36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 151
CONTENTS
Friday, November 6, 1998
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1005
1010
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1045
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ISLAND OF KOS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1100
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TERRORISTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DR. HARPAL S. BUTTAR
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FILM CENTRE LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1105
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE NISGA'A AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEMAINE MONDIALE DE LA MARIONNETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOB CREATION IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1110
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONE AND ACADIAN COMMUNITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNEMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1115
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1120
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1125
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1130
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1135
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE BREAKING IN PORTS
|
1140
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1145
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KUALA LUMPUR APEC MEETING
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1150
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL MUNICIPALITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1155
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PASSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1200
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | International Trade Agreements
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1205
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms Act
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1210
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1215
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1220
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1225
1230
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1255
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1300
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1330
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1335
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1350
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 151
![](/web/20061116191634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 6, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
JUDGES ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice) moved the
second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the
Senate to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act, has come back to this
House with amendments from the other House. The Senate and the
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
gave serious consideration to all aspects of this important bill
and heard from a number of witnesses who contributed a range of
perspectives on certain issues of concern to the Senate.
On behalf of the government and the Minister of Justice I want
to commend the senators for their diligent review of the issues.
Here is an example of the necessity of having a Senate to review
House legislation. According to this government the Senate did
an excellent job.
The key elements of Bill C-37 were passed by the Senate,
including important improvements to the judicial compensation and
benefits commission process, necessary increases to current
judicial salaries after years of salary freezes and a major
expansion of unified family courts in Canada.
However, the Senate proposed and passed two substantive changes
to Bill C-37 that relate to the definition of surviving spouse
and the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits
commission. The government is prepared to support these
amendments for the following reasons.
With respect to survivor benefits, the Senate did not pass the
provision in the bill relating to the change in definition of
surviving spouse to include common law spouses. The Scott
commission recommended that survivors' annuities be extended to
common law spouses “where legally appropriate”.
1005
However, the commission did not systematically review all of the
ramifications of extending the entitlement to survivors'
annuities. It was these ramifications that gave rise to concern
and debate at Senate committee.
I want to point out that no one disagrees with extending the
benefit to common law spouses. Rather, the issue that caused
some public debate and a lot of debate in the Senate is the
method by which this recognition is implemented.
[Translation]
In accepting the recommendation made by the Scott commission,
the government had to consider its impact on specific cases,
including the formula to be used when there are two surviving
spouses.
In the public service sector, the solution chosen is to divide
the pension between the two surviving spouses. This is the
approach taken in the public service pension plan and in the
pension plan for members of Parliament and senators. We felt
this was a reasonable solution which ensured consistency with
other federal pension plans.
[English]
However, before the Senate committee there was much discussion
and disagreement on what was the best approach to be used in this
case.
After due consideration the Senate committee did not feel that
all of the issues had been sufficiently resolved and recommended
that the new judicial compensation and benefits commission take a
fresh look at the issue of judicial pensions and their treatment
after marriage breakdown.
The Senate also heard arguments which suggested that the federal
government has no constitutional authority to legislate over
survivors' annuities.
It is important to indicate that the government's concurrence in
this amendment is not to be taken as agreement with such a
suggestion. The federal government does have the clear authority
to deal with pension matters, including matters ancillary to the
creation and administration of those pensions. We do not accept
the argument that the government is acting outside of its
jurisdiction on this matter.
[Translation]
However, in light of the concerns expressed, we accept that it
would be useful to have the new judicial compensation and
benefits commission look at possible solutions for the specific
case where there are two surviving spouses.
The purpose of this commission is to remove the political
element in determining the benefits and compensation to be paid
to judges. The commission will hear the opinions of a number of
experts in pension plans and family law, and those of other
concerned parties, before making recommendations on a formula
for surviving spouses that is fair and consistent with the
general practices in the area of pensions.
[English]
The Senate also gave very careful consideration to and
ultimately approved the new commission process in Bill C-37.
However, the Senate was of the view that the process would be
further strengthened by the inclusion of certain express
statutory criteria that would help define and clarify the scope
of the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits
commission.
The Senate amendment will provide, in the statute, for objective
criteria that the commission must consider in reaching its
recommendations.
[Translation]
The objective criteria cited were the following: the state of
Canada's economy, including the cost of living, as well as the
government's overall economic and financial situation; the role
played by the financial security of judges in maintaining
judicial independence; the need to recruit the best candidates
for the bench; and any other objective factor it deems
pertinent.
1010
[English]
As a matter of practice, the mandate letters of prior triennial
commissions have always specified express objective criteria that
should be considered.
For the government and the minister there was never any doubt
that this practice would continue. However, putting these
criteria into the statute will make it clear to everyone that
objective criteria will continue to be used in coming to
recommendations on judicial compensation.
This amendment will, therefore, reinforce the objective nature
of the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits
commission.
[Translation]
The Senate also proposed a number of technical amendments
regarding the wording of provisions in the bill, which do not
change its content but which clarify the original intention of
the bill. The government also supports these amendments.
In conclusion, the government is in favour of these amendments
to Bill C-37.
Eliminating the definition of surviving spouse will allow the
new commission to examine all the options for recognizing
common-law spouses and to make recommendations for a fair and
logical approach in cases where there are two surviving spouses.
The inclusion of obligatory criteria will help to clarify the
mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits commission
and, as a result, will enhance the credibility and independence
of this commission.
[English]
Bill C-37 will strengthen what is already one of the best
judicial systems in the world. The improvements to the judicial
compensation process will ensure continued public confidence in
the independence of our judiciary.
The bill provides reasonable and fair compensation for our
judges consistent with the important role they play in protecting
the key values in our democratic society.
Increased judicial resources for unified family courts combined
with provincial commitment of support services will improve the
way our courts respond to families and children in crisis. The
increase in the number of court of appeal judges will improve
access to justice generally.
This bill will both enhance the independence of our courts and
improve access to justice. These are goals which I am sure all
Canadians support.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to debate the government's concurrence motion on
Senate amendments to Bill C-37.
For the record, this is the second occasion I have had the
opportunity to state Reform's opposition to this bill. This is a
bill which grants judges an unprecedented salary increase of 8.3%
and establishes a judicial compensation and benefits commission.
The official opposition is grateful for the amendment put
forward by our colleague from Crowfoot. We are grateful that it
was supported and passed in this House during report stage of
Bill C-37.
The Reform amendment ensures that every four years the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the opportunity to
review the report of the commission on judges' salaries and
benefits. This task will not be left solely to the Minister of
Justice as originally contemplated by the government.
However, this amendment has not swayed our opposition to the
bill. It has simply made it more palatable. The Reform Party
still stands firmly opposed to Bill C-37.
As stated repeatedly in this House during all stages of the
bill, other public servants and Canadians in general have not
been afforded the same wage increase as that granted to the
judges by Bill C-37. At a time when Canadian incomes continue to
decline we cannot support such an unprecedented hike in salary.
According to a June 10 Ottawa Citizen article, family
incomes are still dropping and as a result Canadians need to
stretch the family budget to keep a roof over their heads. While
housing costs eased during the first half of the decade, family
income declined even more. That nudged a proportion of Canadians
who spend at least 30% of their income on shelter to one in four
households, or almost 2.8 million households. These findings,
released by Statistics Canada, were derived from the 1996 census.
Another Citizen article, published on the same date,
revealed that more and more two-parent families had both parents
in the workforce in 1996, while at the same time the number of
children left at home was increasing.
1015
Statistics Canada reported that the overall lower income among
Canadians in 1996 was the reason both parents were being forced
into the labour market. Stats Canada has also reported that the
majority of Canadian children, 4.8 million under the age of 15,
lived in two parent families in 1996. Of those children 60% had
both parents in the workforce, up from 43% in 1981.
In light of this information regarding the income of Canadians,
in good conscience the Reform Party cannot support the bill. In
the same vein we cannot support the government's concurrence in
the Senate amendments.
I recognize the thorough job the Senate did in reviewing the
bill and the substantive amendments put forward by the upper
house. In particular I single out Liberal Senator Anne Cools for
her diligent efforts in revealing the inadequacies of the bill.
Senator Cools rightfully exposed the fact that Bill C-37
effectively allows judges to set their own salaries and perks. In
doing so it sets up the possibility of there being a showdown
between parliament and the judiciary because it allows judges to
appeal parliament's decision regarding a recommended salary
increase in the courts. Essentially judges could have the final
say over whether parliamentarians are giving them a sufficient
raise.
Although former judicial pay commissioner David Scott has said
that it is unlikely judges would be setting their own salaries,
he has not ruled out the possibility of the judiciary challenging
parliament's response to the commission's recommendations.
The judiciary would have to prove, however, in a court that the
refusal to increase salaries or a decision to lower them was
motivated by a wish to diminish the independence of judges. Mr.
Scott said that even if the judges won in such a case the court
could only declare parliament's motion on the issue void, which
may result in a stalemate.
As pointed out by the Liberal senator this will:
Clearly control of the public purse rests with parliament and
not with the judiciary. Section 100 of the 1867 Constitution Act
states in part:
The salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges...shall be
fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
Clause 6 of Bill C-37 potentially abolishes the true
parliamentary role in the fixing of judges salaries. We must
obviously question why the Minister of Justice has bestowed such
potentially wielding powers on the judiciary in Bill C-37.
One can only surmise, and again I use the thoughts and words of
Senator Cools when she said:
The real intent (of Bill C-37) is to remove parliament from the
process.... There is a problem in that certain particular judges
seem to crave a closeness to certain individuals in the
Department of Justice and are trying to cling, closer and closer,
to the executive rather than to parliament. In other words,
honourable senators, what is happening here is that 200 years of
history are being turned on their head, and we are being told in
this judgment that, quite frankly, judges prefer their fate to be
in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of
parliament. It is a most curious and interesting subject matter.
I will turn specifically to the amendments put forward by the
Senate. Amendments 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 delete all the clauses
referring to two spouses. Bill C-37, as originally drafted by
the Department of Justice, created a legal right for a judge to
have two spouses. The two spouses clause was meant to deal with
a circumstance in which a married judge separates from his or her
partner, moves into a common law relationship with another person
and then dies. Once law, it would allow a judge to have both
spouses, married and common law, eligible for the lucrative
pension payouts and divide the money between them when the judge
dies.
Additionally the common law spouse would collect the one time
payout of one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time of
death.
Former Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey has said that these
particular Bill C-37 amendments would give his former colleagues
on the bench the right to a kind of home-made harem. It would,
Estey said:
It has been well established that situations such as the one
contemplated in Bill C-37 are rare. One therefore must question
why such a clause was put in Bill C-37. Critics have suggested
that this clause was tailor made for Chief Justice LeSage who is
separated from his wife and has resided for about one year with
Judge Lang. If Chief Justice LeSage were to die, the new
amendment would allow both Judge Lang and Mrs. LeSage to qualify
as his surviving spouses and share his pension.
1020
As pointed out earlier, Senator Cools, as well as many others,
have surmised that Bill C-37 appears tailored to fit particular
individuals. Senator Cools said:
We have a situation in the country where certain individuals have
access to the legislative writing machine. That is bothersome.
This certainly is not the first time the government has tailor
made legislation. Previous amendments to the Judges Act
introduced during the last parliament under Bill C-42 set out
terms in which Canadian judges could participate in international
activities, although it was never explicitly admitted by the
government—it was no secret—that those amendments to the Judges
Act arose due to the appointment of Madam Justice Louise Arbour
to the United Nations as prosecutor for the War Crimes
Commission.
I commend the Senate and support those amendments eliminating
this tailor made clause of Bill C-37, clauses which, as stated by
Senator Cools, “script their sins into the laws of the nation”.
We do not support, however, Amendment No. 3 which adds
subclauses to clause 6 of Bill C-37. Clause 6 establishes the
judicial compensation and benefits commission. These subclauses
effectively expand the powers of the commission, powers which
were not contemplated or countenanced in the original bill.
Specifically we take issue with section (1.1)(a) which reads:
In conducting its inquiry, the commission shall consider (a) the
prevailing economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of
living, and the overall economic and current financial position
of the federal government.
What exactly does this mean? How expansive are the powers of
the commission? Does the reference to the current financial
position of the federal government mean the commission will have
the power to call the Minister of Finance before it to question
him on our financial status? If such powers are vested with the
commission, it is setting a dangerous precedent, a precedent the
official opposition cannot support.
During his appearance before the Senate committee reviewing Bill
C-37 former commission chairman David Scott clearly questioned
statutorily defining criteria as proposed by the Senate. In fact
Mr. Scott went so far as to say:
I am not sure what the relevant criteria would be.... I am not
saying that there should not be any criteria, but once you start
down the road of developing criteria, you may create a monster.
Clearly the Senate's amendment goes against the advice of the
former commissioner.
As stated earlier, the official opposition does not support the
government's concurrence motion. Nor do we support any expansion
of the commission's powers, powers which were not originally
contemplated by the government and the House.
A decision of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island forced
the federal government to establish a judicial compensation
commission. Bill C-37, as originally introduced, meets that
legal obligation. Senate Amendment No. 3 is therefore
unnecessary.
I caution the government's wisdom in accepting all the Senate
amendments, particularly given the expanded powers of the
commission which may involve additional time and travel for their
inquiries, time and travel which may cost additional expenditure
of funds that were not originally contemplated by the royal
recommendation of Bill C-37. I am not emphatically stating that
there is a violation. I am simply raising a flag for the record.
In closing, I reiterate the Reform Party's position. We stand
opposed to Senate Amendment No. 3. We stand opposed to the
outrageous salary increase for judges at a time when financial
pressures on Canadian families continue to increase as their
quality of life decreases.
It is incredible that we sit in this place in consideration of a
windfall increase in pay for judges while in my home province of
British Columbia public safety is being put at risk through
reduced law enforcement due to the gutting of RCMP budgets.
In my constituency a police car which sustains more than $4,000
damage is parked because there is no money to get it repaired.
There is not enough money to replace worn tires on patrol cars,
putting both police and public at risk. Store owners fear loss
of business as customers run a gauntlet of crack cocaine dealers
because police lack the money and resources to deal effectively
with them.
We stand opposed to the concurrence motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-37, as amended by the
Senate.
It is often said that what is clearly understood can be clearly
expressed. With this in mind, let me outline the Bloc Quebecois'
position. We oppose Bill C-37. However, while the amendments put
forward by our brave colleagues in the Senate are a step in the
right direction, we think many more amendments would be required
and much more work would have to be done on this bill before the
Bloc Quebecois could consider supporting it.
1025
On October 22, the Senate made eight amendments to the bill. We
are opposed to the principle of raising federal judges' salaries
by approximately 13%, which is unacceptable to us in the Bloc
Quebecois, and that is why we oppose the bill.
On the other hand, we are in favour of establishing the Judicial
Benefits and Compensation Commission. We are also in favour of
the Senate amendments for the following reasons: a number of
these amendments would bring the French and English versions of
the bill more in line with one another, while one other
amendment clarifies the mandate of the commission being
established by the federal government.
This amendment explicitly sets out what we believe was the
implicit mandate of the Judicial Benefits and Compensation
Commission. In our view, these explicit criteria are positive
and fair.
For the Bloc Quebecois, the most crucial of these amendments is
the one deleting clause 1 of Bill C-37. Clause 1 defines the
term “surviving spouse” and, for constitutional reasons, we are
opposed to the inclusion of surviving spouses in Bill C-37.
In this respect, we support the explanation given to the
committee by Professor Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall. According
to Professor Cameron, while it is the responsibility of the
federal government to set benefits for federally appointed
judges, the provinces have a similar responsibility with respect
to matrimonial property and the division of assets in an estate.
Pensions are included in matrimonial property under family and
estate distribution law. This raises the question of whether
the federal government has jurisdiction to legislate the
division of estate assets by defining the expression “surviving
spouse” and with all the rights accorded subsequently in the
bill according to the definition of “surviving spouse”.
According to Ms. Cameron, and the Bloc Quebecois completely
supports this position, the federal government is encroaching on
provincial jurisdiction over matrimonial and estate property.
Accordingly, we support the amendments eliminating clause 1,
which defines “surviving spouse” and the clauses pertaining to
the rights of surviving spouses.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Judges Act in order to
increase judges' salaries and to change the criteria governing
pension plan eligibility. The bill also establishes the
Judicial Benefits and Compensation Commission.
Finally, the bill provides for more judges in appeal and unified
family courts. The bill is the Liberal government's response to
the 1995 triennial commission on judges' salaries and benefits,
also known as the Scott commission.
In 1981, Parliament provided for the creation of independent
commissions with a mandate to confirm that the pay and benefits
of judges were sufficient in view of the importance of judicial
independence and the unique role given judges by the Canadian
Constitution.
On September 18, 1997, in a reference regarding the remuneration
of provincial court justices in Prince Edward Island, which
pertained to the independence and impartiality of these
justices, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of these
independent commissions, which establish a vital link between
two government powers: the executive and the judicial.
The court also pointed out the constitutional obligation to set
magistrates' salaries.
The commission's recommendations are not binding on the
government, but the court judgment requires a reasonable and
public justification to be provided if the recommendations are
rejected, before a court of law if necessary.
The 1995 Scott Commission I have already referred to recommended
a progressive 8.3% increase, and the Liberal government accepted
that recommendation in its bill by proposing 4.1% yearly for two
years.
Moreover, in determining what was reasonable, the Scott
Commission acknowledged that a complex and broad range of
factors needed to be taken into consideration in determining the
appropriate pay level, including the need of pay levels capable
of attracting and retaining the most qualified candidates for
the office of judge.
The report is based on the relationship between judges' salaries
and those of lawyers in private practice, since this is the
source of most candidates for the office of judge.
Section 25 of the Judges Act calls for annual adjustments to
judges' salaries based on the increase in the industrial
aggregate, up to a maximum of seven per cent.
1030
Judges' salaries were frozen between December 1992 and March 31,
1997, under the Public Service Compensation Restraint Act.
Our objection to the Scott report is that it is based solely on
federal economic activity indicators, and not on the economic
sectors most heavily affected since the 1993 cuts. In our
opinion, the most fundamental question is whether we should be
putting books back into the schools and beds back into the
hospitals, or raising the salaries of high court judges already
earning $155,800. These are hardly starvation wages, after all.
To sum up the Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-37, we think
that the Liberal government has already achieved its zero
deficit, but we all know it did so on the backs of the
provinces, unemployed workers and the most disadvantaged members
of our society.
The Minister of Justice may well want to reward judges by
increasing their salaries, but she would do better to persuade
her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to compensate the
provinces for the cuts to health, welfare and post-secondary
education transfer payments.
The Bloc Quebecois puts other priorities ahead of raising
judges' salaries. None of us is in any doubt that judges work
hard, but they are far from the only ones doing so.
It is for these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to
the principle of increasing judges' salaries.
We are in favour of creating an independent commission, but we
cannot go along with this lapse in solidarity and vision in an
economic context where the provinces have borne the brunt of the
federal government's fight to eliminate the deficit.
Naturally, we have heard the government's arguments that the
most competent lawyers must be attracted to the bench, and we
fully agree. But judges too are members of society, and as such
must take part in the collective effort. Even though the
federal deficit has been eliminated, the $500 billion debt is
still hanging over our heads.
Instead of increasing judges' salaries, the government could
have given the money to the provinces to buy hospital beds and
to help the most disadvantaged members of our society.
The supplementary estimates tabled last Wednesday also indicate
that the Canadian unity group at Justice, one of whose
responsibilities is the reference to the Supreme Court, is
costing Canadian and Quebec taxpayers $700,000. Again, this
money could have paid for many hospital beds and many meals on
the tables of the most disadvantaged members of our society.
Today, therefore, I am calling on the Minister of Justice to
withdraw her bill and to use the money instead to compensate the
provinces for the unjust cuts they have suffered since this
Liberal government took office.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to address the Senate amendments to Bill C-37.
I reviewed some of the comments that I made on behalf of my
party some time ago when this bill was first introduced. I
compared this piece of legislation to a recipe that my
grandfather brought to this country from Italy some time ago. I
said that as much as my grandfather would try to pass that recipe
onto his children, when he would taste the sauce he would say
“You got a little bit of it right and whole lot of it wrong”.
I said that this bill was very similar to that sauce.
The Senate has added a dash a salt but nothing particularly to
improve the flavour of this legislation. What remains tragic is
that with this legislation there was an opportunity for the
government to address some fundamental issues.
I will pick up on the comments of my colleague from
Charlesbourg. He talked about cutbacks in the provinces. He
talked about hospital beds. He talked about the kinds of things
that matter to Canadians at a time when this government is
determined that we should give judges a substantial increase in
their salaries.
I am not going to talk so much about hospital beds. I am going
to talk about the justice system and where those funds might be
better funnelled at a time of increasing demands on the courts,
at a time when we are looking at a role for victims to play in
the courts, at a time when crown prosecutors who have to enforce
the laws are finding their hands tied because of lack of
resources, and at a time when the RCMP and law enforcement
agencies are finding their budgets slashed.
1035
When we are determining how the very sparse funds have to be
divided up, increasing the judges' salary at this point in time
when this country has other problems is perhaps not the wisest
and most judicial, if you will, use of funds.
I sit on the custody and access committee. One complaint we
have heard continually is that when there is a dispute in family
law it cannot be resolved for months because of the backlog in
cases. There is a lack of legal aid availability for parties who
are seeking to bring their matters before the court. There is a
lack of court clerks. There is a lack of all kinds of necessary
instruments to bring matters to court and to have them resolved
quickly. When matters are not resolved quickly before the courts,
it results in increased tension between the parties. The parties
take matters into their own hands and there is increased concern.
These funds might have been better spent in improving the
justice system in the provinces. That is in the family law
courts. Let us look at the criminal courts.
More and more powers are being delegated to provincial court
judges with fewer and fewer resources. Again this means longer
waiting times for court hearings. It does no good for the
accused, who lives under a cloud of suspicion while waiting for
his or her day in court. It does no good for the victim, who
waits for months and months in a system he or she never asked to
end up in in the first place.
The cuts to the provinces have resulted in increased waiting
times in both the criminal and family courts.
Also, as has been raised by this side of the House, the RCMP
training centre out west is being closed down. I am meeting with
a group of people in my own riding next Monday when the House is
down. Seniors in my riding have been told that when they press
an alarm, it will only be responded to if the person pressing the
alarm can guarantee that there is a break and enter.
I practised criminal law for some time. It was a rare occasion
when one could say to the criminal breaking into the home “Hold
on for a minute while I call the police to confirm that you are
here. Would you take the phone and let the RCMP know that there
is a reason for them to come”. I do not blame the RCMP officers
for this. The reality is that they do not have the resources to
respond unless they can be sure there is a crime taking place. At
the same time that this is happening, we are increasing the wages
for some of the wealthiest people in this country. I again
question whether that is the best use of resources.
There was also a golden opportunity, which I have spoken to the
Minister of Justice about, to review the method of appointment of
judges. The parliamentary secretary has said in support of some
of the Senate amendments that the criteria in terms of
determining judicial compensation ought to be accepted and it is
something the government looks favourably on. I would suggest we
ought to revamp the criteria for the appointment of judges before
we revamp the criteria for increasing their salaries and
determining whether they ought to get it.
This country has some very good judges. I do not want to
diminish that for a moment. The late Justice Dickson was an
example of a fine judge. He moved this country forward in his
position as a supreme court justice. There are hundreds of good
judges in this country.
Every now and then we hear about an appointment to the court
that is simply a patronage appointment. It is well known
certainly on the east coast and in the province I come from that
part of how one gets to the judiciary is to make the right
contributions to the parties in power.
1040
Just this summer there was an appointment of a judge to the
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Prior to her being a judge, she
started her career as a lawyer and a keen organizer for the
Liberal Party. The reward for that was an appointment to the
public utility board in Nova Scotia which paid some $75,000 a
year up until the age of 75. This was a pretty nice plum and
everybody thought she was satisfied with that. As it turned out,
she was a classmate of the Minister of Justice, I think the year
behind. She was not too happy on the utility board and found
herself appointed to the supreme court. That appointment met with
considerable criticism in the province. It was not the only one.
That is unfair to the judges who legitimately serve this country
well, who achieve their appointment on merit. We need to have a
discussion about this. I have indicated to the Minister of
Justice that there ought to be a subcommittee of the justice
committee that can explore and ensure a fair method of the
appointment of the judiciary. Citizens look to the judiciary in
some ways to set the moral standards of the country. They look
to parliamentarians. They look to people in authority.
This is a time when we are talking about youth crime and young
offenders who appear before judges. It is very difficult to
present to them the argument that the society we want them to
participate in is one that is fair and just if some of the very
people they appear before received their positions on the bench
not because of their understanding of criminal, family or
contract law, but because of their connections to particular
parties. This was a missed opportunity.
Some of the amendments that were put forward by members of the
justice committee from the Reform Party and the Bloc party were
good. It is too bad that the government could not have supported
them. It did support one of those amendments. The amendment put
forward by the Bloc which had to do with the actual pay increase
would have been well received. It is too bad that the government
did not choose to accept that in the same way it accepted the
amendments from the Senate.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House today to speak on the Senate amendments to
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and other consequential
acts.
It is nice to see the upper chamber bringing forth amendments
that we believe will only benefit this bill. This is further
proof that the other place continues to play a vital role in
Canadian politics. It is also proof that although the Liberal
government likes to ram bills through with little consultation,
it does not always work.
Nevertheless, our party is encouraged by the provisions
contained in Bill C-37. These amendments will improve the
independence, the objectivity and the effectiveness of the salary
and benefits commission process.
Clause 6 of the proposed amendments will for the most part
strengthen the judiciary. For example, the need to attract
outstanding candidates to the judiciary will not only enhance the
credibility of the judiciary but it will also enhance the
process.
The Progressive Conservative Party is encouraged by the
provisions which make the appointments less bureaucratic and more
democratic.
This commission will consist of three people, of which one will
be appointed by the Minister of Justice. The other would be
appointed or nominated if you will, by the judiciary, while the
chair would be named by the two previously mentioned.
I stand by my remarks from last March when I first spoke on this
bill. I believed then as I do now that a better, more
accountable way of appointing people to this committee would be
to enable the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to
nominate a member to sit on the commission Such a process would
not only improve the transparency, but it would also eliminate
some of the patronage that goes on during these appointments.
As for the deletion of section 45 of the act, the joint and
survivor provisions, it will rightfully entitle the respective
provincial governments to handle the salary and benefits
situation as it relates to spouses according to the province in
which the judge respectfully works.
An example of this is in Quebec where common law marriages are
not recognized.
Should Quebec judges be penalized for working in Quebec? No,
they certainly should not be. This amendment will ensure
equality for all judges right across the country as it relates to
their place of work and residency.
1045
By keeping central control in the confines of the provincial
government, we believe it is more practical to apply a case by
case process as it pertains to individual judges. Narrowing the
scope eliminates the possibility for difficulty and confusion
down the road. This legislation has invoked a great deal of
passion and provocative commentary within the House, and to some
extend a great deal of righteous indignation on the part of some.
It is important to focus on the role of judges and the important
tasks they are charged to perform. We have previously debated
the important question of the separation of power in society. My
party strongly believes judicial independence is the cornerstone
of our democracy. There is no question that we as
parliamentarians may not always agree with a court's decision,
but it is our job to respect and uphold the system in place for
the good of the country and the citizens we represent.
However, it cannot be stated strongly enough or with enough
emotion the importance of having our judges remain independent of
the elected body. We as parliamentarians are elected as opposed
to appointed judges. A balance needs to be struck to eliminate
the practice of governments, in particular majority governments,
using heavy handed measures the judiciary is called to
investigate.
My party is comfortable supporting the amendments brought forth
today because they give guidelines to the commission that will
ultimately strengthen the judiciary and present guidelines for
the way salaries are set. Furthermore, we believe in an
independent commission setting the judges' salaries. The
provisions regarding spousal pension benefits are nothing but
beneficial to the law and the process. Therefore I would ask
that the other parties here today agree to the amendments brought
forth.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on 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: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
vote is deferred until Monday, November 16 at the ordinary time
of adjournment.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed from November 5 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. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will continue my delivery from yesterday. I was
discussing some of the many injustices that have taken place in
the past. I will deal specifically with the land claims
agreement in Saskatchewan and how it continues to fail daily in
terms of the obligation of this government. It drives the wedge,
a feeling of inequality, between rural Saskatchewan and this
government. I am talking about a debt owed by this government to
the rural areas of Saskatchewan.
Let us go back 10 years.
1050
A promise was made to the rural governments of Saskatchewan that
when the natives would acquire Indian land, the RMs would be paid
22.5 times the assessment for the land taken out of the
assessment role.
In other words, the deal was that they would get 22.5 years of
taxes in lieu of services they provided. When this government
came into power, it changed this so that the rural municipalities
of Saskatchewan get a mere 5 years taxes.
That is an injustice. The debt owed to the RMs is owed by the
government and the people of Canada. It is a national debt.
How does the government think that 200 or 300 people left in a
rural municipality can pick up the entire debt of losing 20% of
the assessment of their land forever? It has gone into reserve.
The RMs are not quarrelling about the acquisition of land. The
quarrel is with this government.
What happens to the remaining farmers in that area? They have
to have their taxes raised considerably in order to provide the
same services.
The previous minister of Indian affairs flatly refused to meet
with the delegation from Saskatchewan. I throw this question out
to the minister of Indian affairs now. Would that hon. member
now, in her new position, not meet a delegation from Saskatchewan
hoping to correct the unfair decision the government has made?
That is key to the survival of rural Saskatchewan.
When I want to have an understanding how my rural municipality
is doing, I have the right to go down to the office, ask for a
financial statement and it would provide that for me.
Since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede,
we have progressed in the democratic way so that we have a type
of government, both at the municipal level right to the federal
level, in which Canadians are demanding they have accountability.
As we deal with the bill, why are we denying the right of fellow
Canadians, grassroots people who live on our native reserves, the
same type of accountability we have?
Would any one of us here want to turn back the hands of time to
an autocratic way of government? Would we want to go back to
even before this century where we did not have the necessities
laid out and spelled out of how we have to handle people's money?
I was 20 years on local government. What did we have to do? We
had to prepare a financial budget. When that was completed and
sent to a superior government, which is the province, we then
every year had to have an annual financial statement done by a
registered auditor. That had to be returned.
Why are we trying to operate any differently in all of Canada
from the privileges that members of this House enjoy as citizens?
That is the big question. That is the question the bill does
not address.
If a group of us want to go into business, there are guidelines
in legislation, both federal and provincial, which require
certain things to take place. There are certain checks and
balances.
Why would we not, as the senior government, the Government of
Canada, ask for the same procedures in business and
accountability no matter where people live in Canada? That is
the question.
We would not want to turn back the hands of time. I would not
want to live in a town where I could not get information as to
how my tax dollars are being spent. I would not want to live in
a municipality where the reeve and the councillors made sure they
did not have to report to the people. Why are we accepting this?
That is the big question facing Canadians.
1055
In Saskatchewan our local government did not have the right to
pass legislation which belonged to the province, just as the
province cannot contravene legislation that belongs to the
federal government. This is a problem facing all Canadians at
this time. When we say natives in Canada are to have a type of
municipal government, that simply is not true in the light of how
we define municipal government in Canada.
Let us be honest with Canadians. That is not true. With any
group of people given sovereign powers within a province, if that
is the intent of this legislation, we are creating something
which our grandchildren will have to deal with as we will have
sovereign areas in an area where sovereignty does not belong.
How will we handle this? What are we doing with the series of
legislation bills which will be forthcoming?
The people in northern B.C. today are voting on a referendum as
it relates to the Nisga'a treaty. I am very much at home there.
My wife and I spent our first year of married life in a village
with the Nisga'a people. We were both teachers there. Our roots
go a long way back. We note that there are positive and negative
votes coming in the referendum today. I got back to some of the
people I still know there. They are saying they will vote
against the treaty because they want the same right as I have as
a Canadian citizen to know exactly the amount of money coming in,
how it is being spent and how the distribution is taking place.
Can this House not honestly say that we must not deny the
grassroots people the same rights we have fought for in two world
wars, that we have fought for through the ages since the Magna
Carta in having reliable, honest and open government?
It is time for us not to proceed any further in land
negotiations. While I admit we are not arguing in Saskatchewan
that the land belongs to them, everybody admits that, what I am
saying is that we have to—
The Speaker: I hate to interrupt you in midstream. You
still have over five minutes and if you wish to resume after
question period, you will be recognized at that time.
As it is 11 o'clock we will now move to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ISLAND OF KOS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I rise today to welcome a delegation
from the Island of Kos in Greece.
Each year individuals whose roots stem from the Island of Kos
gather to exchange ideas and put forth suggestions with a notion
of making our world a better and safer place to live in.
This year they chose Canada. They have visited Quebec. They
are now with us in the capital and will be in Toronto later on.
The Island of Kos historically is known as the birthplace of
Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine. The delegation is
lead by the three mayors of the island: the Mayor of Kos, Mr.
Konstandinos Kaisarlis, his Deputy Mayor, Mr. Ioannis Vogiazis;
the Mayor of Pili and Asfendou, Mr. Vasilis Hatziakoumis; and the
Mayor of Antimachia, Kardamena, and Kefalo, Mr. Konstandinos
Papanikolaou.
1100
My paternal grandfather was born in Pili on the island of Kos
and for me it is indeed an honour that I have the opportunity to
welcome this delegation here today.
I say on behalf of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and all of my
colleagues, welcome to Canada, kalos ilthate.
* * *
TERRORISTS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently CSIS director Ward Elcock sounded a distressing alarm.
Appearing before a Senate committee, director Elcock stated that
Canada was home to more terrorist organizations than any country
in the world except the United States. Our reputation as a
peaceful, constructive world player is at stake.
Just today we hear of a trained Iranian assassin who has been
living in our country as a refugee since 1991. There is also a
report that two Canadians are being tried for the murder of the
founder of Bangladesh. One wonders how they became Canadians in
the first place.
CSIS reports that there are currently over 50 organizations and
350 individuals under investigation for suspected terrorist
links.
The most effective counter-terrorism measure we can take is to
keep terrorists out of the country and to remove those who are
already in Canada.
I call upon the government to give CSIS all the tools it needs
to ensure we do not become a haven for terrorists.
* * *
DR. HARPAL S. BUTTAR
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I recognize the scientific
talent and achievement of one of my constituents.
Dr. Harpal S. Buttar, a scientist working for Health Canada, was
recently selected by the International Federation of Teratology
Societies to become a member of an international committee
responsible for harmonizing the descriptive and comprehensive
glossary of common human malformations.
As the only Canadian scientist on this prestigious international
committee, composed of eminent scientists and pediatricians from
around the world, I would like to congratulate Dr. Buttar for
having been recognized around the world for his scientific
achievements.
* * *
CANADIAN FILM CENTRE LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the establishment of the Canadian Film
Centre Lifetime Achievement Award as part of its 10th anniversary
celebrations. This biennial award will honour an individual who
has made a significant contribution to the art of film,
television or new media and who has served the community as an
outstanding leader and humanitarian.
On Monday, November 9 the first Canadian Film Centre Lifetime
Achievement Award will be presented by His Excellency the
Governor General to director Norman Jewison in recognition of his
remarkable film career, including five Oscar nominated films, his
extraordinary contribution to developing and advancing emerging
Canadian film talent through the creation of the Canadian Film
Centre and his generous spirit of giving through the Norman and
Margaret Jewison Charitable Foundation.
When the Canadian Film Centre opened in 1988 Mr. Jewison
remarked: “Film has become the literature of this generation.
With the current explosion in global communications, Canada's
cultural distinction and survival depends on its ability to
master the medium and command a place on the screens of the
world”.
I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Mr. Jewison on his
award.
* * *
THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is the anniversary of the first session of parliament. On
November 6, 1867 a process began which has made Canada one of the
greatest democracies in the world.
Working together, debating policies, making laws, holding the
government accountable for its actions, challenging orthodoxy and
defending rights, each of those who came before us has played a
part in the building of a truly extraordinary country.
[Translation]
A country founded on mutual respect, a country flexible enough
to accept all differences, a country that draws its strength
from its diversity, a country that has transformed this
diversity into a model for the entire world.
[English]
Over the past 131 years, thousands of Canadians have passed
through this House and we who are now passing through must
continue this work in progress. We must continue to show the
rest of the world that a diverse people can work together.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, next Wednesday, November 11, Canadians will pause to
honour the men and women who fought so bravely to defend Canada
and thus preserve our democratic heritage.
I call on all Canadians to remember the sacrifices of our
Canadian native soldiers who fought shoulder to shoulder with
other soldiers from coast to coast.
Following the war our native Canadian soldiers were denied the
recognition and many benefits paid to other veterans. This is a
sad and shameful chapter in our military history.
Time is running out. I call upon this government to immediately
deal with this national injustice.
* * *
1105
THE NISGA'A AGREEMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is a very important day. The Nisga'a people are beginning
to vote on an issue which they have pursued with determination
and honour for over a century, the Nisga'a final agreement.
My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, is currently in northern British Columbia meeting
with students, business and community leaders to discuss the
importance of the Nisga'a agreement.
The treaty-making process in B.C. is a modern approach to
reflecting aboriginal rights that are protected in the
Constitution. It also reaffirms the government's commitment to
the inherent right of self-government, working in partnership to
strengthen the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people in Canada.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I extend my best wishes as
they go through this historic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE MONDIALE DE LA MARIONNETTE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, la
Semaine mondiale de la marionnette, or world puppet week, an
important event that is held every two years in Jonquière, was
richly honoured recently when it won nearly a quarter of the La
touche magique prizes at the 1998 Sommet des festivals et
attractions du Québec. The prizes were won in the category of
posters and printed material, and a special jury prize was
awarded in the television advertising category.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute to the work of
Jocelyn Robert, the director general of la Semaine mondiale de
la marionnette, and of his close assistants: Sonia Lamontagne,
who has been responsible for festival communications since 1994,
the Groupe Vision Design and its graphic artist, Marc Gauthier,
who designed the 1998 image, and Sébastien Pilote, who produced
the TV advertising.
The awards won by the Semaine mondiale de la marionnette testify
to the quality and dynamism of this organization in the riding
of Jonquière. Its successes—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Gatineau.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend, and
more specifically on November 11, we have a duty to pay tribute
to those who gave their lives and those who came back from war
to build the country.
We are the heirs to the courage and determination of all
Canadians who defended the values of peace and harmony
throughout the world in the Korean War and in the two world
wars. It falls to us to honour their memory and to keep alive
the memory of their accomplishments.
On Remembrance Day, we tell veterans and their families once
again how much we owe them for what they passed on to us.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, aboriginal people are speaking up. The First
Perspective newspaper recently asked readers on-line “Do you
trust your chief and council?”
They received numerous hits with the following results: yes,
13.6%; no, 77.3%; and maybe, 9.1%. The comments are even more
illuminating. One example: “At first it was the white man
giving us the shaft, and we could point our fingers at them and
feel superior. But lo and behold, look behind you. Our own
backyard seems to be gathering quite a bit of political
garbage”.
An aboriginal lady recently told me “When the business suits
talk to us now, all that has changed is that there is brown skin
in them instead of white”.
The government has spent a lot of money to enhance the lives and
circumstances of people on the reserves. Look at the result.
The people most in need are still waiting.
Grassroots native people are fed up with mismanagement by their
leaders. This must stop. The Liberal government must ensure
accountable leadership which meets the needs of all people on
reserves, not just the chiefs and band councils.
* * *
[Translation]
JOB CREATION IN QUEBEC
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again the Liberal prophets of doom across the country must be
blushing.
Statistics Canada announced this morning that the unemployment
rate in Quebec has dropped once again, and is now under the 10%
level for the first time since September 1990. The good
management of the Parti Quebecois has resulted in the best
performance of the decade.
According to some people, having a federalist government in
power would enhance the growth of employment, but that is not
what the figures show.
From 1985 to 1994, the Liberals have done nothing but increase
the unemployment rate in Quebec faster than the rate for the
rest of Canada.
The situation was only reversed once the Parti Quebecois came to
office in 1994.
1110
We have had enough demagoguery from the Liberals. Quebec is
gradually recovering from the ravages caused by a submissive
federalist government.
This coming November 30, the people of Quebec will show their
confidence in a government that can stand up for itself.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, faithful
soldier that he is, Jacques Parizeau makes it clear: the
separation of Quebec remains the top priority of a separatist
government.
Faithful soldier that he is, Jacques Parizeau does not like to
see Lucien Bouchard artfully dodge the referendum question.
Faithful soldier Jacques Parizeau reminds Quebeckers that the
ultimate objective of the Parti Quebecois is to separate Quebec
from the rest of Canada.
For this faithful soldier, a vote for the PQ is a vote for the
separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
Thank you, faithful Jacques Parizeau, whose candour gives us
every reason to vote Liberal on November 30.
* * *
FRANCOPHONE AND ACADIAN COMMUNITIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, linguistic
duality is a value that has deep roots in all parts of the
country.
The francophone and Acadian communities symbolize these roots.
For too long, these communities relied only on their vitality to
grow.
The Official Languages Act made them grow faster. These
communities have given themselves strong institutions. But the
Liberals have cut funding for francophone organizations by 40%.
The Liberals can no longer ignore their obligations. They must
reinvest to ensure the development of Canada's francophone and
Acadian communities.
* * *
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Parti Quebecois has had yet another change of
heart.
He now agrees to return to the federal-provincial negotiating
table to entrench in the Constitution the right to opt out with
full compensation with respect to the social union pact made by
the provinces.
How baffling, given that it is well known that separation is PQ
leader Lucien Bouchard's top priority. Such expediency on the
part of a leader who slurps at everyone's trough. How stylish of
someone who boasts about knowing where he is going.
Let us be clear: a vote for the Parti Quebecois is truly a vote
for Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, a vote for
another referendum.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, farmers in
West Nova are experiencing a second consecutive year of drought
conditions. Records from the towns of Kentville and Greenwood
indicate that rainfall was roughly 100 millimetres less than
normal summer precipitation.
First cut yields of hay were down 50% and in many cases second
yield was non-existent. These poor yields have resulted in
economic hardship for our farming community. Many farmers will
have to re-seed in 1999 to produce new growth. The cost of
purchasing hay has skyrocketed because of this increased demand.
The recent closure of the Middleton grain elevator has left beef
producers without access to a vital facility they use for drying
and storing grain. These hardships have forced many producers to
cull and sell calves that would normally be replacements. In
extreme cases producers have been forced to sell out.
We can ill-afford to lose another farmer in my constituency. It
is time for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to
recognize the severity of this drought and immediately provide
assistance to those most in need.
* * *
[Translation]
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
November 11, 1918, at 11 a.m., armistice was sounded along the
hundreds of kilometres of trenches in France and Belgium
separating the two enemy camps.
As they came out of the mud where they had been living for 50
months, millions of men, thousands of whom were Canadians and
Quebeckers, breathed the fresh air of the fields without fearing
they had drawn their last breath.
Then, in millions of homes, millions of women, including the
woman that would become my mother, could watch the postman
arrive without fearing he was bringing the fatal missive “Your
husband, your fiancé, your son, died in combat”.
These men returning from hell were convinced this war was the
last.
However, much later, they were to see some of their sons descend
in turn into hell between 1939 and 1945, others in Korea, all
defending the same causes—freedom and democracy.
May we never forget or let our children forget that what we take
so much for granted, like the air we breathe, we owe to the
sacrifice of these men and women.
* * *
[English]
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning Statistics Canada issued its labour force survey for
October, showing a 2.3% increase in employment. This brings the
unemployment rate down to 8.1%, its lowest level in eight years.
1115
New jobs were created in the manufacturing, construction, health
and social services, financial, insurance, real estate,
transportation, storage and communications sectors.
These latest numbers prove that the Liberal government's fiscal
and economic policies are working for the benefit of all
Canadians.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Port
Saxon in Shelburne County will lose 25 jobs in December this year
when Acadia Seaplants relocates to Cornwallis Park. This
relocation is occurring because of a $1 million loan from the
federally funded Cornwallis Park development and a $750,000
interest free loan from ACOA.
When the new plant is operational it will create 32 jobs.
However, 25 jobs are already in Shelburne County so the net gain
of jobs is only 7. This is a wrong approach to job creation.
It is worth stating that the cost of these seven jobs is $1.7
million. Surely this is not a good investment. Plus the loss of
the 25 jobs in Port Saxon, Shelburne County, is a serious blow to
the economy of Shelburne County as the economy is already reeling
and has been ravaged by the downturn in the ground fishery.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is gouging Canadians by overcharging them $350
a year in employment insurance taxes. He is slapping businesses
with $500 in extra taxes per year per worker, but the real
stunner is that he did not even know if he had been paying that
same EI tax himself for the past 35 years.
If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, just which planet
is the Prime Minister from? Would it be Pluto?
The Speaker: I do not know what that has to do with
industry, but if the hon. parliamentary secretary wishes to
address himself to the comment I will let him.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the hon.
member who asked the question does not pay EI premiums either. As
far as what planet, I am not sure the question came from anywhere
in this stratosphere.
Let me deal with the facts. Since 1994 each and every year we
have reduced EI premiums. Our payroll premiums are lower than
those in the United States, our largest trading partner. We will
continue this debate. No decisions have been made. We will
continue to focus on Canadian priorities.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was aware that I was not paying EI premiums. I would
have hoped that the Prime Minister of the country would have
known the same thing.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association and the Retail Council of Canada all
say that the Prime Minister's extra EI tax is killing jobs.
Could the Prime Minister or any member of the government name
one small business in the country that wants to pay an extra $500
per employee per year?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will continue to say that we
will reflect Canadian priorities. The EI question is part of
that mix.
When Canadians come before the finance committee in the
prebudget consultations they ask us to take a balanced approach.
They ask us to invest in Canadian priorities. They ask us to
deal with the tax system we have in the country. They ask us to
reinvest in health care.
If what the hon. member is actually advocating is for us to
completely reduce EI premiums, as he is requesting, he is really
telling us to go back into deficit, and the government will not
do it.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite clear that Canadians are being overcharged
with their EI premiums. That is the point we are trying to get
across to the government.
Canadian workers are being overcharged by $350 per year and
businesses by $500 per year per employee. It is a very simple
question that we keep asking and do not get an answer from the
government.
Why will the government not consider giving the money back to
the people it belongs to, hard working Canadians?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess I should also remind the
hon. member that the Reform platform is to give the premiums back
just to employers. What about the workers?
1120
If we are talking about this mix, if we talk about providing
what is best for Canadians and if we are talking about the best
bang for our buck, let us not forget that 14 million Canadians
benefit from any personal income tax cut. Only eight million
Canadians would benefit from an employment insurance cut.
If what we are talking about what is best for Canada, we will
continue that debate.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every year the finance minister meets
with the Employment Insurance Commission in mid-November to set
employment rates for the next year. Businesses need some time to
adjust to the new tax levels.
Why is the minister's announcement of rates now delayed well
into December?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Reform Party has
it all wrong. The more I stand in the House, the more I wish we
could do something about its research staff.
The Minister of Finance does not meet with the EI commissioners
regarding the setting of EI premiums. He has never met with
them, has no meeting planned with them and has no intention of
meeting with them.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, concerning EI premiums, the government
obviously takes far too much at this time for the reasonable
future of the plan. Now he will make business spend Christmas
worrying about Scrooge, always paying and never getting anything
back.
I would ask for a more complete answer. Why is there a delay in
the announcement of the rates? Why does he hurt business
planning to serve a political agenda? I ask him to justify the
choice of one over the other.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess we should also look at
the bigger picture. The unemployment rate announced this morning
was 8.1%. The job grouth pace for the first 10 months is outpacing the
first 10 months of last year. We have numbers that are
improving. Canadians are back to work and they are full time
jobs.
While the hon. member wants to continue to talk about this issue
to advance his own political perspective, we are working for
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health admits that needs are great throughout the
country and is beginning to understand that it is high time he
gave the provinces back the money he cut in the health sector,
particularly now that his colleague, the Minister of Finance,
has a surplus that has reached $8 billion only five months into
the fiscal year.
Would the minister confirm that the scenario he has in mind is
one in which the federal government would place conditions on
funding to the provinces, telling them how it is to be spent?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have said repeatedly that, in working with the
provinces, we were going to respect their jurisdictions and
priorities.
I would add that, with respect to the Canada social transfer,
the principal transfer payment to the provinces, the province
receiving the most per capita is Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: We are very glad to have a fair federation
that tries to help provinces in difficulty. However, one of the
reasons Quebec finds itself in that situation is the political
uncertainty hanging over it—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: —an uncertainty we hope Quebeckers will very
soon leave behind.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that the proceedings are being televised, one might wonder
whether the minister is not delivering a paid political
announcement.
The minister's answer is far from reassuring. He talks about
partnership. He says he will respect provincial jurisdiction,
but we know what the government is up to. It wants the
provinces to do what it says, and no questions asked. A look at
Quebec's unemployment rates today will show that Quebec is far
from being badly governed.
What right does the federal government have to impose its
priorities in the health sector, when its cuts have been so deep
as to make its funding insignificant?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not insignificant that Quebec's transfer payment
is 9% higher per capita than that received by the average
province.
I hope that this can be turned around and that, one day, we will
receive less than the average. That will prove that we have
left behind a situation that is a huge drain on our economy, a
situation of political uncertainty that we do not need, because
most of us in Quebec want to remain in Canada.
1125
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1994 the federal government's transfer payments were the
equivalent of $678 per capita. Four years later, the figure is
only $386. When it comes to being the great protector of health
care, we have seen better.
My question is for the Minister of Health. What credibility can
there be when a minister wants to impose conditions on any
additional funding for health care, when all that anyone wants
is for transfer payments to be restored to the level they were
at before he started slashing them?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity
to provide the current figures. In both cash and tax points,
each Quebecker receives $925.40 through the Canada social
transfer. The average per capita across Canada is $848.70, so
each Quebecker in fact is getting 9% more than the average.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week the minister told us that a Liberal caucus
committee was looking into various options which would allow the
federal government to re-invest in health. I find that far from
reassuring.
In this area, as in many others, this government's main concern
is not what is best for patients, but what gives it the most
visibility. How can it justify putting the effort to get the
maple leaf onto as many cheques as possible ahead of those who
are sick?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will be hard put to find a more
decentralized federation than Canada, particularly in this area.
If she looks at other federations, she will see how much the
other federal governments intervene in the health field,
compared to Canada.
Our goal is to ensure that Canadians have quality health care in
every part of Canada. I would also like to say that, since the
hon. member is speaking of situations that worry her, what we
find worrisome is the situation in Quebec, where the PQ
government has cut health expenditures by 1% between 1994-95 and
1998-99, while the other provinces have raised them by 8.6%.
Yet the federal government has done everything it can to help
the Government of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the Nisga'a begin voting on their historic agreement. The
Liberal Party of British Columbia and Reform Party members have
done everything within their power to scuttle this agreement.
We have seen impressive leadership from the Nisga'a themselves
and from the Premier of British Columbia, but the Prime
Minister's silence has been deafening, his absence conspicuous.
Does the Prime Minister have any intention of providing
leadership in building, understanding and support for this—
The Speaker: The hon. the leader of the government in the
House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong
when she makes such allegations. She knows perfectly well the
commitment of the federal government, of the Prime Minister, of
the entire cabinet and of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development who is herself in British Columbia
discussing these very important issues.
We all want the Nisga'a people to be able to go through this
process over the next couple of days and to come up with the
answer that will be theirs. Hopefully we as Canadians will all
be behind them as they march through this journey.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Nisga'a agreement was signed on August 4. The Prime Minister
chose to be absent. We have scarcely heard a word since from the
Prime Minister.
Surely the Prime Minister recognizes that the misinformation of
the B.C. Liberals and the Reformers deserves and demands to be
countered. Can we count on the Prime Minister to provide the
leadership that is very much needed?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will compare the commitment of
the Prime Minister, his attendance, his presence and his overall
workload to the hon. member across the way and three or four of
her colleagues at once.
He has done more as a former minister of Indian affairs and as a
Prime Minister in his commitment through the bills that are now
before the House of Commons, and everything we have done, than
the hon. member across the way will ever do in three lifetimes.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said on February 9, 1993 in
the House:
GRIP and NISA, which are long term safety net programs, are being
tried and are being worked with. So far in many areas they have
been insufficient. They have been a disappointment to the
farmers and the industry.
1130
The minister said then that GRIP and NISA were not enough. Is
the minister now saying that NISA without GRIP is going to be
enough to get farmers through this crisis in agriculture?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with all the provincial
governments and farm leaders on Wednesday of this week. The
message was very clear. I will be taking the message to my
cabinet colleagues that the NISA program, the crop insurance
program, in an alteration of what the member's government put in
which was GRIP which is gone except in one province, that we
recognize we have some tools there for assistance and farm income
and we need to review that. We are reviewing it. We will work
the best we can with our partners in the industry in this
respect.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the reason GRIP is gone is that this Liberal government did away
with it in 1995. Rather than doing away with it, the Liberals
could have modified the program to have it become trade friendly
but they did not. Once again they gave agriculture short shrift.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has a proposal. In my
estimation it basically is GRIP the sequel. Is the minister
willing to support the CFA's proposal in principle now so that we
will be able to have something in place by the end of this year?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave my commitment the other day to
work with the provincial governments and the industry to do all
we possibly can to turn every stone possible.
I suggest that the member check Hansard. When I made
those comments in standing committee, I said that GRIP was not
the program. He is right. The provinces verified that because
with the exception of one province the program that his
government put in place is gone at the wishes of the provinces.
I was proven to be correct.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what we hear from this agriculture minister is all talk
and no action.
In the 1993 red book the Liberals promised to reduce input costs
to make farming more profitable. Yet the agriculture minister
continues to take $138 million out in cost recovery taxes.
Will the agriculture minister finally keep his 1993 promise and
quit bleeding our farmers with unfair taxes today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party keep
talking about lowering taxes. They do not seem to realize that
we have lowered taxes. Those members should also realize that the
problem is that we have a number of farmers who are not able to
pay any taxes at all. How would they wish to address that?
We are working to address this to strengthen their industry and
to strengthen their safety net. The other thing I would like to
remind the hon. member is that in the third quarter of 1998, farm
input prices went down.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is that this Liberal government has not lowered taxes; it
has raised taxes by billions.
Canadian farmers are trapped in a net farm income crunch. Unfair
trade practices and foreign subsidies are bringing farmers to
their knees.
On Wednesday on CTV news, the minister of agriculture stated
“You cannot plan for this type of thing”. That quote came from
the minister after most commodity prices have been dropping like
loonies.
What does the minister mean you cannot plan? Most people plan.
Farmers plan. The minister is a farmer—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of agriculture.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the safety net system that was there was
designed with the best intentions of the federal government, the
provincial governments and the agricultural industry.
We have a situation now of world commodity prices that are lower
than anybody predicted. Right now, the prices of some
commodities in Canada to producers are the lowest they have been
in over 25 years. That is why we are working with the provincial
governments, the industry and all of our officials to do all we
possibly can, to turn every stone we possibly can to make sure
that not only the tools that are there now—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there has
been a new development in the Liberal's APEC fiasco.
After rising in this House and swearing on his honour that he
was telling the truth, the member for Palliser stated under oath
in an affidavit that he stands by his side of the story.
1135
Since this affidavit shows that he prejudged the outcome of the
inquiry conducted by the RCMP public complaints commission, what
is the Solicitor General waiting for to resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have spoken to this many times in the House. It is
important to remind everyone that the complaints commission is
initiated by the complainants. They deserve to have their day.
That is the reason the government is supporting the continuance
of the public complaints commission because to do otherwise would
be undue and unfortunate political interference.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General should stop playing this cat and mouse game.
He is in a tighter spot than ever.
The hon. member for Palliser accused him under oath of having
prejudged the outcome of the APEC inquiry, and he will not
respond.
Since obviously the Solicitor General is unable to rebut what
the member for Palliser said in his affidavit, was is he waiting
for to resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said, I have spoken to this many, many times.
I believe I made this statement on October 6 in the House. My
statement was supported by the person to whom I was speaking. I
stand by that statement.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 45% of the forest workers on the B.C. coast are now out
of work. Forest companies are caught between high costs and a
softwood lumber agreement that creates an inability to ship
lumber to the United States. While industry is on the canvas it
is getting kicked in the slats by Greenpeace and other
organizations that raise money in other countries in order to
arrange boycotts of Canadian forest products.
The Department of Natural Resources has $10 million designated
for—
The Speaker: If the parliamentary secretary wants to
address the comment, he may.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the
full context of the question. A statement was made so I will
answer it with a simple statement.
Canada has one of the best forest practice management systems in
all the world. It is protecting our forest industry and it is
making sure we have credible good markets to rely on. Canadian
forest practices are among the best in the world. That ensures
we have export markets. Those are the kinds of things that
Canada is doing exceptionally well in protecting our forest
industry.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
every day B.C. loses many jobs due to the closure of lumber
mills. This is driving B.C. into a recession. This do nothing
Liberal government caved in to the U.S. when it negotiated the
softwood lumber agreement. Will the government fix the quota
system or will it continue watching the British Columbia lumber
industry being hit with two by fours?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada entered into
agreements with several countries with regard to trade practices,
in particular the softwood lumber agreement.
What is happening in the B.C. forest industry, especially the
coastal industry is that exporters that rely on Asian markets in
particular and who in many instances do not rely on American
markets are now feeling the pinch of the Asian flu. That is
severely restricting their export capability but they are
expanding and moving forward with new markets. The Canadian
industry is probably the most buoyant and the most competent in
developing those types of markets.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE BREAKING IN PORTS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Coast Guard is collecting 80% of ice breaking
charges in the entire eastern part of Canada from users of St.
Lawrence ports, whereas they use only 33.7% of services, even if
Newfoundland's access to the St. Lawrence is included.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. How
can the minister be trying to convince the industry of his
desire to inaugurate a user-pay principle, when his policy is to
have those using 33.7% of services bear 80% of costs?
1140
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was the case a
week ago, the member opposite cannot seem to understand this
issue.
Canadian taxpayers are paying 82% of the costs of ice breaking.
We do have a cost recovery program in place. The industry is
benefiting extensively by that.
As well the member should know that there is also flood control
within the region by the coast guard. He is not talking about
that. As well when a ship comes to the St. Lawrence—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the parliamentary secretary does not know what
he is talking about. I will try putting it a different way.
By imposing on the users of Quebec's ports an unfair financial
burden which is being used to meet a portion of the ice breaking
costs for the ports in the maritimes, does the Minister realize
he is seriously compromising not just the development of a
number of St. Lawrence ports, but their very survival as well?
Does he realize this?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far from it. As I
said earlier, 82% of the cost is covered by the Canadian
taxpayer. The member opposite should be thanking us for that
support.
In terms of the ports, there were four years of consultation on
this issue. There is strong support from the port community in
terms of what we are doing.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 29 the Minister of Health assured the House that a
sewage problem at the home of Mrs. Geraldine Smoke of the Dakota
Plains reserve had been fixed. Mr. Rogers of Health Canada
stated that as of November 2 the problem had not been fixed.
Why did the minister say that the problem was fixed when it was
not? When is he going to fix the problem for this ill and
elderly woman?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me fill the member in on the facts.
Health Canada investigated the original complaint. A site visit
and a letter from the homeowner confirmed that this earlier
problem had been corrected. Health Canada has since received a
new letter of complaint regarding other problems with a different
homeowner within this tribal council. An official has
investigated this new problem and is currently working with the
band and council to correct the matter.
Those are the facts. The hon. member should be assured that
Health Canada is looking after the problem.
* * *
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this government pays less than 15% of
health care costs in this country, but it still wants the
control. The largest RCMP detachment in Canada is in my
constituency of Surrey. The federal government pays only 10% of
the costs but it still wants the control.
I ask the Prime Minister if the government is not prepared to
pay its fair share of the costs, when will it transfer control to
the people who pay the bills?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government transfers some $26 billion every year to
provinces to assist not only with health, but with post-secondary
education and social services.
The hon. member should know that without that transfer it would
be impossible for the infrastructure of health services in this
country to be delivered.
The federal government plays a unique role in the whole medicare
system and will continue to do so. This government will ensure
that that role is strengthened in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member of
Abitibi has had his picture taken with hepatitis C victims and
is telling anyone in his riding who wants to listen that the
government is preparing to announce its generous compensation to
them.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Are we to understand
that the federal government has finally decided to respond
positively to the request of B.C., Ontario and Quebec and
compensate victims without regard to date?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have already said here in this House, I informed my colleagues
in September of the offer by the Government of Canada to share
the cost of all the medical services required in the treatment
of the hepatitis C infection among the people who contracted the
disease through our blood system.
This is our offer, to make sure the sick receive treatment and
the necessary medical services. This is the position of the
Government of Canada, and it is a—
The Speaker: The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
1145
[English]
KUALA LUMPUR APEC MEETING
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced in the House on
Wednesday that Canada would provide $50,000 in financial support
to two NGO projects during the upcoming APEC meeting in Kuala
Lumpur.
Could the compassionate Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the
House what this government has been doing to ensure wider
participation for all sectors in this important regional and
economic forum?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the very astute member for his question.
When the Prime Minister made the announcement he indicated a
process that really began in Vancouver to enlist the
participation of civil groups. That has been followed by the
active role of the minister of state for women's affairs in
leading a ministerial delegation to ensure that women are fully
engaged in the APEC process.
The Minister for International Trade and I will be taking an
initiative in Malaysia to ensure that civil society is brought
into the APEC process so there can be full and broad—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeland.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture said on national TV that we cannot plan
for the crisis that we have in agriculture right now. Well, we
can plan.
Starting with the 1993 election campaign and then the debate
leading up to the abolishment of the Crow benefit, legislation
the government passed in 1995, Reform called for part of the
value of the Crow benefit to go into a fund that would help
farmers deal with these tough times. It would compensate farmers
for a loss in value due to unfair trade practices. That is
exactly what is happening now.
What will the minister do now to deal—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of agriculture.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government put $600 million a
year into the safety net envelope for planning for these types of
unfortunate situations. The provincial governments put in $400
million a year and the Canadian producers also add to that and in
the NISA account receive a very good arrangement with that.
We are planning now to deal with the unfortunate situation we
are in. But contrary to the member's party, we did not plan on
taking close to $1.4 billion out of agriculture support in
Canada.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in my
constituency police cars having more than $4,000 damage are being
parked because there is not enough money to fix them. District
commanders do not have enough money to replace worn tires on
patrol vehicles. Merchants are losing business because crack
dealers are lined up in front of their stores and the RCMP does
not have the funds to deal with the issue.
A couple of weeks ago the solicitor general told me he was to be
speaking with the attorney general of British Columbia to discuss
the funding issue. My constituents would like to know what the
outcome of those meetings was.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did speak with the attorney general of British
Columbia in Regina at the meeting of justice and solicitor
general ministers last week. The question of funding for the
RCMP in British Columbia was discussed.
I have been assured by the RCMP that while everyone would like
to have more money, the reality is nothing is being done in this
period of restraint that would compromise Canadian safety.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has acknowledged that no
professional group has borne the brunt of health care
restructuring more than Canada's nurses. Through an era of
Liberal cuts nurses have held our system together. They are
overworked, stressed, burned out and worried about the quality of
patient care.
We need federal action now and it has to be more than the
reannouncement of a nursing co-ordinator position in Health
Canada.
What is the minister doing to address this current crisis in our
health care system and what is he doing to avert a potentially
devastating shortage of nurses for the new millennium?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I spent time with the president and executive of the
Canadian Nurses Association. I assured them, as I have
throughout, that they must be an integral part of the health
system in the future as it is changed and improved to meet the
needs of Canadians.
We have appointed an executive director of nursing policy at
Health Canada so that nurses will be a part of planning the
future.
The nurses know, as does the Canadian public, that making this
work, making nurses part of the system, will take more than the
empty rhetoric of the NDP. It will take the resolute action of
this government.
* * *
1150
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
environment minister tells this House that Canada is leading
international efforts to reduce climate change.
Reports from Buenos Aires state the opposite. Canada is
blocking global efforts to set domestic targets and is
negotiating hot air loopholes between the U.S. and Russia.
Can any minister explain to Canadians why this government is
trying to sabotage the Kyoto protocol and risk the health of
Canadians?
Why is the government forcing our environmental responsibility
on to other countries?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member is
not correct.
The government is working with scientists from across the
country, with the provinces and with environmentalists to make
sure that action we take on climate change will ensure that we do
meet our targets set in Kyoto, and that is to become a minus six
society. We will make those targets and we will make sure that
we use clean development mechanisms and other mechanisms that
will help us get there. I hope the member will join us in that
work.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
according to HRDC, an employer who falsifies an employment
record is guilty of fraud. Yet recently Canada Post altered the
records of some of its own term employees to avoid paying
overtime.
Overtime hours were saved up and added on to the end of the
workers' contracts long after they had left and paid out in
regular wages without the employees' consent.
Does the minister condone this practice by Canada Post?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
speak for the minister for Canada Post but I can speak for the
minister of HRDC who would be appalled to hear anything of this
sort whether it is from the point of view of the employer or
whether it is the investigation of fraud by our own employee.
I will take this information back to him and to the minister for
Canada Post to investigate.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, weeks after they had left their jobs at Canada Post,
Sandra Ketch and Wendy Jamieson were shocked to learn that they
were still post office employees and they were still on the
payroll, just because Canada Post did not want to pay them
overtime.
I realize that budgets may be tight at the post office, but is
it really necessary to break the law in order to save a few
bucks?
Will the minister stop this nonsense, launch a full
investigation and punish those responsible?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
budget of Canada Post has been viable since 1988.
It provides quality service and it does it fairly and without
cheating. If there are any such activities going on I am sure
the minister for Canada Post will take care of it immediately
upon his return.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The Department of National Revenue recently held consultations
on ways to improve its fairness to Canadians.
Would the parliamentary secretary tell us how the government
plans to ensure that the fairness initiative meets the needs of
Canadian taxpayers?
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fairness is a
fundamental and core value of public service. The department is
committed to fairness.
Revenue Canada is considered a world leader among its peers. Its
fairness practices have been implemented around the world.
I want to assure the House that Revenue Canada has fairness at
the very heart of how it is organized, the way it operates and
the way it deals with Canadians. We are continuing to ensure
these high standards by ongoing consultation and fairness
initiatives.
* * *
RURAL MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, western rural municipalities have been losing tax
revenue because grain elevators and rail lines are being
abandoned.
1155
Their tax base is being further eroded by the federal government
which refuses to fairly compensate rural municipalities for lost
tax revenues when land is converted to Indian reserves.
How are the rural municipalities to survive if the government
destroys their tax base without fair compensation? Does this
government not understand that any obligations to native people
are owed by all Canadians, not just by small groups of western
farmers?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government understands very
well its obligations to aboriginal Canadians. I only wish that
the Reform Party would start helping aboriginal Canadians,
communities and everyone else in Canada instead of doing what it
is doing now.
As we are speaking there is a bill before the House on land
ownership for aboriginal Canadians. What the opposition party
has decided to do is put a six month hoist, delaying improvements
for six months for Canadians living in rural areas, particularly
aboriginal Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN PASSPORT
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not really answer
my question about the supply of security paper for Canadian
passports. I would appreciate a clearer response today.
Why is the Department of Foreign Affairs passport office
preventing the Spexel company of Beauharnois from bidding on the
contract for this paper and why does it prefer to seek out
French or British companies to supply this security paper?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at this point no decision has been taken on the
contract or the bids that would take place with the new passport
system.
I find it very refreshing to know that a member of the Bloc
Quebecois is interested in maintaining the Canadian passport.
* * *
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of Cape Breton workers have been laid off by the Cape
Breton Development Corporation in the last few weeks, causing
great uncertainty in the mining communities I represent.
On Monday of next week I will be holding meetings with the
stakeholders in the coal industry in my community and we need to
know two things from this government.
Will the government commit to opening the Donkin mine, yes or
no? If not, what solutions does it have for DEVCO and the miners
of Cape Breton?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear
that the hon. member is finally beginning a dialogue with the
employees who rely on that facility for employment.
The Government of Canada has already received an invitation from
the employees, the union and the employer to initiate a dialogue
to get the business to its maximum efficiency.
I remind the hon. member that his own colleague has put forward
suggestions that the employees should take it over and privatize.
The other members of the union—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Government of Canada has now given its blessing to the
province of New Brunswick to sell the right to charge tolls on an
existing stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway for millions of
dollars.
Under this precedent, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, all
provinces and all Canadians now will be subject to this deal. It
means that all provinces can sell the right to charge tolls on
existing stretches of the Trans-Canada Highway. It is an
incredible precedent to set.
Will the minister explain to all Canadians and all MPs who will
be affected why it is good policy to allow—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport has answered this question in
the House about a dozen times. He stood before the standing
committee for two hours last Wednesday and responded to this
question. My hon. colleague must have the answer.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.
People in a visible minority represent 12% of the Canadian
population, only 5% of the public service of Canada and last year
less than 3% of new hirings.
1200
I ask the minister, why are we losing ground on employment
equity and what does he plan to do so that all Canadians have a
fair chance, an equal chance, of serving their country?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that the Canadian government must give fair
treatment to visible minorities. There is also no doubt that the
visible minorities represent a larger percentage of available
labour than is employed in the federal government.
We have been putting into place a number of measures to increase
the number of people from visible minorities in the public
service. We have succeeded to some extent. There is still a lot
of improvement to be made.
In particular, this year Treasury Board has allocated an
additional $11 million to improve employment equity.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th
report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
[English]
In accordance with the order of reference of October 6, 1998,
your committee has considered Bill C-53, an act to increase the
availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small businesses and has agreed
to report it with amendments.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if there is anyone on the government benches who
could indicate when the government would bring forward any
legislation regarding the introduction of the Nisga'a treaty,
assuming it is agreed upon by the Nisga'a people in the next few
days.
The Speaker: I do not think the member can do that. It
was a good try. Perhaps someone heard the hon. member and he
will receive an answer shortly.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions
today pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is signed by young people from a number of
schools in Kamloops who are concerned about cruelty toward
animals.
The petitioners are asking the judges of Canada to make more of
an effort to assign appropriate sentences to those people who
behave in a manner that could be identified as being cruel toward
animals.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from a number
of elderly citizens of the city of Kamloops.
The petitioners are concerned with what they see as a
diminishing ability by the federal government to protect Canada's
sovereignty on a number of issues as a result of the signing of a
number of our international trade agreements.
1205
They are asking the government not to proceed with any more of
these agreements until we come to grips with this kind of issue.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from
constituents of the Kamloops area who believe that our tax system
is grossly unfair for a whole number of reasons which they
outline in their petition.
They are simply asking the federal government to consider a
major overhaul of our taxation system.
[Translation]
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I would like to table a petition signed by
some 125 people. These people oppose Bill C-68, the Firearms
Act.
They ask Parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and to reassign the
officials appointed to enforce this law to other duties
permitting a real fight against crime and violence.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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.
The Speaker: If I recall correctly, the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain had about five minutes left. The hon.
member has the floor.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first time I have delivered a speech in
three different segments. I can assure the House that the best
part will be the last five minutes.
There are some fundamental questions in relation to this bill,
and the bills that no doubt will be coming down the line, that
Canadians, all Canadians, wherever they live, deserve answers for
from the government.
We have before us, delivered to us about two years ago, the
largest, most costly royal commission report ever presented to
the House. It totalled some $58 million. It deals specifically
with what we are discussing today.
Canadians want to know if we have changed the meaning of rule of
law. Canadians need to have a debate on that issue. That debate
should take place in the House by their elected representatives.
From time to time we hear the term self-government. If we ask a
municipal official, he will tell us what self-government means.
If we ask a town, a village or a city official, they will tell
us. However, there are 30 million or more Canadians out there who
simply do not have an explanation of what the term
self-government means as we are using it in the context of this
House. It is incumbent upon members of parliament, it is
incumbent upon government members, to say that we need to have a
debate in the House so that all Canadians, not just our native
friends, but all Canadians understand what we mean by
self-government. I have asked at least seven different sources
and I have never received a definitive answer.
I wonder if any members opposite could provide this House with a
definitive answer today as to what is meant by self-government as
it relates to the royal commission report which we have before
us. I owe that to my constituents. Members from Manitoba owe it
to their constituents. Everybody needs to know.
We have introduced a bill. There is a vote being held today in
northern B.C. Obviously there are going to be more. I am facing
five or six land claims in Saskatchewan and nobody can tell us
what the government means by self-government. We have to know
before we can intelligently pass more legislation, or even this
legislation.
1210
The bill before us does not answer the questions of the
grassroots people. It does not give them the authority from the
bottom up. It does not give them the right to control. It is
not a democratic process. For that reason, and for the reasons
of people across Canada, I cannot vote for the bill. Nor can I
continue to have the term self-government being used in all of
its various contexts in the House without having a clear cut
definition.
It is incumbent upon the government to be honest with the House
and with people across Canada and tell us what is meant by
self-government as it applies to the treaties or any other
legislation that comes before the House. If that cannot be done,
the government should not expect Canadians to support its
actions.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks with great interest
because we are all very concerned about what exactly these
self-government treaties involve.
This has been a topic at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development for some time. While there
appears to be nothing that will be a constitutional problem in
the treaties we are talking about, nevertheless it would be a
reassurance for all Canadians to hear the interpretation of the
term self-government from expert witnesses from the Department of
Justice.
I am pleased to inform the member opposite that the committee
has discussed just that strategy for a witness program when this
bill goes to committee. I suggest to him that perhaps he should
agree with the bill in principle and reserve his final judgment
on his concern about what is actually meant by self-government
and whether it is indeed in the interests of all Canadians, as I
believe it is, and wait to see what the expert witnesses from the
Department of Justice say at the committee. He could then make
his decision when the bill comes back for third reading.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his comments. That is exactly what I am talking about. It is
not just to inform the House, it is to inform the entire nation
of Canada.
Clearly we should not rely only on constitutional
interpretation. We have to be in touch with all Canadians
because it will indeed affect not just those people to whom some
type of government is granted, it will also affect the rest
of the people living in Canada.
There are six Indian groups, six reserves, in my constituency. I
want to be as honest and fair with them as I possibly can. But
at the same time I have to be honest and fair with the rest of my
constituents.
I look forward to committee stage, but I can tell the hon.
member that I have great fears about the constitutionality of
this if what I read in the royal commission report will in fact
establish sovereign states. Approximately 150 to 300 little
islands would be created within Canada, which simply could not
survive under the totality of rule of law in Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate my colleague's intervention on this subject. I am
curious to know whether he has actually talked with grassroots
natives in his area on this issue and whether they are in favour
of what is happening in the federal government or whether they
are opposed to it.
I am speaking specifically of the grassroots people as opposed
to the people who are presumably in charge in the different
reserves.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, this is what I hear from my
friends in Saskatchewan, and not just within my constituency. If
we are to get to the bottom line I will repeat what they are
saying.
They want the same rights as members of parliament. They want to
know where their tax dollar is going, how their government is
spending their money. They want audited financial statements.
They want budgets. They want everything we have always enjoyed.
1215
If we are not prepared to give them the same benefits we have
had and have nourished for well over 500 years, I am afraid the
term self-government is somewhat meaningless. I thank the hon.
member and encourage members to take a look at the basic
principles so all people in Canada can enjoy the benefits of open
and transparent democracy. That is what we must have.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr.
Speaker, I share with my colleague a concern about the
terminology with respect to self-government and sovereignty. We
do not want small nations within a nation. This is a debate that
constantly appears in the committee of which I am a member.
When the bill gets to committee and is debated, does the member
find there is nothing to the term sovereignty, that it is really
not sovereignty we are talking about in these treaties but a form
of municipal government?
If we find that kind of reassurance from justice department
officials and other witnesses who come before the committee,
would the member be willing to take that message back to his
community to reassure the people who are genuinely concerned?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take the
message back. If self-government means a form of municipal
government such as my town's government or the governments of the
smaller cities in my constituency that are subject to provincial
and federal legislation, I am all for it. I can speak on behalf
of all of my constituents who are also for that. If any other
meaning were to be applied to the term to create sovereignty, I
would be opposed to it.
I will go out with that message. I will make a press release
tomorrow if he can assure me that is the case.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member mentioned that all of his constituents felt it would be
acceptable for self-government to be defined in terms of a
municipal government being responsible to the provincial
government. I am under the impression that he has some first
nations people within his riding. I would seriously question
that all of them feel that way.
My understanding is that virtually every first nation in Canada
desires to move toward self-government so they will not have to
respond totally in the context of a provincial government. First
nations people want control over their own lands. They want to
make their own laws. There are some limitations with regard to
criminal offences, but as a developing governing nation the first
nations deserve the same opportunities Canadians have had since
the beginning of recognized government. I would like to see it
move ahead in that way.
I am curious to know whether the member has any first nations
people in his riding and if he can truly attest to the fact that
all his constituents would like to see self-government as a
municipal government doing what the provincial government says it
should do.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I
assure the hon. member for Churchill that the people I have
talked to, not only those within my constituency, want control
over their lands. No one disputes that. They want control over
the development of business. No one disputes that. Even with
the RMs that are losing portions of their land to the Indians to
enlarge their reserves there is no quarrel.
1220
I live in Canada. My residence is in the town of Bengough,
Saskatchewan. That government is subject to a higher government,
the provincial government.
If the people who form the Indian nations do not want to use the
term municipality, that is fine, but they will still have to be
subject to some other form of government in the rule of law
scenario. We can give them provisions to pass bylaws to certain
laws that apply to their own people. We are not arguing that,
but there are some fundamental Canadian laws that have to be
applied whether people are living in Nanaimo or Halifax. They
have to be the same.
I would respond to the hon. member's question by saying that we
accept that form of government, but we do not accept their having
powers that are above those of the federal government or equal to
those of the federal government in jurisprudence. That is not
rule of law and Canadians would not accept that.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-49 which is important to
all Canadians including aboriginal people.
On reflection and on examination of the bill I find I am unable
to support the bill in its present form. As it goes through
parliament I hope amendments will be brought in that make it more
acceptable to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.
I certainly support the right of aboriginals to manage their own
lands, but we must think about Canada as a country. We must
remember that aboriginals are Canadians. We occupy the same
lands as defined by our national boundaries.
The good of all Canadians is paramount. The people of Canada
need one government that is supreme, one government that is in
charge and responsible for the country and for all the people
residing in its boundaries. All other levels of government have
to be at lower levels to the federal government. All governments
and all laws have to be subject to the House.
We have heard and examined the report of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal
Action Plan”. It had a lot of good features to it. It
certainly helped move the debate down the road and helped to make
Canadians more aware of what was going on. I question how many
Canadians have actually read the report and understand it. Many
aboriginal people have read it and a pretty significant number of
them have some very deep concerns.
I will deal with some of their concerns in my speech today. I
think I could sum them up by saying that they deal mostly with
accountability and the place poorer children and women in
particular will have in a future self-government.
1225
The royal commission report should have stated unequivocally
that accountability of elected representatives on our first
nations lands had to be in place as self-government moved along.
It should have included built-in democratic guarantees to all
aboriginal people. A cornerstone of democracy would not be
restricted to such things as election laws being equivalent to or
better than the Canada Elections Act.
That would seem to be pretty basic to any self-governing
democracy. However we find on first nations reserves which come
under the Canada Elections Act contained in the Indian Act that
elections are not always fair to the people who are
participating.
How long will Canada and the aboriginal people in particular go
along with the idea of hereditary chiefs? This was brought to my
attention many times, over and over again. When there are
hereditary chiefs we do not have a democracy.
The cultural aspects of hereditary chiefs are certainly
important. They were a fact of life of aboriginal people. I
believe that it can be accommodated through some form of governor
general, a figurehead for the reserve and its people. True
democratic institutions are what are required by aboriginal
people. In order for them to have that they need full democracy
as we know it today.
In addition to election laws that have to be clearer and fairer
for everyone, there should be an independent auditor general. An
independent auditor general would be free to criticize the
government and government departments he is reporting on. That
could have been built into all agreements with our aboriginal
people. Without it there is no accountability of elected
officials who manage agreements.
The third matter that would be a good cornerstone would be an
access to information component. How can people be governed and
assess—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is Friday and I hate to delay the time of the House,
but you are aware that it is incumbent upon the government to
keep a quorum in the House. I do not see a quorum. It is a very
important piece of legislation and we should have a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that it
is incumbent upon all members to maintain a quorum, but I will
count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the last cornerstone I
would speak about would be an ombudsman to assist people who are
unable to deal with their elected officials due to a possible
lack of education, a disability, or mental lack of capacity to
understand exactly what is governing their lives.
Opposition to self-government within the native community is a
fact of life. There is also widespread concern within the
non-native community as it sees child poverty and the terrible
living conditions that have resulted in the last 70 to 80 years.
They see a gigantic gap between rich and poor. Many aboriginal
people say that the rich among them got that way by getting a
much larger share of financial resources intended for a much more
equitable distribution among the people.
1230
This opposition to self-government includes women's rights. How
can it be that aboriginal people do not have the same democratic
rights and protections available to the majority of Canadians?
The royal commission could have made a big step in clarifying
this and making sure all future discussions between the federal
government, aboriginal peoples and elected officials include the
bottom line that without democratic rights for everyone nothing
goes forward.
The Liberal government and the aboriginal leaders who prepared
these documents could have eliminated this opposition to
self-government by simply stating and ensuring through action
that Canadian aboriginals have all the democratic rights enjoyed
by the non-native Canadian population.
Bill C-49 will ratify and bring into force the framework
agreement on first nations land management. The framework
agreement, it is my understanding, was signed by a group of 14
first nations and the federal government. It enables first
nations people to opt out of land and property sections of the
Indian Act individually and to establish their own land codes to
manage reserve land and resources.
I reiterate that I support aboriginals' managing their land. As
a land owner in Manitoba I have certain responsibilities and
rights to manage the land I own. I accept, though, that the
federal government has the final say with regard to how I use
that land under some circumstances. For instance, if I am to use
my land in a way that harms my neighbours or destroys the
environment of my area, obviously we need the government,
parliament, to be the final arbiter of what goes on in this
country.
Bill C-49 deals with land management. Yet in purpose and
function it amounts to the creation of a partial yet substantial
form of self-government for the first nations that are
signatories to this framework agreement. The framework agreement
grants these powers of self-government in two primary ways.
Individual first nations will establish a land code which will
give them authority to pass laws for the development,
conservation, protection, management, use and possession of first
nations lands. It will allow them to control the issue of
leases, licences and other interests.
In short, there is no constitutional basis for the creation of
this kind of third level of government because under this
framework agreement where there is a contradiction, a conflict
between whether aboriginal law applies or Canadian law
applies, under certain conditions aboriginal law can
take precedence. That is one of the big concerns I have.
Clause 37 is particularly questionable. It says in effect that
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.
1235
In essence, Bill C-49 would not only give first nations
authority to create laws in areas that fall within the
jurisdiction of their land codes but it would give them powers
which could and probably will supersede federal laws.
Once again I get back to the discussion that were those laws and
uses of these lands to be detrimental to their neighbours there
has to be one final authority and that final authority has to be
the elected officials who represent all Canadians, members of
parliament.
Another significant dimension within Bill C-49 is that major
sections of the Indian Act will no longer apply. In the absence
of these sections and with first nations no longer being subject
to either federal or provincial laws in the areas where they have
or would have authority to create their own, this bill has the
potential to create a serious legal and legislative vacuum.
I hope this was not a clever plan by the legal profession of
Canada to create a lot more cases in court. However, it
certainly seems it will have that effect.
My greatest concern deals with women and children on reserves.
They seem to have the greatest concern over this whole issue of
self-government and the laws being passed and the agreements
being made. It is a legitimate concern, one that we as
parliamentarians must address before this bill is passed.
Parliament has to ensure that those people who are less able to
help themselves are fully protected and are able to lead good
lives, lives that the majority of Canadians accept as being
normal.
The question of divorce laws, property rights and what a spouse
who is divorced ends up with is also of paramount importance. At
present it is my understanding that provincial and federal laws
dealing with divorce on aboriginal reserves have no effect.
Does it not seem right that the fundamental democratic
principles I was talking about, which would include property
rights, the right of a woman or a man to share the opposite
spouse's property in the case of divorce, be in place and part of
any agreement that moves forward?
I would like to see an all encompassing application of Canadian
law to aboriginal peoples. That is what they are basically
demanding and asking for. Some in the community do not
particularly want to see those democratic rights proceed with the
equivalent rights we have in the rest of Canada. I suspect that
close examination would reveal it has more to do with the
possibility of self-enrichment than with what is good for
aboriginal people.
1240
I refer to a letter sent to an MP from the B.C. Native Women's
Society. As members of parliament we often reflect what
constituents say from across the country. We interpret and
deliver to this House what we believe to be our constituents'
concerns. We lay them out in our own words.
Today I bring these aboriginal women's words to the House as
part of the official record in a more direct way. I would like to
read some portions of this letter because their explanation, this
group of aboriginal women, expresses it in ways that no member of
parliament can. That is because it comes from the heart. It
comes from living under the conditions and laws they find so
objectionable.
In the first paragraph the women say: “You must defeat this
bill, the first nations land management act”. These women are
not speaking for every aboriginal person in the country. But
they are speaking for a significant number. I had a meeting in
Winnipeg on October 31. I heard the same thing.
As I reflect on Bill C-49 and the whole movement toward
self-government, we have to make sure democratic principles are
in place and that every Canadian, rich or poor, aboriginal or
non-aboriginal, has the rights enjoyed by all Canadians.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague from the
Reform Party. I have been trying to understand what their
position is having listened now to the debate for several hours
and hearing various members of the Reform Party debate Bill C-49.
On the one hand members of the Reform Party purport to support
aboriginal self-government and management of their lands and yet
it seems that every single member has risen to nitpick this bill
apart, tear it apart and say that because it is not a perfect
situation this will go down in flames.
The member has talked about the need for democratic elections
and has questioned that this bill has no constitutional basis for
aboriginal government. I would like to question the member on
that.
For example, today we know that in the vote taking place on the
Nisga'a referendum there will be provision for a democratically
elected government.
I would like to query the member on his basis for claiming that
there is no constitutional basis for the establishment of
aboriginal government. It seems all members of the House and all
governments have a responsibility to recognize the inherent
self-right to government by aboriginal people.
When the member talks about his concerns for women and children
in first nation communities I advise the member to look to his
own party in terms of its representation of women as being among
the lowest of any political party in Canada. I find it curious
that he would be raising this issue when within his own
organization the issues of women and the representation of women
are very low, something that should be of concern to them.
I would like to ask the member to really be clear as to whether
his party stands for aboriginal self-government. What is the
Reform Party position? It seems to me Reformers are trying to
talk out of both sides of their mouths on this question.
At the end of the day this framework is before us that has been
negotiated in a fair and open process. The first nations involved
have endorsed this process. I find it very difficult to
understand the Reform Party's position that while it says it
supports self-government there is really nothing in this bill it
finds worthy of support. It seems to be a contradiction.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I could comment for the
next half hour on the things the hon. member for the NDP brought
up.
1245
First off, democratic rights for every Canadian is not
nitpicking. That is a fundamental each of us living in this
country deserves. Without democratic rights, who is not liable
to be locked up arbitrarily or have laws applied to them that are
inconsistent even with human rights.
With regard to women, children and the poor, approximately
18,000 aboriginal people live in my constituency. Looking back
over the past five to 10 years, I have seen no member of
parliament stand up and do anything for the aboriginal women and
children in our community. They tried through the official
methods, but no one listened to them. They tried the RCMP. They
tried Indian affairs. They tried individual members of
parliament. They tried all these official methods of addressing
their problems and got nowhere.
I am so proud to have held the accountability coalition meetings
in Manitoba. The last one was on October 31. I announced in the
House beforehand that it was open to everyone. Who did I see at
my meeting? I saw a member from the Manitoba legislature. One
of the Progressive Conservative members saw fit to come and
contribute to the meeting. I saw no other elected members of
parliament or members of the provincial legislature, other than a
couple of Reform members.
I will let the House and the Canadian people judge who stands up
for women and children in our communities. By ensuring
democratic rights and bringing to the fore the complaints of
these people, it is the Reform Party that is standing up the most
for the disadvantaged people and natives in particular. That is
my answer very simply to nitpicking and women's rights and
problems in our country.
How many countries do we have in Canada? Do we have one
country? Do we have two? I believe that there are in the
neighbourhood of 600 aboriginal reserves with land rights in
Canada. Are members on both sides of the House, and NDP members
in particular suggesting that we should have 601 countries? Are
we headed to 601 countries making agreements with each other or
making agreements with foreign nations?
These basic principles have to be clarified to the Canadian
public. We are being left in a big mishmash as we move forward
toward self-government.
The term self-government could be applied to the provincial
government in Manitoba in that it has rights and
responsibilities. In this process of self-government for
aboriginals we have to do two things. We certainly have to
clarify that basic democratic cornerstones apply to absolutely
every aboriginal person. We also have to clarify just where the
process is going to end up. If it is to negotiate out 601
countries, why not divide it up even more until we are not a
country at all?
I have spent a lot of my lifetime working in the public service
and working for Canada. I have done that because I believe this
is a great country.
It can stand improvement in areas, certainly in the financial and
spending areas. But those areas do not touch on the very basic
right of every Canadian to have the democratic principles
available to them in dealing with their elected officials.
1250
Democracy is the only thing that protects us. It protects us
from the possibility of a dictatorship, the possibility of abuse
by elected officials toward the people. It may never be perfect
but that does not mean we cannot go forward and make things as
good as they can be.
I mentioned the letter from the B.C. native women. I am sure
that certainly applies across the prairies, Ontario, Quebec and
the maritimes. Their complaints reflect exactly what I am saying.
They are saying they do not feel secure. They do not feel that
self-government is going to protect them. They have stated in
the letter exactly why that is the case. I will pass the letter
to another member in my party who will be able to bring that out
and show the exact words of these people and what their concern
is.
It should be clear to this House that the Reform Party is not
saying that Bill C-49 is a total disaster. We are saying it is
not addressing the basic concerns these people have in regard to
democracy. Until we have that in place, we should not proceed in
making it tougher and causing more litigation between the parties
that we are trying to get to live together in a unified Canada.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find myself in the odd position of having to spring to
the defence of a Reform Party member, the member for
Selkirk—Interlake because I feel strongly that it is the role of
the opposition to nitpick legislation at second reading. That is
why we are here, to debate and try to find flaws in the existing
legislation so when it goes to committee it will have some
guidelines on what to look for in order to correct the bill and
make it better.
I am not quite sure where the member for the NDP was coming
from. Possibly she had not read the legislation or perhaps she
misunderstands her role as a member of the opposition.
For my part, I have never hesitated as a government member to
examine legislation at second reading debate very carefully and
to point out where I feel there may be shortcomings. I do not
share the same concerns as the Reform Party members that there is
a problem in the bill with respect to the allocation of
sovereignty. I actually believe the bill provides for this. When
it is debated in committee the members opposite will get the
reassurances they need with respect to not giving away the store
and creating mini states within Canada. I do not believe the bill
does that.
I have one concern with respect to the bill and I hope a member
opposite will address it. I cannot find anywhere in the bill a
provision for transparency. There are some clauses that talk
about accountability but there is no clause that I can find that
would require the management groups or whoever administers this
act on the reserves or on the self-government entities provide
for open debate.
The difficulty is that there cannot be accountability without
transparency. There has been a trend over the years to create
legislation that does not firmly provide for committees and
councils in self-government regimes to have their debates in an
open forum. That is key to an amendment or change I would like
to see in the bill. I would ask the member opposite or a member
of the Reform Party if they might share the same concerns I have,
that we should be looking for an amendment that clarifies a need
for transparency in deliberations when the bill goes through.
1255
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we are
doing here is reversing the roles. The member had 20 minutes to
make a speech and he used just a little over two. Really what he
was doing was questioning our position on this. I appreciate that
he recognizes those of us on this side, and I will be gracious
and include everyone in the House, have an obligation to look at
this legislation.
One of the things that happens to be in place right now is our
motion to suspend the bill for six months. The reason for this
is to provide the opportunity to get it right. I have often said
to my children and to my students over the years that it is much
better to get it right than to get it fast. Perhaps that is why
I am so slow all the time. It is very, very important to get it
right.
In this instance, this legislation has a lot of flaws. A lot of
things in it just are not right. They fundamentally are not
right. They are not right philosophically. They are not right
socially. They tie us together as humans living on the same
continent within the same boundaries with a political
organization that will not work well in the long run.
All we have to do is read a little history and look at the
history of different countries, countries where there is a clear
delineation of the powers, responsibilities and privileges of the
different levels of government. We are getting a hodgepodge. We
are getting a total mess where based on race, based on factors
such as personal characteristics, one set of laws applies and
another set applies to different people.
There are different laws for pensions for MPs and senators as
opposed to what other people have. There are different laws with
respect to just about everything that can be named. We split up
people and start pitting them against each other.
I would appeal to the government, to those eager backbenchers
over there to finally say to the government and better yet, to
stand up when the vote is taken and say “We support this six
month hoist. We support that we need to work on this more. We
support that we have to get it right. Let us make those
fundamental changes”. I would urge the member who has just given
this extremely short but I would say concentrated and valuable
speech to get his colleagues together and say “Here are some
things in this legislation that are fundamentally not right. Let
us delay it so that we can get it right”.
Mr. Speaker, if you just tuck your head down and dive off the
diving board without first checking to make sure there is water
in the pool, would be an act of sheer stupidity. It is absolute
folly for the government to ram this legislation through without
giving it very serious thought.
The implications of what we are doing here are immense for the
future of our country, our children and our grandchildren. I
would like the member to elaborate a little more on what he said
in his speech and to respond to what I have said.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the reason my speech was so
short was that I did not find much of great concern in the
legislation. I believe an economy of words in this House is
something everyone should seek. That is what I was trying to do.
Now that the member has responded and raised some issues, I will
say the reason I think the bill should go forward basically as it
stands and go to committee for further deliberation is that I do
not think it contains elements that cause the concerns raised by
the members opposite. I do not feel that it creates mini states
within Canada.
1300
The Constitution provides special treatment for Canada's
aboriginal peoples. That is in our Constitution. It is like
official bilingualism. It is part of our national makeup.
However we have to be very careful—and this is where members
opposite strike an appropriate chord—we do not create states
along the model of apartheid in South Africa where sovereign
states were created on race.
The legislation creates—and it is the theme of the
government—aboriginal self-government that is more based on the
municipal model. It so happens because aboriginal affairs is a
federal responsibility rather than a provincial responsibility
that we will not have a provincial government between the federal
government and the municipality. In essence we would have the
federal government and the municipality.
Unfortunately there has been a great misuse of language in the
debate. For instance, we are always talking about first nations.
Sometimes I find it quite deplorable when witnesses appear before
the aboriginal affairs committee and talk about their first
nations versus Canada. That is the kind of rhetoric I would
expect from the Parti Quebecois in Quebec which actually talks
about separating from Canada. I find that unacceptable.
It is a misuse of words because the vast majority of aboriginal
peoples I know who appear before our committee are very much
Canadian. They want a sense of management of their own affairs
just in the same way as the people in my communities of Dundas,
Ancaster and Hamilton, or in the province for that matter if we
take another step up in the communities of communities that make
up Canada, want a sense of personal identity in the immediate
territory around them. We want to have some say in our lives in
that context.
That is precisely what the government is trying to achieve by
its aboriginal self-government programs. It is not trying to
create sovereign states. It is trying to create communities that
manage their own affairs in the same way as municipalities do and
in another way as provinces do.
We are embarking on uncharted territory. We still do not know
for certain how the experiments we have already done are working.
We cannot leave it for decades and centuries to attempt to
address the very legitimate need of the various communities of
Canada to feel they are in control of their own destinies as
individuals. We have to act.
The legislation may have flaws. What legislation that comes
before the House does not have flaws? If legislation did not
have flaws the opposition would not need to exist. There would
be no need for debate. Legislation has problems and we have to
discuss them as mature representatives of the various parts of
Canada that have sent us to the House.
I have found one area of concern. While members opposite have
expressed themselves sometimes eloquently, I am sure they have
found other areas of concern. I read in what they say that they
are not ambiguous at all with respect to the legislation. Members
across the floor are saying that they believe in Bill C-49 in
principle, but they do not agree with the detail and need
reassurance. I urge them to support the bill, get it to
committee, get those witnesses before the committee, hear those
witnesses and then decide on the future of the legislation.
In order to give people who need a sense of self-identity a
chance to have that self-identity as soon as possible we should
move forward with this and other legislation like it.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the time for
questions and comments is so close to over that by the time the
hon. member got half a question out it would be over, so I will
resume debate.
Mr. John Duncan: Economy of words is something that is in
my repetoire.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will get a chance
later this afternoon, I have no doubt.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
please to speak to Bill C-49. People have explained what the
legislation says. Reform MPs have expressed their concerns about
it.
1305
My debate on the legislation will focus on the aspect that the
legislation will give more power to chiefs and councils without
first ensuring an increased level of accountability. When I
speak about improved accountability I am talking about the area
of fiscal accountability. In other words, the people on the
reserves should know where the money comes from, how it is being
spent and get the chance to have some input into how it should be
spent. I am also talking about democratic accountability,
starting with having fair elections and having some way of
ensuring that elections are fair.
For that reason alone I cannot support the legislation and I
will not support it. In fact I will do everything I can to
prevent the bill from passing, including supporting the amendment
to postpone the bill for six months so we can debate it, improve
it and make it something we can support. I support the amendment
to the bill.
I want to talk about something that happened over the past year
which led me to know that my party and I and the government
should not support legislation like the legislation before us.
About a year ago I started representing the new Lakeland
constituency. About two-thirds of the Vegreville and Beaver
River constituencies were put together into one constituency. I
had no reserves in the Vegreville constituency but eight reserves
become a part of my Beaver River constituency. As soon as that
happened I started getting phone calls from aboriginal people
both on and off reserve expressing their concerns. Some of the
calls were very disturbing.
One of the first ones I remember was from a man who said he was
a grandfather of several grandchildren. He lived in a
two-bedroom house in which were living 27 members of his family.
He said they could not live like that. It was so crowded that
the house was falling apart. They could not go on like that. The
chief and council on the reserve would do nothing to try to
improve the house or to provide housing that better suited their
needs.
In pursuing this matter I found that the chief, council and
families in the inner group were living in wonderful houses. Many
drove new cars. They seemed to have money. Then people started
telling me exactly what was happening, that the money was not
getting to the people on that reserve who needed it most.
After receiving literally dozens of these calls, after about a
year I decided that as the member of parliament I would try to do
something about it. I did not really know what to do. I started
by going to the local native friendship centres and speaking with
the people. I asked what we could do. They expressed the
desperate need for something to be done. They said that things
were getting worse. They had been getting worse over the last 30
years. They were in a crisis situation. The things I heard were
not uncommon to us. We hear them all the time.
I got a group of about 20 aboriginal people together at a native
friendship centre in one of our towns and asked them what we
could do. We decided to set up a small task force that would not
study for years but would listen to the concerns of the
aboriginal people in my constituency.
We started with four aboriginal members and me on the task
force. One member left shortly after so we had three aboriginal
people and me. We went through a three step process. We started
by meeting confidentially with people who would come to the
friendship centres in the various communities around the
constituency.
1310
We listened to 55 people in this confidential way. Many said
that even by coming to the centres they risked some action being
taken against them by the chiefs and councils of their reserves.
They were at a point where they were willing to accept that risk
because somebody had to do something to try to change the
situation.
I will never forget in my lifetime what I heard from these
people. I heard articulate people express their concerns about
what was happening. They gave the task force recommendations as
to what they thought should happen. It was am experience I will
truly never forget. I am thankful to those people, some of whom
I believe are my friends now.
The second phase was to put out a questionnaire in the area, on
the reserves and in the towns near the reserves. I did that and
received over 50 responses. The third phase was to hold public
meetings. I held three public meetings in the constituency. The
largest meeting was in St. Paul with about 70 aboriginals in
attendance. It is the town nearest to two of the reserves. That
was the process.
I will talk about the task force members to acknowledge the time
and the money they contributed on their own. None of them have
much money but I had no way of covering their expenses. They had
to cover the costs themselves and they were willing to do that.
They gladly did that because they believed that finally somebody
would listen to their concerns.
There were three aboriginal people on the task force and me.
There was Agnes Gendron who works at the Grand Centre Canadian
Native Friendship Centre as the children's first family outreach
worker. She has worked as a social worker for at least 20 years.
In fact she worked for the department of Indian affairs for
several years so she knows what goes on there. She understood
very well some of the problems within the department and some of
the problems with the Indian Act that were preventing change from
happening, change which must happen to improve the situation.
The second member was Gina Russell from the Cold Lake First
Nation. She also works at the friendship centre in Cold Lake.
She has contributed her time to the youth justice committee, to
victims services and to the Lakeland Native Parents Education
Committee. Gina is presently the director of the Grand Centre
Canadian Native Friendship Centre which is one of the few
non-funded native friendship centres in Canada. It gets no
government money and it is doing good work. I commend both these
women for the work they are doing.
The third member was Ralph Whitford from Lac La Biche, a town
council member who understands well how municipal politics works.
He had great input in our discussions of what type of government
would work on reserves. He has an incredible background. I will
just mention a few things. Ralph has held several senior
community positions including director of Beaver Lake Wah-Pow
Detoxification and Treatment Centre. He was a member and
supervisor of the Lac La Biche-St. Paul District Native
Counselling Services of Alberta and he is now actively working as
a member of Awasisak and Family Development Circle Association.
His background is absolutely noteworthy.
I wanted to mention all these people who agreed to give their
time to become members of the task force. They wanted to try to
do something valuable for the people they care so much about,
their families.
I have talked about why I initiated the task force.
I have talked about the three stages that were involved in this
process that we went through and I have talked about the members
of the task force. We heard many concerns and complaints. Many
were aimed at chiefs and councils. Some were aimed at the
community outside of the reserve and many were aimed at the
department of Indian affairs.
1315
These people got beyond that. They gave us recommendations for
change that would improve the system. That is what I want to
focus on.
There were nine recommendations the task force accepted and put
in the report which we presented to the minister of Indian
affairs in September. The task force met with the minister and I
will talk about that at the end of my presentation.
I would like to first talk about five of the nine
recommendations. They are the five that deal with
accountability, really the lack of accountability on reserves
now. In category one we talked about financial accountability.
The first recommendation is the government must enforce more
comprehensive and transparent financial reporting by band and
settlement administrators. This information must be freely
available to all members and to the general public. This
recommendation, as did all of the others, came from the
aboriginal grassroots people we heard from.
These recommendations are not all supported by Reform policy. I
do not support completely all the recommendations. But I was not
there to put a Reform platform into this process. What I was
there for was to hear from the people, what they thought could be
done to improve things for themselves and for the people they
care about, aboriginal people in the constituency.
That was the first recommendation. There are some notable
quotes we have in this report from people who spoke to this
issue. I will read one from Charles Favel from Saddle Lake
reserve: “Nobody on the reserve is told how much funding is
received from Indian affairs. As a result, administrators on
some reserves and settlements are able to show favouritism in
distribution of funds”. That was heard from several
participants. Mr. Favel went on to say: “All the money benefits
are certain family groups. Some living conditions on the reserve
are so bad they are not even fit for an animal. Yet some
families that benefit from the funding drive new cars, have new
homes and have new clothes”. Mr. Favel in his presentation
spelled it out about as clearly as one can. The way the money is
spent on his reserve is not right at all. The money is not
getting to the people most in need.
The second recommendation, again in the area of fiscal
accountability, is that to ensure sound financial management on
reserves and settlements the government must provide better
financial management support for aboriginal councillors and
administrators.
Many chiefs, councillors and administrators really do not have
the knowledge they need and the understanding they need to
properly account for the money they handle and which is being
spent. They made no excuse for this. They said that does not
mean they should not be held accountable for improper spending,
because they understand when the spending is improper. But they
need help to properly account for funding. They ask for that
help to come from the department of Indian affairs, which makes
sense. They said it is not coming now. Part of the help they
need is very clear guidelines that really put in place
responsible accounting for the money being spent.
I quote one of the participants on this recommendation:
“Problems on reserves are the outgrowth of a system that at one
time prevented people from leaving reserves and at one time
starved them”. This is from George Forsyth from the Onion Lake
Band. “You can't go from a system where people are watched over
every minute to one where they are totally on their own and
expect perfect accountability”.
1320
This is an individual who was mad as heck at his chief and
council, but he acknowledged that it was hard to move from the
one system to the other quickly. He said it was insanity to move
to more self-government before the proper fiscal accountability
is in place. This is exactly what this piece of legislation is
doing. He made it very clear that he wanted no part of this.
The third recommendation, again in the area of fiscal
accountability, is the government, together with councillors and
administrators, must ensure there are effective, regular and
ongoing consultations with band and settlement members.
One participant on this issue said the solution may be to
require band meetings where the people approve a forecast budget.
This person, who previously worked in an administrative role
with a band outside of Lakeland, said the crucial process was not
yet in place on that reserve. This is how people reacted to that
concept being presented to them. He said: “You should have seen
the administrators' faces the first time I brought up the idea.
They said `it is not normal that you should have people
discussing how the money might be spent”'. That is how out of
touch the people on his reserve were with this concept of
accountability.
I will never forget a meeting held in St. Paul attended by 65 to
70 participants. All but about five were aboriginal people. I was
clearly getting the message they were concerned about the
movement toward self-government. I heard it so much that I
finally had to ask a question. This was a meeting recorded by
two television cameras. I asked how many of the people at this
meeting would support moving toward self-government on their
reserves.
As no hands went up on the question I wondered if they
understood the question. I then put the question another way:
“How many of you here are against any further movement toward
self-government until the problems of fiscal accountability and
electoral accountability are dealt with?” Only one person was in
favour of any further movement to self-government before the
accountability was in place.
That person then said that the reason she put her hand up was
because she did not know what I meant by self-government. My
response to her was good point. The definition really has not
been put forth.
Another thing that came up at this meeting was when someone
said: “Ron Irwin sent a memo out to reserves saying that no one
would be forced to take self-government until everyone was
ready”. They are concerned that is not what is happening.
I have just gone through the three recommendations having to do
with fiscal accountability. I will have another chance at third
reading to talk about the electoral accountability.
When the task force members met with the minister of Indian
affairs she said “we have heard all this stuff before, it has
been in the various commissions we have heard from before, this
is not new”. I said “so why haven't you done something about
it?” The other task force members reinforced that. I said let
us take one bite sized chunk. Let us take one of the
recommendations that came under the democratic accountability
thing, let us have Elections Canada monitor elections on
reserves. This was very simple.
The minister's response to this was “There are some chiefs and
councils who do not support that concept. We have been talking
about it. Until I have the support of all chiefs and councils I
cannot move forward with that”.
Clearly this government will not move forward with anything if
it is waiting for the support of every last chief and council
because many of these things will make it so that it will have to
act in a responsible and accountable way in governing on the
reserves.
1325
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment my colleague on such an excellent speech.
I know it is a bit of an oxymoron but I hope there was a
thoughtful Liberal listening to what my colleague had to say.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington posed some questions with
regard to lack of transparency being a concern. That certainly is
a concern with this legislation and it is a concern in terms of
all kinds of current Indian Act legislation and policy from the
department.
Essentially many of the things that are done now are tantamount
to giving a blank cheque not only in terms of money but in terms
of issues. Bill C-49 gives essentially a blank cheque to these
14 band councils in terms of marital assets and marital splits.
This agreement creates no protocol. It leaves an absolute void
in terms of how these local governments are to deal with
municipal governments on servicing agreements and all those
things. There needs to be protocol. That has been pointed out
for the last two years. There is no change to the legislation.
There is thought about rushing this legislation to committee
because somehow at committee it can be fixed. There has been
about $10 million invested in this piece of legislation through
government initiatives since the Tory years and it is still not
right because of a philosophical problem. It has nothing to do
with what should be here. It is philosophical. Committees will
not fix it as long as they are Liberal dominated.
There is also no protocol for what happens when third party
interests are affected as a consequence of this legislation, and
there needs to be. Those are three obvious ones. The sixth
month hoist is appropriate.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for his questions.
With regard to the issue of transparency, I have eight reserves
in my constituency. We also had people participating from four
Métis settlements. In every single case there were many concerns
expressed about a lack of transparency.
One person who participated said that the concept of actually
fully disclosing and then having discussion among the band
members as to how money should be spent was foreign to him. He
said they had never heard anything like that before. Clearly
transparency is not there now. There is no insurance that it
will be there under the current rules, and the rules that are
there are not enforced. That is something that was made very
clear again and again. That is something that has to start
happening.
If we are to make meaningful change and if the government
really wants to move in the direction of more self-government,
giving more control over their own destiny to aboriginal people,
then we have to ensure through tough guidelines that are
enforced that there is transparency. That has not happened.
It is complete folly moving toward giving any more power to
chiefs and councils before that happens. What we have to do
first is have the accountability, the transparency, then move
toward giving aboriginal people more control over their own
destiny in a way that they really want.
1330
A blank cheque given to a band council on the issue of marital
split is a concern I hear about quite often. I also hear about
cases where a couple has split, divorced, moved apart, with one
person being on the reserve and one off. If they lived on the
reserve the only assets they would have had, in most cases, would
have been on the reserve.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member, but he will have five minutes remaining in questions and
comments when the bill next comes up for consideration before the
House.
It being 1.30 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]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-208, an act
to amend the Access to Information Act, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Colleen Beaumier moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I am delighted that the
House has taken this bill and accepted it as its own. It is now
a House bill.
I would like to thank all members from all sides of the House
for their co-operation and support.
The bill was amended with some reluctance. It was amended in
committee, where there was a great deal of co-operation as well.
This goes to show that none of us has the monopoly on anything
that is good and wonderful in this House. We all have different
ways of trying to get to the top of the mountain. Once we have
decided that we have a common goal we can work together.
This bill is about accountability. We all want to be
accountable to our constituents and we all want the Access to
Information Act to be protected so that we can acquire
information to be accountable.
I think all has been said that there is to say. This is not a
very large or comprehensive bill, but perhaps it is significant.
Once again I would like to thank all members.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-208, an act to amend the
Access to Information Act.
I would like to commend the hon. member for Brampton
West—Mississauga for bringing this legislation forward. It is a
tribute to her efforts that we are debating a private member's
bill at this advanced stage of debate.
Hopefully the Liberals will be more co-operative with opposition
parties in the House to ensure that private member's business is
treated in a better manner.
It is well known that the Access to Information Act does not
have enough teeth. Even the former information commissioner has
said so in his most recent report.
On that note, I would also like to take this opportunity to
belatedly congratulate the hon. John Reid, a former member of
this House, on his appointment as the new information
commissioner. I am pleased that my colleague, the House Leader
for the Progressive Conservative Party, was able to facilitate
the appointment of a qualified, hard working person such as Mr.
Reid.
Bill C-208 would create an offence for a person who denies the
right of access under the Access to Information Act, who
destroys, mutilates or alters a record, who falsifies a record,
who makes a false entry in a record or who does not keep required
records.
As amended by the justice committee, Bill C-208 would also
create an offence for anyone who directs, proposes or counsels
someone to alter or destroy official records.
This is an extremely important amendment because it extends
responsibility to senior managers who may order someone to break
the Access to Information Act.
A person found guilty of this indictable offence would be liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine
not exceeding $10,000, or both. We would have liked to see the
maximum punishment of five years as originally proposed under
Bill C-208 kept, but we in the House should focus on passing this
bill.
1335
In essence, Bill C-208 remains a very simple amendment to the
Access to Information Act that will nonetheless strengthen the
provisions of the overall act. For some time now Canadians have
been losing confidence in their public institutions and
especially in government. Canadians need to know their federal
government is truly working on their behalf and truly working
well, otherwise people feel that both their votes and their taxes
are wasted.
The Access to Information Act is one of the tools for the public
to achieve that objective and this amendment proposed in Bill
C-208 is simply helping to make the law more complete. The
amendment would give more visibility, more access and more teeth
to the Access to Information Act by including strong penalties
for those who do their utmost to prevent its application. This
is not to say that more could have been done to improve the act.
For example, amendments could have been proposed to allow the
public access to documents of the privy council which are
currently confidential. In fact, many other amendments
reflecting the concerns and expectations of information
commissioners, past and present, could have been tabled in the
same manner.
This is not a reflection of this bill or the bill's sponsor, the
hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga, but it is a
reflection on the Liberal government that is obsessed with
keeping secrets and covering up instead of being open and
straightforward with Canadians. On the other hand, it was the
Right Hon. Joe Clark during his tenure as prime minister who
first acted on a longstanding call for an Access to Information
Act. His Progressive Conservative government introduced such
legislation in 1979.
Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP, out of their partisan
interests, defeated that government and the bill died on the
order paper. Several more years would pass until the legislation
was reintroduced and took effect. Thankfully, Mr. Clark is
returning to the scene and will no doubt bring the same fresh and
innovative ideas to change government for the betterment of
Canadians.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I am
pleased to support Bill C-208. I encourage all members to do so.
We believe it is a step forward in opening up the government to
more public scrutiny and in giving Canadians a stronger sense of
public control and identity with their public institutions.
I hope the government follows the example of the member for
Brampton West—Mississauga and introduces more comprehensive
amendments to the Access to Information Act.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is really an honour and a pleasure today to rise and first of
all congratulate my colleague, the member for Brampton
West—Mississauga, on Bill C-208.
As members of the House will know, it takes a combination of
initiative and perseverance to get a private member's bill to
third reading, and I congratulate her for that.
[Translation]
Before providing details on the bill, I want to make it clear
that the Minister of Justice supports Bill C-208.
The justice committee recently reviewed the bill and, after
making some necessary amendments, it unanimously supported its
passage. I take this opportunity to thank all the members of the
justice committee.
I hope all members of the House will follow the example set by
the justice committee and will vote in favour of Bill C-208,
regardless of their political affiliation.
I say this because, in my opinion, this bill is crucial for
Canada and for Canadians, and should therefore get the unanimous
support of this House.
[English]
Without doubt, Bill C-208 is short but its importance greatly
exceeds its length. The bill would add an offence to the Access
to Information Act. The offence proposed in the bill would apply
to anyone who, with the intent to deny a right of access under
the Access to Information Act, destroys, mutilates, alters,
falsifies or conceals a record or makes a false record.
1340
The offence would also apply to someone who directs, counsels or
causes anyone to do so. This last aspect is important because it
means that a person will not be able to escape the offence by
telling someone else, a subordinate, for example, to do the act.
When the bill was first discussed in the House, I on behalf of
the Minister of Justice expressed reservations regarding the
penalty that the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga had
put in the original version of her bill.
This was one of the main issues discussed by the committee. I
am pleased to report, as I said earlier in the other official
language, that the committee unanimously adopted the amendment of
the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga. It was agreed
that the offence should be made a hybrid offence rather than a
straight indictable offence. This means that the crown has the
flexibility to proceed against an accused person, either by way
of indictment or by way of a summary proceeding.
[Translation]
The flexibility I am referring to is required because the
indictment procedure is more complicated and, therefore, summary
conviction is simpler and more direct. This flexibility also
applies to the possible maximum penalty.
The committee decided that, if a person is prosecuted by way of
indictment, the maximum penalty should be five years
imprisonment or a $10,000 fine, or both. If a person is
prosecuted by way of summary conviction, then the maximum
penalty should be six months imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, or
both.
Before getting into the purpose of Bill C-208 and generally what
it provides for, I would like to take a moment to share some
general information with the hon. members of this House.
[English]
Canadians have been the beneficiaries of a federal Access to
Information Act since 1983. It is not to say that this act could
not be improved upon and brought more up to date. In fact we
have an example of it today.
Canadians can be confident that the government will not ignore
the issue. For a decade and a half Canadians have enjoyed a high
level of access to government information. It is worth pointing
out that Canada is only one of a handful of countries that has
such legislation. For example, England does not yet have access
to information legislation although Mr. Blair's government has
issued a position paper in favour of creating it.
[Translation]
Under this legislation, only specific and limited exceptions may
be invoked by the government for refusing to allow access to
information. In such cases, the legislation gives individuals
the right to file a complaint with the information commissioner
and to have the government's decision reviewed by the federal
court.
The purpose of the Access to Information Act is to help citizens
play their rightful role in a free and democratic society.
Unfortunately, in some societies, citizens do not have such
rights and therefore have no means by which they can call their
government to account.
[English]
When the justice committee first considered Bill C-208 in May of
this year it asked the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga
to state the purpose of her bill. She declared that her bill was
about accountability. It is important to note that on the
relationship between the Access to Information Act and
accountability the Supreme Court of Canada is in agreement with
the hon. member.
The supreme court has so far decided only one case involving the
Access to Information Act and therein the court wrote:
The overarching purpose of access to information legislation is
to facilitate democracy by helping to ensure that citizens have
the information required to participate meaningfully in the
democratic process and that politicians and bureaucrats remain
accountable to the citizenry.
[Translation]
I mentioned that Canadians are lucky to have the Access to
Information Act but, on closer examination, this legislation is
not as flawless as it seems.
An important omission has been identified with respect to the
protection it affords: as things now stand, there is no penalty
for deliberately altering or destroying a file. The former
information commissioner had already pointed this out. In fact,
he recommended that an offence relating to the destruction of
documents be added to the Access to Information Act.
The law makes obstruction of the information commissioner an
offence, and if there is any information relating to the
commission of any offence against any law of Canada or a
province on the part of any officer or employee of a government
institution, the information commissioner may disclose this to
the Attorney General of Canada. The bill before us today
remedies that shortcoming.
1345
[English]
We simply cannot have a situation in Canada in which people can
with impunity completely block accountability by destroying
documents to thwart access. Bill C-208 would prevent this.
Again I wish to say that the Minister of Justice fully supports
Bill C-208.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this afternoon at report stage of Bill C-208, an
act to amend the Access to Information Act.
I wish to begin by commending the bill. I would also like to
commend my colleague from Brampton West—Mississauga for working
hard in introducing this bill and all parties for supporting Bill
C-208.
The time has arrived for parliament to ensure that actions with
the intent to deny access to information through destruction,
falsification or concealment of records are penalized. Clearly,
manipulation of documents in this manner is not an acceptable
operating principle. The issue of increasing the accountability
of those denying access to information through the behaviour
outlined in Bill C-208 is essential. Accountability is the
essence of Bill C-208.
In Bill C-208, this parliament has before it an important
private member's bill. The fact that Bill C-208, a private
member's bill, has come this far is a testament to the worthiness
of its content and intent.
I believe most Canadians want record abusers stopped and
penalties enacted for abusers that include fines and jail terms.
Bill C-208 ensures this outcome. As a consequence of ensuring
accountability, this bill will forge better public trust and
assurance. I urge this House not to let the opportunity provided
for in Bill C-208 to pass by.
As we know, Canada is one of only a dozen countries throughout
the world with access to information legislation. Bill C-208
demonstrates the Canadian resolve to offer access to information
in an accountable and open manner. Strengthening the Access to
Information Act through Bill C-208 illustrates Canada's approach
that is unique to most of the world.
Bill C-208 provides for prosecution of an individual by way of
indictment or summary conviction. This legal flexibility permits
greater possibilities for prosecution thereby making the Access
to Information Act more effective.
In strengthening the Access to Information Act, Bill C-208
strengthens democracy in Canada. Individuals scheming to
manipulate records from public access need to be called to
account for their actions. This is the basis of Bill C-208.
Passage of this legislation will be to this parliament's credit.
It will be remembered as yet another instance when parliament
endeavoured to protect and benefit Canadians.
I strongly support this bill. I urge all colleagues in the House
to do the same.
1350
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on 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: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November 16, 1998
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
That concludes Private Members' Business for this day.
Accordingly I should advise the House as a matter of historic
note that on Wednesday, November 6, 1867, 131 years ago today,
this House met for the first time. It is a date we might
remember.
An hon. member: Were you here?
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think any of us present
today were here on that occasion.
[Translation]
The House stands adjourned until Monday, November 16 1998, at 11
a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
[English]
Have a nice week away, my colleagues.
(The House adjourned at 1.51 p.m.)