first step. In a
broader perspective there is a major challenge for the country to
deal with all aboriginal people. The act is supported by our
party but it is a very small step since it applies only to 14
first nations. There is a bigger aboriginal population out there
that wants to see a fruitful future for their children. They
would allow all people of the world to find refuge in the land
they call home, but they have to be a part of the system. The
system of governance will have to evolve. The system of
administration is evolving.
Some talk about first nation chiefs and say that the chief and
council have a fruitful way of life. They travels, take jets to
Ottawa and negotiate. We should not knock them down. They have
adopted a first opportunity to administer Indian affairs regional
departments. Let us look at tribal councils. We are finally
seeing aboriginal people making decisions. We should not knock
them down. We should give them a chance.
A few generations ago all we saw were Indian agents making these
decisions. Just because an aboriginal person is wearing a
business suit and has a three figure salary because he is working
in a corporate or a government institution, that person should
not be knocked for striving to stand up for a piece of land and
future endeavours and to be a role model for others.
We live on a huge piece of land but we have problems with
housing. Many northern communities have housing problems. Why
do they have housing problems when they live in the middle of the
timber resource? They do not have houses. It is the economic
cycle.
When Rupert's Land was created the Hudson's Bay Company claimed
the land. Hudson's Bay is still an economic, capitalistic
process. It does not share its capital with its people. Trappers
still do not reap any benefits of the many furs they have
provided to create the wealth of Britain.
The Hudson's Bay Company should be pulled out of those
communities and co-operative systems of trade and housing should
be created. There should be shared ownership based on a process
like Habitat for Humanity where people build their own houses.
They would be given a chance to roll up their sleeves and help
their neighbours to build houses using the trees around them.
They do not need to use plywood from B.C. for houses in northern
Manitoba. They can build housing with the timber that exists in
northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. That would meet the
housing needs of the immediate region. We do not have to trade
across the country for local building needs.
Social, economic and governance needs are major issues that
require a major debate. In the meantime we have a land
management bill that gives some opportunity for first nations
people to decide on zoning, regional environmental protection,
and the economic and leasing needs of the land. It is an
opportunity to address these issues.
In further debates we might discuss the issue of allowing people
who lease first nations' lands to have a mechanism to appeal some
zoning decisions that impact them. If agricultural land is to be
used for industrial or recreational use, at least the person who
is leasing the land might have a mechanism to appeal such a
decision. That will be designed later. That concern has been
raised by a number of people.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
question whether aboriginals can be classified by their interests
just because of their race. I happen to have had a great
grandmother who was born on the Fisher River Reserve in Manitoba
so I have some interest in the affair.
1700
I do not think I, or any of my colleagues, ever said that high
education or high salaries for aboriginals are bad. Please, let
us have that as a primary goal in everything that we do. I just
want to commend him on mentioning seventh generation thinking.
We should be far-sighted.
We should be establishing laws that make a difference. That is
the subject of my concern with the actual legislation that is
under discussion today, because women and children under this
legislation will find themselves being subjected to the whims of
the current possessors of power. I am concerned that this
legislation needs serious amendment or it needs to be defeated to
protect the women and children who have come to us and said “You
must defeat this legislation for these purposes”.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, the history of the
leadership and democratic rights of women in this country
developed long after the male population had achieved those
things.
When the first women were elected to the House of Commons it
was decades after the House was created.
The true reality of the Indian Act and the relationship that we
have with aboriginal people throughout the country has brought
the archaic structure of the Indian Act to light. I think this
bill brings forth the fact that aboriginal women and children
must have their rights thoroughly respected. It is time.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join with my colleagues in voicing my concerns about
Bill C-49.
After listening to the debate all afternoon, certainly I do not
think there is a great deal of difference in what we all want to
achieve for aboriginal people. The great differences are
probably in ideology and how we might achieve those things. We,
myself and my party, do not think that this particular bill is
the way to achieve what we all hope to achieve for aboriginal
people.
The aboriginal people in my riding, who are many, often come
into my office expressing concerns with the direction that this
government seems to be taking Indian affairs.
For example, I can remember back in 1993, after I was first
elected to the House of Commons, meeting with an aboriginal
woman, a lawyer, who represented a band that had expressed great
concerns about this bill. As a matter of fact, she expressed the
idea then that this bill was nothing new, that in fact it was a
leftover from the Mulroney government. She had huge concerns
about the amount of money the government was pouring into the
process and what this bill was going to achieve.
The impression that the government has been trying to leave all
day, that this is part of the process of creating some kind of a
new partnership with Indian people, is quite fraudulent and
shameful.
This bill is well intended to bring into force a framework
agreement on first nations land management to give first nations
control over their land and the resources upon and under their
land. That goal is long overdue.
The idea that any income from aboriginal lands has to flow to
Ottawa and then Indian people have to come to Ottawa begging for
their money should be corrected. Sometimes they find out many
years later that their money has not in fact been held in trust,
but has been squandered, spent and misused.
1705
If we can correct that it will be an achievement. However, I do
not think this particular bill is the way to do it for several
reasons.
With respect to the issues of land management, this bill calls
for the creation of what would essentially be a third level of
government. In order to create a third level of government, most
Canadians would agree that it would require a Constitutional
amendment and all that goes with that. We cannot create another
level of government and change the structure of government in
Canada simply by bypassing the required process, as the
government is trying to do here as well as in the Nisga'a land
claim process.
This partial and yet substantial form of self-government would
apply to all first nations that have signed on to the framework
agreement. The framework agreement gives first nations the power
to pass laws for the development, conservation, protection,
management, use and possession of first nations land. The
agreement also gives first nations control over licenses, leases,
property and other interests. These self-governing powers are
properly placed with aboriginal people, but the powers have been
dangerously placed in the hands of a select few first nations
leaders with no provision for accountability to the people they
represent.
I am particularly concerned with clause 37. I have heard a lot
of others say they are concerned with the same clause. This
clause states that the framework agreement act will prevail in
the event of any conflict between this act and any other federal
law. There is no constitutional basis for the creation of this
third level of government, nor is there a basis for granting even
partial powers such as these.
In fact, Bill C-49 undermines the Constitution by giving first
nations the power to create laws that would supersede federal
laws.
I would point out that I am not opposed to native
self-government. I am simply opposed to giving sovereign
jurisdiction over certain issues to such a level of government.
My colleagues and I recognize the need for effective
self-government. However, we believe that aboriginal
self-government should be a delegated level of government, not
one in which one segment of the Canadian population is given
special rights or privileges. When we say that certain laws
apply to all non-aboriginal Canadians but no longer apply to
aboriginal Canadians we are creating two classes of citizens.
This division is unacceptable.
It is over two weeks since Nelson Mandela visited and spoke in
the House. Already some members of the House are forgetting the
important struggle which this remarkable man represents.
President Mandela dedicated his life to breaking down barriers
between different cultural groups in South Africa. He pursued
equality for all South Africans regardless of race or colour.
Creating these first nations reserves, nations within the
nations of Canada, is no different in my mind than the creation
of the homelands of South Africa. The same kind of squalor,
poverty, disease and abuse is taking place on the reserves in
Canada that the black people of South Africa suffered for so many
years until Nelson Mandela was able to break that system.
Does this government not realize that by affording special
privileges to one cultural group it is creating rather than
eliminating such divisions? Not only is it creating divisions,
it is promoting an “us against them” mentality. For years this
mentality existed on the part of aboriginal people, and rightly
so. Poor treatment by our ancestors gave rise to animosity
between aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians.
For 131 years successive Liberal and Conservative governments
instituted well-meaning programs, but programs that were
disastrous for aboriginal people. They have not given aboriginal
people the same rights as the rest of Canadians enjoy, such as
the right to own a home, to raise a family in reasonable
conditions, to travel the country and to have a reasonable
income.
1710
Those things are denied. As my colleague from the NDP said,
aboriginal people are being corralled in reserves where
conditions are making it very difficult for them to leave and
participate in mainstream society.
We are now at a point in history where we have the opportunity
to promote and ensure equality among all Canadians. Instead,
this government would rather perpetuate the animosity by
affording special privileges to those first nations which are
signatories to the framework agreement.
This legislation is frustrating to non-aboriginal Canadians and
also to most grassroots aboriginal Canadians who see a particular
segment of Canadian society getting special privileges and
constitutional rights beyond those afforded to the average
citizen.
The creation of such an unconstitutional inequity is only one of
my concerns. I am also troubled by the fact that through this
legislation major sections of the Indian Act will no longer
apply. My colleagues and I certainly support repealing the
Indian Act, but not by this cherry picking method of taking the
good and leaving the rest.
Stanley Cuthland, an elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated
College, says that the traditional customs regarding divorce laws
are vague. Therefore, by giving first nations' leaders control
over property division and possession in the case of marriage
breakdown, we are putting the well-being of native women and
children in jeopardy. That is certainly an issue that I heard
raised by almost every member who spoke on this side of the
House. I also heard some feeble justification for it from the
other side of the House that really would not provide much
comfort to any Indian woman looking at this bill.
There is no guarantee that the divorce laws, which the member
opposite talked about the first nations creating, would respect
the individual rights of the individuals they affect. That is
only one example of the problem that may arise from enacting this
legislation. There are all kinds of problems. I guess the devil
is in the detail and the development of the regulations that will
be enacted on the reserves.
I would also like to point out that one of the biggest factors
contributing to the cycles of dependency on reserves is the fact
that reserve land and property is held in common.
We heard a lot of discussion about the traditional Indian way of
holding property in common, but the Indian people who come into
my office to talk to me about problems on the reserves do not see
their aspirations any differently than I do. They have a great
desire to own their own home, or their own piece of property, or
to make improvements to their home, when they can afford to,
because it is theirs and they can pass it on to their children.
They want exactly the same things the rest of us want.
This idea that all Indian people still want to have this tribal
custom of holding everything in common for the tribe is, in my
opinion, an excuse for the aboriginal leadership to maintain
control and the wealth of the reserve.
Giving a select few native leaders control over those common
properties provides an opportunity for those in power to take
advantage of the others in the community. I see it all the time.
I cannot understand how members on the opposite side of the House
can continue to turn a blind eye to the poverty and despair on so
many reserves.
The member opposite even spoke about how we should not be so
critical of these incidents that we continue to bring up of abuse
of power and mismanagement of money because these people somehow
have to learn to manage their own affairs and they will be better
for it. That is idiocy. As long as we allow a system of tyranny
to continue on the reserves, with the grassroots people having no
tools at their disposal to correct those things and make their
leadership more democratic, more responsive and more transparent,
that system will be perpetuated forever.
It will never change. The reserve natives will continue to live
in substandard conditions while many of their chiefs and councils
live in big houses and drive new cars and trucks.
1715
Anyone who has been on a reserve knows about these things and
what takes place on the reserve after a band election when the
chief and the entire administrative structure of the band change.
People are evicted from their houses. Relatives of the new
chief move into the houses. These things happen every day.
People talk to me about it.
I had a lady visit my office who had a wonderful well paying job
in social welfare on the reserve. She enjoyed her job. She was
well educated and she was good at her job. She witnessed the
abuse and corruption on her own reserve. Money was being taken
out of services for children and people on the reserve and being
put into places where it should not have been. When she
complained her life was threatened. She was evicted from her
house on the reserve and had to move off the reserve into town to
preserve her life.
The stories go on. I had a young man come into my office with a
lot of documentation regarding mismanagement and corruption on
his reserve. I looked at the papers and realized he had a solid
case. I went with him to the RCMP and had it look at the
evidence. The RCMP said there was solid evidence that something
was wrong. The RCMP said it would begin a criminal
investigation. The investigation went on for months until the
RCMP phoned me and told me this young man turned up dead on the
reserve and there was no sense in continuing any further with the
investigation. I can go on and on. There are endless stories
such as these.
The leadership on these reserves seemingly enjoys the funds
originating from the federal government but they are unevenly
distributed among other people. Indian people refer to this
system as the Indian industry and how hideous it is.
It is an outrage to think this legislation would benefit most
native people when it is only a select few native leaders
controlling the show.
The problem on reserves needs to be fixed before native leaders
are afforded any more power. That is the message being sent to me
all the time. Otherwise we are only contributing to an already
enormous economic and social problem.
It is time this government asked the grassroots natives, not
just native leadership, what they want rather than giving full
authority to the aboriginal leadership to impose whatever system
it likes.
Many native constituents have walked through my office door to
express their concerns over the secrecy and corruption on
reserve. I can assure members that not one of them has ever
suggested affording their native leaders greater control over
their lives. Most natives feel the leaders already have too much
power and the basic rights of the individual are being trampled.
I am frustrated by the government's automatic dismissal of
anything offered by Reform members with regard to aboriginal
issues. While I recognize that our philosophies may not always
agree with the government's, I am here to represent my
constituents. That is what I am attempting to do.
When I say a constituent has approached me with a concern, the
frequent response from the members opposite is that was just one
person, the majority support them. Under most conditions they
would quote one poll or another to support their position.
The truth is there are no polls reflecting the views of
grassroots aboriginal people. When it comes to native issues
there is a secrecy and sensitivity that makes it difficult for
grassroots natives to speak out about what they want or need. They
feel threatened by the chief and councillors who already wield
much control over their lives. If that control is increased, as
it will be by this legislation, it will be even more difficult
for those natives to speak out.
I cannot accept any legislation that supersedes federal laws of
general application. Amendments must be made to ensure that in
the event of a conflict with constitutional and federal laws,
constitutional and federal laws will reign supreme.
1720
In the event of a conflict, individual rights and freedoms must
be protected under the charter which, I might add, is a
cornerstone of liberal society. This is an absolute necessity, a
necessity that was at one time acknowledged and expounded by the
Liberal government.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
previously a member talked about having had the band's approval
for entering into this framework agreement. Does everybody
understand the law?
The B.C. Native Women's Society certainly does. It understands
the implications of this law and opposes it. The society speaks
for women and children, not just in B.C. but right across Canada.
The status quo creates desperation as people look for anything
that might help them out of the situation they are in. When this
bill was presented, as it has been consistently by the Liberal
government as the best answer to the problems besetting natives,
who spoke for the opposition to this bill?
Would the member comment on what has happened in the area of
Canada he represents? Do people hear both sides of the debate?
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree with
my colleague that generally grassroots on reserve Indian people
probably know very little about the bill and what the government
is proposing to do.
The aboriginal leadership on reserve generally maintains a
pretty solid control over the agenda that is taking place and any
information that would be coming in about the proposed
legislation by the federal government is, I am told, not
explained in an unbiased or reasonable way.
There has not been one aboriginal person out of probably
hundreds who have spoken to me over the last five years who has
asked me to support legislation that gave their leadership more
control over their lives. They want control over their own
lives.
When the member opposite speaks about giving aboriginal people
control over their lives, that is a commendable objective but she
is not talking about giving aboriginal people control over their
lives, she is talking about giving aboriginal leadership control
over reserve families' lives.
That is not what aboriginal people want. They want control over
their lives just like we have.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to enter this debate for a number of
reasons.
My province of Saskatchewan has the largest percentage of Indian
people of any province. I am very familiar with that, besides the
fact that in my constituency I have four or five or maybe more
reserves.
Wednesday is November 11. When I look at this date, I really
feel sorry for the misdeeds and the wrongs that have been done to
those people of native ancestry who joined the Canadian forces.
I take this opportunity to say that I fully extend my sympathy
with them. They volunteered. They were not recruited. They
fought. Some of them gave their lives but they were never given
full recognition for their services.
To this day, as far as I know, the Department of Veterans
Affairs has never issued an apology for the way those fine young
men were treated. I have some of those veterans of the Indian
ancestry within my constituency.
Throughout history we, meaning caucasians, committed many wrongs
against the natives of this country.
But one is so outstanding as we approach November 11. It really
hurts me. Some of them were even denied the right that they were
really people within the army. They were denied such things as
Veterans Lands Act rights. The Department of Veteran Affairs
denied them the same rights for continuing education. I have
talked to many of them. I hope someday I will be able to correct
that wrong whether through a motion or a private member's bill.
1725
In my constituency we have Moose Mountain, part of the name of
the constituency. I want to tell members about another terrible
wrong we did to those people just before the turn of the century.
We allowed white people, caucasians, to come in. Yes, they gave
a dollar for the land, but within a few years these same
speculators sold the same land for $2.50 an acre. They really
destroyed a whole potential reserve at that time.
Since that time we have tried to correct, through the Indian
lands entitlement act, a wrong that was done. As a result of
that, we have created two new Indian reserves out of what was
forced into one reserve.
I want to say this to correct a wrong. Every member in this
party believes fundamentally, without question, that we want to
see the treaties honoured. It is a fallacy for the members
opposite to say we do not want to see the treaties honoured. We
do. But what we do not want to see is a continuation of these
piecemeal events as they relate to natives in Canada which will
only perpetuate the myth that we have in Indian affairs at the
present time. We really are not taking any substantial measures
with this bill to correct a problem in the societal system we
have out there. We simply prolong it. This is what my
colleagues and I agree on fundamentally.
In 13 months we are facing a brand new millennium. It is time
we got with it. It is time that we took a look very seriously at
the greatest social problem we have, honour the treaties and let
us go into the new millennium, not with the same old rolling over
of disputes but with something that looks new, is new and will
respect the dignity of every man, woman and child.
This bill will not do that. The Indian Act today does not do
that. I do not know how many times I have had people come to me
and say “I want the same right that you have, Mr. MP. I want to
be able to go down to my office, just like you go to your town
office, and look at a financial statement. I want to see an
audited financial statement”. It is not only one call; this
goes on and on.
For us to say that they are not ready for it, I say if they are
not ready now, and I know the women and children are ready and
most of the grassroots people are ready, this bill does not face
that issue. Until that issue is faced, we are going to continue
with the big social problem.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain will have approximately 15 minutes
remaining when next this bill comes before the House.
Just before we leave this today, I rarely do this but I want to
commend members on both sides of the House for the really good
and worthwhile debate we had today.
1730
I commend the member for Churchill River who spoke in Cree and
then translated it for the House. I assure the hon. member that
he need not ever apologize to the House for speaking in his first
language, which has been a long tradition. The House deserves a
pat on the back for the quality of the debate today.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADA STUDENT LOANS
The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
for the opportunity to speak to the motion which calls upon the
government to address the challenges facing many young Canadians
as they seek to finance their post-secondary education.
To begin with, I commend the hon. member for her concern for the
educational needs of young Canadians. I assure her and other
members of the House that the government is concerned about the
issue of accessibility to post-secondary education and is working
hard to address it. We have made it a key priority from our
first day in office since we know that having a good education
and getting the right skills are key to the future of our youth
and the economic well-being of the country.
However, I disagree with a number of points in the hon. member's
motion such as some of her premises which suggest that we have
privatized the Canada students loans program and that we want to
turn students over to bill collectors. This is not true. Another
premise is that we need to implement a whole new federal
government student grant program presumably because nothing of
any value is currently in place. A third premise is that we need
to establish accessibility as a new national standard for
post-secondary education because once again the member seems to
feel we are not doing enough in this area.
Nevertheless I agree with the underlying motive in the motion,
namely the desire to ensure full access to post-secondary
education for all students who qualify, no matter where they live
or what their family circumstances. I state unequivocally that
this is also a priority of our government.
To make sure we got things right we consulted with students,
their families, our provincial partners and officials in
post-secondary educational and training institutions to find out
what challenges students face and how we can work with them to
address the issues they face.
One of the things students told us was that they needed better
access to financial assistance. Families told us that they
needed some help in saving for their children's education. As a
direct result of these consultations the last budget contained 13
new measures aimed at improving access to post-secondary
education for those students who might find it difficult to
pursue this goal without financial assistance.
These measures included, first, the millennium scholarship fund
that will provide grants to 100,000 students annually based on
their financial need and academic merit and, second, changes to
the Canada student loans program that help students repay their
loans. For example, we included a 17% tax credit on the interest
they are paying on their loans each year. The borrower can also
ask the lending institution to extend the loan repayment period
for 15 years, which can lower monthly payments by nearly 25% at
current rate. Third, there are Canada study grants to help those
in need. Fourth, we are also encouraging families to save for
their children's education by providing a Canada education saving
grant of 20% on the first $2,000 of annual contributions made to
a registered education savings plan for children up to age 18.
On the last point, even if they set aside $30 per month each
year, they will get a grant of 20% of the total contribution each
year from the Government of Canada. If they contribute the full
$2,000 they can receive the maximum grant of $400. This has
already proven to be a very popular savings vehicle.
As members are aware, some special students face special
challenges in pursuing their education.
For example, students with disabilities face multiple issues
relating to access.
1735
To address these special needs the government is trying to make
sure they get the assistance they need to enjoy equal access.
Some of these involve financial considerations while others
relate to long outmoded ways of thinking which emphasize
disability rather than recognition of special ability. For
instance, students with permanent disabilities such as deafness,
blindness or other physical or learning disabilities are eligible
for a Canada study grant of up to $5,000 a year to cover
exceptional education related costs that might result from the
disability. That amounts to an increase of $2,000 or a 67%
increase in our support for these students.
These funds may also be used to cover such exceptional expenses
as the cost of a tutor, an interpreter, attendant care or any
other special assistance required by students with disabilities
to allow them to undertake or continue their studies.
I might add that this is not just a one-shot effort but is part
of an ongoing commitment by the government to assess the needs of
students with disabilities in order to help them take their
rightful place in post-secondary education and training. There
are also grants for high need part time students, students with
dependants and women wishing to pursue certain doctoral studies.
This shows the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring the
widest possible access to post-secondary education. Contrary to
what the motion claims, the Government of Canada has not
privatized our system of student financial assistance. Rather we
are working in partnership with students, families, educational
and financial institutions to make sure that every student with
the qualifications, ability and desire can get the help they need
to continue. It shows that our loan and grant programs are
opening up learning opportunities to the full spectrum of
Canadian students.
We have put a clearly defined action plan in place which is
helping to improve the accessibility of post-secondary education
for all students, no matter what their family circumstances or
special needs.
Because of this the motion before us today, while well
intentioned, is unnecessary and could actually harm the progress
being made in helping students. For this reason I intend to vote
against it and I would urge other members to do likewise.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today in Private Members' Business we are debating a
motion brought forward by my colleague from Vancouver East having
to do with post-secondary education. I would like to read the
motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reverse
the privatization of Canada Student Loans, reject proposals for
income contingent loan repayment, and should instead implement a
federal student grant program and establish accessibility as a
new national standard for post-secondary education.
I understand the motion. My colleague believes and urges
support for a move to replace the necessity for student loans
with outright grants to students which would not be repayable and
to ensure that any student who wishes to pursue post-secondary
education would be given the means to do so. I believe that is a
correct understanding and I see my colleague agreeing with that
summary of her proposal.
The issue is an extremely valuable one to discuss. Clearly
there is an increasing feeling on the part of young people in the
country that the cost of education is becoming greater, more and
more of a burden. There are some who believe that the cost is
becoming prohibitive in people pursuing an education who
otherwise would wish to do so.
If that premise is true it certainly would need to be addressed
very clearly. In a country such as Canada with a small
population base our niche in the world economy clearly is one of
technological and innovative expertise.
We do not have the sheer horsepower that other countries have,
but we certainly can have the brain power and the technological
power that an above average education system can provide.
1740
Solid education is a key to a dynamic Canada in the context of
the global economy and to good jobs and secure jobs for the
workforce. That is very important because working people are the
ones who contribute to the social security measures that we have
in place, as well as to their own well-being and the well-being
of their families, and to future prosperity and quality of life
in our country.
I think all parties acknowledge the key role that post-secondary
education plays in Canadian society. We need to have high
quality in this area with highly qualified instruction, with good
facilities and top notch research equipment and programs, and
with the money needed to pay the expenses of education, tuition,
room and board, and books. We need to ensure that capable
people, those with ability and academic interests, are not barred
from pursuing that line of endeavour. There is very little to
argue with in the proposal that students should have the means to
pursue these opportunities.
The debate has centred around what is a reasonable means of
contribution to the funding of the education of students.
Education is expensive in terms not only of the time and talent
of the people involved but also in terms of dollars. There is a
legitimate debate about who should bear the costs of that
educational activity.
Should the student pay any of the costs at all? I think my
colleague is suggesting the costs should be borne entirely by
others in society and then in due course the student would gain
the expertise to contribute toward the education of others later
on.
The question I would pose to her—and perhaps she can address it
as she wraps up the debate—is one of fairness. Students
receiving an education clearly have an enhanced tool in their
hand to earn and to provide a life for themselves and their
family. Would it be fair to expect other people to bear all that
cost although a great deal of the benefit will accrue to the
student? It is not simply a matter of society benefiting
although clearly society will, but also there is a personal
benefit on the part of the student.
Another question comes to mind. Is there a human dimension that
makes people value and put more individual effort into something
in which they or their families have a personal investment as
opposed to having no personal stake in the educational endeavour
in question?
There is also a question of working people, many of whom have
not had either the skill or the inclination to pursue academic
studies, working at fairly low paying jobs at $7 or $8 an hour
but having to pay substantial taxes to fund the cost of education
of other people.
There are some fairness issues I would like to see addressed by
the member which suggest to me that outright grants to any and
all people who want to pursue post-secondary education may not be
appropriate.
I understand that students at the present time are required to
pay about a quarter of the actual cost of their education. This
is up from about 14% in the early 1980s. It is a little lower
than 18% which was the cost in the 1970s.
The question we need to ask ourselves is whether it is fair to
ask students and their families to fund a quarter of the cost of
their post-secondary education themselves rather than those costs
being totally borne by other working Canadians.
1745
It is interesting to note that family incomes have risen
substantially since 1970. Therefore, the burden of
post-secondary education is not as great as it was 20 or 30 years
ago. There is the serious issue of student debt and the
availability of loans to pay the educational costs, but then the
burden is on the student afterward. My Reform colleague who
spoke before on this issue talked about some of the proposals we
have put out into public debate to address that.
The other thing to notice is that students are hampered by this
government in other ways. They have to pay EI premiums if they
earn over $2,000 a year, even though they do not qualify for
benefits. Students earning over $3,500 a year have to pay CPP
premiums. Students earning just under $7,000 a year, which is
certainly not enough to live on nor to go to school on, are
subject to personal income tax. There is an anomaly here.
Students are barely able to pay the freight even though they only
pay 25% of the true costs of education, but their disposable
income is being taken by government in payroll and other taxes.
That is something to address as well.
The millennium scholarship fund, often talked about as the big
assister of students, in reality will help less than 10% of
students and they will be chosen by a board appointed by the
government. That is not going to be of great excitement to most
students.
Those are the issues we need to talk about in this debate. I
commend the member for bringing forward this serious issue. I
hope that she will respond to some of the concerns and balancing
considerations which I have raised.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
address the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East. This
motion deals with a very important issue, that is access to
post-secondary education. I will read the motion before
explaining the Bloc Quebecois' position. Motion M-132 reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
reverse the privatisation of Canada Student Loans, reject
proposals for income contingent loan repayment, and should
instead implement a federal student grant program and establish
accessibility as a new national standard for post-secondary
education.
Let me say from the outset that we oppose this motion because it
is clearly based on a centralizing will, in an area that comes
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under the
Canadian Constitution.
We are not of course opposed to investments in education, but it
is not the federal government's role to get involved in this
area. Indeed, beyond the Constitution itself, we have always
defended Quebec's education system, which clearly differs from
those that exist elsewhere in Canada.
The Quebec model has been successful, and it is to protect it
from a centralizing federal program that, this morning, I tabled
a bill to make changes to the millennium scholarship foundation.
If that bill is passed, it will allow Quebec, and the other
Canadian provinces interested, to opt out of the foundation's
activities, with full financial compensation.
It would be
possible for a province to opt out, provided there already
exists in that province a program aimed at providing financial
assistance to students in order to promote equity in access to
post-secondary education.
1750
I will not read the bill in detail here, but I will invite
anyone in the rest of Canada who would like to see national
education standards to do so, for it is a faithful reflection of
the consensus in Quebec. That consensus will manifest itself
each time the federal government tries to interfere in education
in Quebec.
For a clear understanding of the difference between Quebec and
the Canadian provinces, I need to provide a brief description of
how we have tried to guarantee equality of opportunity for
access to post-secondary education.
Quebec already has a program for providing financial assistance
to students. This would enable it to meet the conditions for
withdrawal with full compensation, as defined in the bill I have
made public this morning.
This comprehensive system was not created yesterday. After the
Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec created a loan and
bursary program aimed at promoting equal opportunity. It is the
only government in Canada to have developed such a system, and
to offer student assistance based on need, not merit.
Year after year, the Government of Quebec assumes approximately
80% of the costs of this program.
The rest, a marginal amount, comes from the federal program
Quebec opted out of in 1964 with full compensation.
We have to assume that Mr. Pearson, the Canadian Prime Minister
of the time, reached such a good understanding with Mr. Lesage,
the Premier of Quebec, because he had read the Canadian
Constitution, which provides clearly that education comes under
Quebec's jurisdiction.
I introduced a bill this morning to remedy the problem created
by the Liberal government. By insisting on setting up this
millennium scholarship fund the Prime Minister precipitated a
dispute with the National Assembly in a field where the
separation of powers is very clear. Because of this, it managed
to turn all—and I stress that—parties in the National Assembly
against its proposal. All parties in the National Assembly,
including the Liberal Party of Quebec, are opposed to it.
He succeeded in uniting all the stakeholders in education in
Quebec in opposition to him. Whether we are talking about
university rectors, professors or students, the world of
education opposed with a single voice the meddling by the
federal government in the field of education.
In this context, I must reject today's motion, which would
engender the same problems as the millennium fund scholarships
and apply uniformly across Canada—in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada.
At the risk of repeating myself, I reiterate that the people in
education in Quebec want to retain the ability to fashion their
own future according to the choices made by Quebec society. My
action this morning is intended to fight this same sort of
meddling by the federal government. It aims to have Quebec's
consensus on the matter respected.
This consensus is not surprising. Where education is concerned,
Quebec has its own developmental tools. It has had promising
results as far as accessibility is concerned. Tuition fees in
Quebec are twice as low as in the rest of Canada. The average
student debt load is estimated to be $11,000 per student,
compared to more than $25,000 in the rest of Canada. We in
Quebec can boast as well of having the highest proportion of
university undergraduates in terms of our population.
1755
In other words, we know how to manage education. We do not need
new national standards or a new campaign to increase the federal
government's profile.
There is too little money available for education to take any of
it for artificial country-wide standards, or to buy the Prime
Minister publicity, which is the main purpose of the millennium
scholarship foundation.
Looking at recent federal initiatives in education and
assistance to youth, it is obvious that raising the Liberal
government's profile is more important than students' real
needs. That is particularly clear in the case of the millennium
scholarships.
The Prime Minister is prepared to totally duplicate a government
structure that is already working perfectly well. The motion is
aimed in exactly the same direction as the millennium
scholarship foundation.
For example, the Government of Quebec has already accredited all
educational institutions within its borders. It has already put
into place a system which selects students based on need and not
on merit, systems for auditing records and distributing
assistance, an appeal process, and so on. This structure has
been in place in Quebec for a long time now, and works very well.
My bill urges the federal government to transfer financial
assistance directly to Quebec's students through Quebec's
existing system, consistent with the wishes of the elected
representatives of the National Assembly. It is a system that
is based not only on the needs and on the societal choices of
the PQ government, but that reflects the wishes of all parties
in the National Assembly.
I wish to point out that the money in the millennium
scholarships fund properly belongs to Quebec and to the
provinces who wish to opt out of the program. The money the
federal government is putting into the foundation comes from
cuts to transfer payments intended for Quebec and the provinces.
In Quebec alone, federal government payments to the education
sector have been cut by $500 million annually.
It is not surprising that Canadian provinces and Quebec are
demanding that the federal government resume transfer payments
before creating any new programs. Nor is it surprising that
Quebec's education sector is condemning the government for
giving $75 million in millennium scholarships with one hand,
while removing an amount six times greater from the education
budget with the other.
I have not addressed the issue of privatization of student
loans, or of proposals for income contingent loan repayment.
The reason is very simple: these measures do not apply to Quebec
which, as I explained, has designed its own system of financial
aid for students.
I therefore urge all those interested in
education to study this system, which has nothing to do with
privatization or income contingent loan repayment.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to stand today to speak to the motion by my colleague
from Vancouver East which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
reverse the privatization of Canada Student Loans, reject
proposals for income contingent loan repayment, and should
instead implement a federal student grant program and establish
accessibility as a new national standard for post-secondary
education.
I would like to dedicate what I have to say today to three young
women. One of them, who worked for me last term, is one of the
many students in this country who are bowled over by crushing
student debt. Another young woman had to declare bankruptcy
because of the size of her student debt. The main crime of both
of these women was that they chose to get a post-secondary
education. The third young woman is 20 years old and is
absolutely terrified about even entering the game because of the
situation she now sees facing so many other people. These are the
people I am thinking about when I talk about this motion.
The Liberal government has called itself the government of
youth. At the same time it is engaging in a deplorable strategy
of gutting funding for post-secondary education and privatizing
Canada's student loans and forcing more and more students into
severe debt.
1800
This motion attempts to rectify this injustice. It also
attempts to highlight the Liberal hypocrisy and make the link
explicit between the drive to privatize post-secondary education
and the increased hopelessness of students graduating into
unemployment and even poverty.
It also should be made clear that, as the government retreats
from its commitment to post-secondary education, the banks are
moving in. More and more students are forced to borrow more
money directly from banks in order to fund their education.
Banks are not publicly accountable and have an interest in profit
maximization, not in education and student well-being.
It is a strategy on the part of the Liberals to erode public
funding for post-secondary education to the point where it is
completely within the private sector domain.
With this motion the New Democrats are pressuring the Liberals
to recognize the extent of the student debt crisis. We want the
government to listen to what the students are saying.
I am interested in the comments from my colleague opposite about
disabled students, and I would like to speak a bit about what is
facing disabled students in this equation right now. Disabled
students are still not at all facing a level playing field when
it comes to post-secondary education.
We have enormously handicapped students or just mobility
handicapped students who have to work around attendant care
schedules. They really are handicapped by the schedules of
others. What we need here and now is really a user friendly home
care program that will meet the needs of students as they try to
make it to classes at different hours of the day.
In my city we need more than two accessible taxis for students
who have to find their way to universities. We have students who
are dependent on wheelchairs and find themselves not able to get
to school because their wheelchairs are in disrepair. They are
in fact having to spearhead their own fundraising for new
wheelchairs. It would be really unfair at this point to say that
there is a level playing field for these students.
There are also a lot of hidden costs for disabled students,
things like audio tapes and batteries and hundreds of ways that
students have to pick up hidden costs.
Deaf students in Ontario have recently found their grants turned
into loans. The cost of interpretation for a deaf and hard of
hearing student is quite frankly astounding. It can reach up to
$60,000 per student.
Let us not leave the impression that students with disabilities
are feeling confident as they enter the slings and arrows of
outrageous higher education.
I want to put forward some facts about post-secondary education.
According to Human Resources Development Canada, 45% of new jobs
by 2000 will require post-secondary education. That means for
many young people attending university or college there is simply
no option if they want to find work.
Despite this and despite saying they are committed to youth,
Liberals continue to throw barriers in the way of young people
struggling to develop the skills and talents necessary to get
ahead in a cut throat global economy.
Since 1995 the federal Liberals have cut $1.5 billion from
federal funding for post-secondary education. Since 1980 Liberal
and Conservative governments have cut federal funding from $6.40
for each dollar of students to less than $3.
Tuition fees in Canada have reached a national average of $3,100
which surpasses the average tuition rate at publicly funded
universities in the U.S. Bankruptcy rates for students trying to
pay off loans are at a record level, having increased by 700%
since 1989.
Currently we have 130,000 students in default. The number of
bankrupt graduates is estimated at 37,000. There is a legacy. I
really cannot get that out of my mind. I guess the first thing
this motion urges, which I think is central, is that the
government should reverse the privatization of Canada student
loans.
In 1995 the Liberals gave financial institutions broader
responsibility in the area of student financial assistance.
Before that time, even though student loans were accessed through
banks, they were fully guaranteed by government. Since then the
federal government has ceased to guarantee student loans.
1805
Instead it pays a 5% risk premium on all loans to participant
lenders. It was the government's subtle way of saying that
students are not to be trusted.
In the last budget the government announced another giant step
toward privatization. Buried deep within the budget legislation
currently in committee is a clause which gives banks more power
to refuse student loans.
The clause allows cabinet, outside the scrutiny of the House,
to determine which students do not deserve access to loans. The
implications to that are staggering. Who is to say which
guidelines cabinet will set? Will single mothers hoping to
access loans be turned away because they missed their credit card
payments?
Is this the first step toward giving banks total control over
eligibility guidelines? How far are we from banks being able to
determine which areas of study have a better return than others?
For example, how profitable is it to get an education in the
arts?
We are also concerned that privatizing student loans gives banks
even more power on campus. CEOs and chairs of Canada's biggest
banks already sit on boards of governors of many of Canada's
universities and colleges. Privatizing student loans furthers
their influence in shaping the direction of post-secondary
education.
Why does business want in? It is simple. It wants control.
Consider this statement by one time CEO of the Royal Bank Allan
Taylor: “It is in business' best interest to get involved with
funding for universities, but also with a direct involvement in
setting courses, setting the curricula, so that it will get the
kind of student it wants”. Big business has taken note. Across
the country campuses are becoming a favourite stomping ground for
big business elite.
This motion urges that the government should reject proposals
for income contingent repayments. It urges the government instead
to implement a federal student grant program and establish
accessibility as a new national standard for post-secondary
education.
New Democrats are not about to let the federal government forget
about the student debt crisis. Instead of creating a scholarship
program which duplicates existing programs and does nothing to
help students in need, we have called on the federal government
to take steps that will reduce student debt.
These include the end of privatization of Canada student loans
and restoring this year's cut to education of $550 million.
Following the suggestion of the British Columbia provincial
government, work with the provinces to introduce a nationwide
tuition freeze as the first step toward the elimination of
tuition fees. Implement a national grant program to assist first
and second year students and assist them to ensure students are
provided with accurate information and are informed of their
rights.
In the coming months the New Democrats will continue to work
with others concerned about post-secondary education to make sure
young people from low and middle income families do not have to
mortgage their futures and their families to attend university or
college.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for seven minutes
on the motion before the House moved by the hon. member for
Vancouver East regarding the Canada student loans program.
I am confused by the wording of the privatizing of Canada
student loans. In my riding I receive calls from students on
numerous occasions with questions or comments about the Canada
student loans program. I am not quite sure what the member means
about privatizing the Canada student loans program.
The wording of this motion really seems to be calling for action
by the Government of Canada to assist in the financing of
post-secondary education for Canadian young people.
What the motion ignores is that the Government of Canada has
undertaken extensive consultations with all stakeholders with an
interest in this subject, including the provinces and the
territories.
The government has implemented many of the recommendations of
the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We have
already taken measures to ensure Canadians have access to
post-secondary education.
In his February 1998 budget speech the finance minister said:
“Canadians do not need to be told that student debt has become a
major problem. Students know it. Their families worry about it.
Graduates must deal with it”.
In 1990 the average student debtload of a graduate completing
four years of post-secondary education was $13,000. It is now
almost double that, $25,000.
In 1990 less than 8% of borrowers had debts larger than $15,000.
Now nearly 40% do.
1810
[Translation]
For the purposes of the Canadian opportunities strategy, the
February budget proposed various improvements that reflect our
approach regarding financial assistance to students, the new
situation of today's students and current economic and
demographic changes. The new measures are designed to help those
most in need in the current economic context.
[English]
The budgetary measures include tax relief for interest on all
student loans, interest relief for more graduates, extended
repayment periods for those who need them, extended interest
relief periods for those who remain in financial difficulty and
reductions in loan principal for those who still face financial
difficulty.
For the first time all students get tax relief for interest
payments on their student loans. Each claimant will be allowed a
17% federal tax credit on the interest portion of payments of
federal and provincial student loans. The income threshold for
interest relief has been raised by 9%. This means a person can
now earn more and still be eligible for interest relief.
The interest relief plan is designed so that the Government of
Canada pays the interest on the loan for students facing
financial difficulty in repaying their loans. Beginning next
year partial interest relief will be available further up the
income scale for graduates facing financial difficulties.
For borrowers who have exhausted 30 months of interest relief
they can now ask their lending institutions to extend the loan
repayment to 15 years. At current rates of interest this could
lower monthly payments by close to 25%.
Now debt reduction can be provided for some graduates who still
remain in financial difficulty after exhausting free interest
relief measures. In these cases the loan principal may be
reduced if annual payments exceed 15% of the borrower's income.
[Translation]
Other initiatives taken under the Canadian opportunities
strategy also seek to improve Canadians' knowledge and skills to
prepare them for a knowledge-based society.
First, the millennium scholarships will facilitate access to
post-secondary education for over 100,000 students every year.
These scholarships will be offered to both full time and part
time students.
[English]
Second, Canada student grants of up to $3,000 a year will help
more than 25,000 students with children or other dependants.
These are grants, not loans, and they do not have to be repaid.
Students with a permanent disability such as deafness, blindness
or other physical or learning disability may be eligible for a
Canada student grant of up $5,000 a year to cover exceptional
education related costs. This is a $2,000 increase from what was
provided in the previous special opportunity grant for students
with disabilities. Part time students with demonstrated
financial need may qualify for a grant of up to $1,200.
Finally, certain female doctoral students pursuing full time
studies may qualify for a Canada study grant of up to $3,000 a
year. This will help to increase the participation of women in
certain fields of study. Engineering and applied sciences,
agriculture and biological sciences, mathematics and physics,
arts and social sciences are examples.
Taken together the measures I have described account for some
$230 million of new expenditures by the Government of Canada on
post-secondary financial assistance to Canada's students.
[Translation]
This is a remarkable commitment to promote the well-being of our
students and to help them complete their education, at a time
when higher levels of knowledge and skills are becoming
necessary to allow us to remain competitive in the global
economy.
In fact, overall, the federal government's initiatives will meet
a large number of the requests made in the motion before us
today.
[English]
In consultation with other players in the field of
post-secondary education and the students themselves, the
Government of Canada has devised a system that promotes
accessibility for all Canadians. It is a system that works for
today's economy.
In conclusion, while we can all appreciate the concern of the
hon. member for Vancouver East for Canada's students, the actions
already taken by the Government of Canada render the motion
redundant.
1815
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the motion
I would like to seek the consent of the House to briefly sum up
for just two minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Vancouver East has requested the unanimous consent of the House
to extend the time available for two minutes to sum up. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would first of all like to thank members of the House who
contributed to the debate on this motion. I would like to just
briefly summarize why this motion was brought forward.
We heard from government members today that there are
opportunities for students in Canada and that things are getting
better. But I would just like to say that the purpose of this
motion is to draw attention unfortunately to the stark reality
that things in Canada for students are getting worse, not better.
Student debt has risen dramatically from $13,000 to $25,000.
Unfortunately an increasing trend of privatization and control by
the banks of the Canada student loans program means that more and
more students are falling into debt and are unable to cope with
increasing tuition fees primarily because of what we have seen as
the retreat of public funding by the federal government.
We know that something like $1.5 billion has been lost from
post-secondary education. The reality is that across Canada there
are so many different standards in terms of different provinces.
I would agree with my colleague from the Bloc that the situation
in Quebec has been much better. The situation in B.C. is that we
have had a tuition freeze for three years in a row. But
elsewhere in Canada the situation is very, very grave for
students because of the retreat of public funding.
I would encourage members of the House to defend public
education and to say to the government that we do need a national
grants program. We do need accessibility as a national standard.
It is something that we need to work out with the provinces so
we do not have this patchwork across the country and where more
and more students are graduating into poverty and more and more
students cannot afford to go to post-secondary education.
I urge the members of the House to support this motion in the
spirit of standing behind our educational system and defending
the rights of students in Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
November 17, 1998, at the end of the time provided for
government orders.
[English]
It being 6.18 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)