36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 242
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 10, 1999
1000
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Canadian Heritage
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
1010
| Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with
|
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1015
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-87. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HIGHWAY TOLLS ACT
|
| Bill C-519. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-520. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| PETITIONS
|
| Louis Riel
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1020
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Candu Nuclear Reactors
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| MMT
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1025
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Canadian Merchant Navy
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1030
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Excise Tax Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1035
1040
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1045
1050
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1055
1100
1105
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1110
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1115
1120
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1125
1130
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1135
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1155
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1215
1220
1225
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1230
1235
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1240
1245
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1250
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1255
1300
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1305
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1310
1315
1320
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1325
1330
1335
1340
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1345
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1350
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MEMBER FOR BURNABY—DOUGLAS
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| CHILD HUNGER
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| 55TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1400
| LIVINGSTON CENTRE
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| FIREARMS ACT
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| AGING POPULATION
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| THERAPEUTIC USE OF MARIJUANA
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| YUGOSLAVIA
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1405
| THE LATE GORDON TOWERS
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| HARBOUR DUES
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| FUNDY—ROYAL
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1410
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PARLIAMENTARY INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| CYPRUS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| JUVENILE DIABETES
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| FOREST RESEARCH
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CULTURE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1430
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BLOOD SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1440
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1445
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1450
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| FERRY SERVICE
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1455
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MERCHANT NAVY
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1500
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1505
1510
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1515
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1520
1525
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1530
| Mr. André Bachand |
1535
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1540
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1545
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1550
1555
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1600
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments.
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
1735
1740
1745
1750
1755
1800
1805
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
1845
(Division 561)
| Amendment negatived
|
1855
(Division 562)
| Motion agreed to
|
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Notice of Closure Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1900
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-502. Second reading
|
1905
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1910
1915
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1920
1925
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1930
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-502. Second reading
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1935
1940
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1945
1950
1955
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
2000
2005
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
2010
2015
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2020
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
2025
| UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2030
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
2035
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
2040
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
2045
| Kyoto
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
2050
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 242
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 10, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
there is an error in the notice paper. A bill entitled, an act
to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death), in
the name of the Minister of Justice, should have been under the
heading “Introduction of Government Bills”.
I regret any inconvenience this may have caused hon. members.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish
to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Customs
Tariff. I am also tabling explanatory notes. I ask that an
order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in
the House to table, in both official languages, international
treaties that entered into force for Canada in 1993, a list of
which is also tabled.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(1), I have the honour to lay before the House, in both
official languages, the five year review of the International
Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, 1993 to 1998.
The centre is an independent organization dedicated to the
promotion and protection of human rights and democratic
development. The review covers the activities and organization
of the centre and its role in the international human rights
community.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous
consent for the following motion:
That any recorded division requested on the concurrence to
Government Orders Ways and Means Motion No. 28 later this day be
deferred until the end of Government Orders today.
1005
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay on the table
the document entitled “Individual Member's Expenditures” for
fiscal year 1998-99.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour of tabling in both official languages the ninth
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade entitled “Canada and the Future of the World
Trade Organization: Advancing a Millennium Agenda in the Public
Interest”.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as you can see from the size of this report, it
represents a considerable amount of work which was done by
committee members in a very short, compressed period of time. I
want to thank members of the committee for the tremendous amount
of work they put into it and for the enormous energy that went
into preparing this report.
In addition to the report, we have produced a citizen's guide to
the WTO that I will be presenting to the House which we, the
members of the committee, hope will be of use to the citizens of
this country in understanding the importance of this organization
to the future prosperity of Canadians.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a
comprehensive response to this report.
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I have the honour to present
in both official languages the ninth report of the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “A Sense of Place: A
Sense of Being: The Evolving Role of the Federal Government in
Support of Culture in Canada”.
Having heard from a large number of Canadians over three years,
the committee's report looks at culture from the perspective of
key elements of cultural activity, creation, training,
production, distribution and consumption, and makes 43
recommendations which call for better co-operation between
federal departments and other orders of government.
[English]
The report attempts to capture the importance which Canadians
place in the role of the Government of Canada in the promotion,
protection and support of our culture and federal cultural
instruments and institutions. A government response is
requested pursuant to Standing Order 109.
I wish to thank members for their collegial and non-partisan
effort, witnesses and those who submitted briefs and, last but
not least, our staff.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report
of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities.
[English]
This is the report of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons
with Disabilities which I had the pleasure to chair. This report
will also be available in alternate formats.
I am also pleased to table the report of the recipient of the
Centennial Flame Research Award for the year 1998, pursuant to
subsection 7(1) of the Centennial Flame Research Award Act,
chapter 17, Statutes of Canada, 1991.
We believe this has been an interesting exercise. We have
called 12 ministers. We have embarked on a wonderful new
methodology for parliament to be a tribune of the people and
there will be a relevant role for parliament and stakeholders to
contribute to the policy development of the government.
We thank all members of the committee, in particular the Bloc
member, whose dissenting opinion is one of the most gracious and
kind. We all want to move this agenda ahead.
1010
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and
Government Operations. In accordance with its mandate under
Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered forest
management practices in Canada as an international trade issue
and has agreed to this interim report.
I want to point out that the committee intends to continue this
work in the fall, having had a chance, first, to visit British
Columbia.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members who
participated. They did a terrific job. I would also like to
thank our witnesses, as well as our clerk, Richard Rumas, and our
researcher, Jean-Luc Bourdages, for the excellent work they have
done in support of the committee's work. I emphasize that this
is an interim report. More work needs to be done, but our
committee felt that the facts about Canadian forest harvesting
practices need to known in the international marketplace, as well
as the fact that Canada is a world leader in forest management
practices.
With that, Mr. Speaker, we wish you a great summer.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities,
entitled “Looking Ahead: an Interim Report on Older Workers”.
[English]
The committee is united in its determination to respond to the
re-employment crisis facing Canada's aging workforce. On behalf
of all committee members, I express a special thanks to Danielle
Bélisle and Kevin Kerr for their hard work. I would also like to
express a heartfelt thanks to all committee members for their
dedication and commitment.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Finance,
entitled “Productivity with a Purpose: Improving the Standard
of Living of Canadians”.
I want to bring to the attention of the House that this is a
very important document which deals with a very important issue,
that of productivity, which is a key determinant in raising the
standard of living for Canadians.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the
committee who worked very hard throughout this session. The
finance committee held 193 meetings to deal with different issues
related to finance.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the clerk,
the interpreters, the researchers and every one involved in
making sure that the committee of finance functions as well as it
does.
I want to reiterate that the finance committee will continue to
pursue this issue in the coming years.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 35(2), I will respond to the report
presented by my friend, the chair of the finance committee.
I simply want to point out that in our supplementary report,
which we attached to the productivity study, we expressed some
scepticism about whether the government would be able to pursue
the course of action laid down by my colleagues on the finance
committee.
I would point out that there were some good recommendations in
the report, recommendations to pursue freer trade, lower taxes
and de-regulation. Sadly, it looks like we were prescient
because now we see the Prime Minister suggesting that there will
not be any more free trade type agreements, that free trade will
not be extended, that low taxes essentially are un-Canadian. It
appears that this report is dead on arrival, which is sad because
I think many Canadians rightly expect that we should have lower
taxes in Canada, right now.
Finally, before we wrap up, I want to congratulate the chair of
the committee and my colleagues for a productive year. I also
want to extend my thanks to the pages who will be leaving us
soon. We have certainly had a chance to get to know them and we
appreciate the gallons and gallons of water that they have
brought to us all over the course of year.
1015
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous
consent to table, notwithstanding the fact that the notice was
only served yesterday, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(impaired driving causing death). I think you would find
unanimous consent as it is pursuant to an agreement among House
leaders yesterday.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
with first reading of this bill at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-87, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(impaired driving causing death).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY TOLLS ACT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-519, an act to limit the imposition of tolls
on publicly financed highways, bridges and tunnels.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to prevent the
imposition of tolls for the use of roads, bridges and tunnels
funded by the federal government.
[English]
As the House is well aware, tolled highways are a big issue in New
Brunswick. This totally unfair tax is causing trade barriers,
financial difficulties for trucking companies and extreme
hardship on low income families, seniors and businesses.
The purpose of the bill is to prevent any future highway tax
grabs by provincial governments, and to prevent friends of the
Liberals from making millions on the backs of taxpayers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-520, an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act (employer's bankruptcy).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today in
the House a bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act in the
event of an employer's bankruptcy.
This bill would make it possible to take into account, for the
purpose of eligibility for employment insurance benefits, the
hours worked by a contributor who has not been paid for the
hours he worked for his bankrupt employer, which the employer
obviously did not make the contributions necessary for these
hours worked.
Having been penalized as a result of the employer's bankruptcy
by the loss of his job and, second, by not being paid for the
work done, the claimant is again penalized when the hours he did
work without pay are not counted so he may receive benefits
while he is looking for another job.
I think, therefore, that it is very important to change the
Employment Insurance Act as quickly as possible in order to
provide a balance for workers of good faith.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition calling on the House to pass the bill
introduced by other members and myself for the purpose of
overturning the conviction of Louis Riel for high treason and
officially commemorating his role in advancing the cause of
Canadian confederation and the rights of the Metis people and
the people of western Canada.
1020
I also wish to mention the exceptional work done by two of the
120 young students involved. Véronique Pilote-Charron and
Jacinthe Desforges did a particularly fine job on this file.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of my community,
Brooks, Alberta and the surrounding area who have asked me to
present a petition respecting the appalling court decision in
British Columbia that struck down Canada's child pornography law.
There are over 500 names on the petition.
Petitioners pray that parliament take all measures necessary to
ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of
children.
CANDU NUCLEAR REACTORS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to present a petition this
morning and, in so doing, also to pay tribute to you, Mr.
Speaker, and all the table officers, staff and pages for serving
the House so well in this past session.
I would like to present a petition signed by citizens of
Winnipeg, Manitoba who are very concerned about the sale of Candu
nuclear reactors to Turkey. They are concerned that high
government subsidies will in fact represent an amount so high as
to equal the income tax cuts of the last federal budget. They
are also concerned that Turkey will probably use them to produce
nuclear weapons of mass destruction and destabilize the eastern
Mediterranean, a part of the world which has always been
politically unstable.
The petitioners call on the government and parliament to oppose
this sale and take all possible measures required to stop it.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to rise to present a petition signed by 50 people
from Fairview in my riding of Peace River as well as others from
Stony Plain.
They request parliament to enact legislation that will define in
statute that marriage can be only entered into between a single
male and a single female.
MMT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, Zurich and Corbett
who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT noting studies
underway at the University of Quebec are showing adverse health
effects, especially on children and seniors, and that car
manufacturers oppose the use of MMT.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is an honour to present a petition, and particularly when you are
in the chair today.
The individuals who have submitted this petition from my riding
ask that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
Thank you for your consideration in this House, Mr. Speaker. It
is pleasure to be here with you today.
The Deputy Speaker: The pleasure is mutual.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
with a petition signed by 34 people from Alberta. These
individuals call on parliament to pass legislation incorporating
the rights of children and the principles of equality between and
among all parents.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition today from 75 of my constituents and
constituents from all over Manitoba who feel that parliament
should re-enact legislation and reinstate chiropractic services
for aboriginal people. These services have been eliminated and
are no longer available. The health of many Manitobans are
affected by this decision. They pray that this be brought back
for the use of Manitobans.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour and privilege to rise today, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, to present a petition not only from the residents of
Okanagan—Coquihalla but from all across British Columbia who
draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:
“Whereas a majority of Canadians are in favour of a fair
agreement with the Nisga'a people that is complete and equitable
to all Canadians; whereas there are court cases presently
outstanding”—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know the hon.
member, in a spirit of co-operation today, will want to comply
with the rule in every respect and that is that he give a brief
summary of the petition, rather than read it. When I hear him
read “whereas” and so on, I can tell that perhaps he is not
giving a brief summary. I know he would not want to give that
impression to the House.
1025
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia
are concerned about the Nisga'a agreement and therefore are
calling on parliament to reject the agreement.
There are 1,000 signatures today and by the time the House
returns there will be over 100,000 from the people of British
Columbia.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present today at least
300 more signatures from people in my constituency and across the
province dealing with the same topic.
The petitioners pray that parliament will take all measures
necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces
be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of children.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 199 and 212 could be made orders for return, these
returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 199—Mr. John Williams:
With regard to the losses suffered by government departments and
agencies of approximately $1.3 million dollars worth of laptop
and desktop computers due to theft, as shown in the Public
Accounts of Canada, pages 3.25 to 3.31, Volume II, Part II, for
fiscal year 1997-98: (a) from which locations did these thefts
occur; (b) were these cases of theft reported to a law
enforcement agency; and (c) if so, what were the findings from
the law enforcement agency's investigations?
Return tabled.
Question No. 212—Mr. Gilles Bernier:
Can the Department of Human Resources Development provide for
the constituency of Tobique-Mactaquac the following information
for each of the past five years, regarding the application and
appeal process for disability pensions under the Canada Pension
Plan: (a) how many people made an initial application for a
disability pension and how many of these applications were
accepted/rejected; (b) following the initial application, how
long did clients have to wait for a response; (c) how many
clients requested a review and how many of these requests were
approved/rejected; (d) in how many cases did the Department
request a review and how many of its requests were
approved/rejected; (e) following a request for a review, how long
did clients have to wait for a response; (f) how many clients
appealed to the review tribunal, and how many of these appeals
were approved/rejected; (g) in how many cases did the Department
appeal to the review tribunal and how many of its appeals were
approved/rejected; (h) following appeals to the review tribunal,
how long did clients have to wait for a response from the
tribunal; (i) how many clients appealed to the Pension Appeals
Board and how many of these appeals were approved/rejected; (j)
in how many cases did the Department appeal to the Pension
Appeals Board and how many of its appeals were approved/rejected;
and (k) following an appeal to the Pension Appeals Board, how
long did clients have to wait for a response from the Board?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY
The Deputy Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion
under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I filed a
notice yesterday requesting an emergency debate to discuss the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs'
treatment of the Canadian Merchant Navy.
The merchant navy men have been asking for compensation for 55
years and every national veterans organization in Canada supports
the merchant navy's request.
I was asked to table my motion by the standing committee, the
chairman, and veterans affairs for compensation until we dealt
with whether they would come under the War Veterans Allowance
Act. I did that. We were led to believe at the standing
committee that there would be an open mind at that table by all
committee members and that they would hear and listen to everyone
who came forward.
I cannot believe that the members on the government side voted
this down because there was not a person who came before the
committee to speak against it.
There is a need to discuss this before we take our summer break.
I ask all of our members to agree to have this emergency debate
for these brave men who brought peace to us here and around the
world. We would not be here in the House if it were not for
them.
I ask that we have an emergency debate before we break this
summer with regard to the merchant navy's compensation.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has carefully considered
the point raised by the hon. member for Saint John. While there
is no doubt that she feels she has a grievance in relation to
proceedings that may have occurred in the committee at some point
recently, of which the House at this moment is technically
unaware, I know that the member, in reviewing the standing order
under which she has moved her application, will recognize that
the Chair has to examine it in the light of cold hard facts. In
this case the Chair feels that the application does not meet the
exigencies of the standing order.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1030
[Translation]
WAYS AND MEANS
EXCISE TAX ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and a
related act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax
Court of Canada Act, laid upon the table on Friday, June 4, be
concurred in.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not want to be unfair to my colleagues across the
way, but I think there was an understanding, and perhaps some
colleagues did not know it, that they were requesting a recorded
division. You might want to ask the question again, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I would be pleased to do that. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an
act respecting the advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers, and of the amendment.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
although I have had an interruption of several hours and time to
reflect on the merits of the Senate amendments and the amended
bill, it has not changed my mind.
Last night I was puzzling over the fact whether the heritage
minister, in her grand design and maybe in her new capacity as
playwright once she leaves the House in the capacity of heritage
minister, has designed the production of a play that is either a
farce or a tragedy. I have had time to reflect on that and it
has to be in the category of a farce. Nothing else would really
fit the badly and almost comical way the government has handled
the issue of split-run magazines.
This is all about the government having picked a fight with the
Americans on an issue that it absolutely lost. It picked a fight
and expended a tremendous amount of energy in an area which it
knew it could not win. The government thought it would have a
lot of people rally behind it, even in its own cabinet, and that
simply did not happen.
I suggest this was a badly flawed bill right from the very
beginning. The chickens have come home to roost and now we have
the amended version of Bill C-55.
There has been a loss of credibility by Canada as a result of
the government's actions on the world stage. We have legitimate
concerns. We have legitimate problems with the Americans in
areas where we need to fight the good fight. Softwood lumber is
one of those areas. The matter of whether we are dumping cattle
into the United States is another one. Softwood lumber is a very
big issue in British Columbia. There are many of them.
This is the same government, by the way, which assured Canadian
forest companies that if they signed the softwood lumber
agreement we would have five years of peace with the Americans.
The government's assurances are basically a bit like a Hollywood
movie set. There is a false front, the nice looking hotel, with
nothing behind it. That is how the government handles it. It
tries to pretend that it is protecting Canadian interests when
all it gives is empty rhetoric. It goes on and on.
On the issue of culture the government told us that there was a
tremendous exemption which would protect the Canadian cultural
industry. The cultural industry is based on that so-called
cultural protection, and what do we find? It was not there but
it keeps it going.
Now the government is telling the cultural industry that it will
take it to the World Trade Organization in the next round of
negotiations and that it will give the industry a new cultural
instrument, a new cultural agreement in the World Trade
Organization. If the cultural industry accepts that premise and
builds its policies based on that, it will be disappointed once
again.
It is not the only industry that has been subject to the Liberal
government's fancy footwork in terms of pretending that it will
protect them. As I said softwood lumber is one example, but it
goes beyond that.
1035
At the World Trade Organization-GATT back in 1993 in the Uruguay
round, the government told the supply management industry that it
would protect it and that it would not allow other countries to
do away with article 11, which essentially was border closures or
no access into Canada of dairy, chicken and eggs. What did we
get? We lost. We lost and we had to accept tariffs. We still
have very high tariffs in those industries but they will be
coming down too.
I suggest supply management cannot believe the government
either. It is now telling supply management that we lost at the
Uruguay round but, not to worry, at the new round of the World
Trade Organization it will protect that industry. I believe that
assurance is worth nothing. The government knows that cannot be
done, so it is misleading the Canadian public and it is
misleading those industries.
How do we regulate a cultural sector. We do not even have a
good definition of culture. There is not agreement in Canada on
what culture is. There certainly is not an agreement on the
Liberal side. We know that there were different ideas by
different ministers. How do we regulate that? I suggest it
cannot be done.
This does not mean that culture does not deserve Canadians
supporting that sector. A better approach, one that is more
enlightened, might be to promote our culture in the international
trade forum, just like we do with any other business sector. Let
us promote culture at our embassies and consulates. It deserves
it. We know that Canadian artists deserve that promotion as well.
That is a forum that is possible. It is possible to do.
There is another way in which we might address the issue. There
are problems with Canadian films getting distribution rights. I
suggest that we might look at international competition law or
even Canadian competition law. We could even go beyond that and
into the United States where competition law might be applied and
where there is too much concentration in the hands of one set of
business people.
There are forums to be used, such as competition law, to break
down that terrific monopoly so that it is possible for Canadians
to distribute their own films in their own country. There are
things we can do but we have to be realistic. Pretending we can
protect them in the forums of this government and in Bill C-55 is
simply not realistic.
There are problems that may make Bill C-55, as amended, not even
possible to implement. What might they be? On the matter of how
much advertising revenues will be permitted for American
publications by Canadian advertising companies there is a formula
set in place: 12%, 15% and 18% by the end of a three year
period. Canadian advertising companies are set to challenge that
content regulation because they are being restricted under the
charter. That is a substantial issue in itself.
What about the agreement? If it is based on gross revenue, net
revenue or after tax profit, who will police it? Will we have
another set of culture cops travelling around trying to decide
what the revenue base should be? That is exactly what will
happen. I suggest there is not common understanding, even with
the United States, in the letters that were exchanged.
Do foreign publishers investing in Canada in the other section
need to publish magazines with a substantial Canadian content or
a majority content? In the letters exchanged just last week we
can see where the problem is already starting to percolate.
These letters say that the United States accepts the terms of
the agreement which state that a net benefit review by Canada of
new investments in the magazine industry will include
undertakings from foreign investors which result in a substantial
level of original editorial content. The United States is saying
a substantial level.
What is Canada saying? Canada is saying that we will use
guidelines which call for a majority of original editorial
content.
I thought we had an agreement. What kind of an agreement do we
have when we cannot even get right if investment in Canada by
American companies will have substantial content or majority
content? They are entirely different.
1040
We are sowing the seeds for the failure of this agreement. I
suggest the Liberal government knew that all along. It is just
another Hollywood movie front, the false front it is hiding
behind, pretending that it is protecting the cultural industries.
That is one aspect of a future problem.
Another aspect is that the Liberal government, in its lack of
wisdom, will go into a policy that subsidizes Canadian cultural
magazine publications upfront. The Americans are asking, if that
is the case, whether they should qualify for it.
We have signed international treaties. We signed the NAFTA
agreement. We signed the World Trade Organization-GATT agreement
which says that we need national treatment. It is in there. Does
the government not realize what kinds of international agreements
it has signed? If the government subsidizes Canadian
publications it will have to subsidize American publications as
well. How absurd.
The whole concept of subsidies is wrong. It is ironic that we
will now subsidize American publications. Is this not the height
of irony?
In addition, how long will these subsidies last? Canada is
going to the World Trade Organization millennium round, kicking
off in Seattle this year, to argue against subsidies. It will
argue to phase out subsidies internationally. The trade
department is doing that and I agree 100%. The Reform Party has
suggested that subsidies distort the marketplace. There is no
place for them and in fact they are damaging sectors like
agriculture very badly.
While the Liberals are speaking from one side of their mouth at
the World Trade Organization, they are designing policies to put
the very opposite into effect in Canada. How long will those
subsidies stand up? This agreement was not designed to stand up
very long at all. It is to get them through a critical period.
This is a full retreat. It is window dressing. It is trying to
save some face in the face of a very badly designed agreement.
The heritage minister picked a fight with the Americans and she
lost. The bill should never see the light of day. That is the
position of the Reform Party. We will not be supporting it.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little
perplexed with what we are hearing from the official opposition
which resisted Bill C-55 all the way through. It was totally
opposed to any form of support for our cultural industries, the
magazine industry in particular. All of a sudden it is crying
that we have sacrificed this industry, which is total nonsense,
by the way. It is rather amusing to see this huge flip-flop on
the part of the official opposition, the only party opposing the
legislation on some grounds on which it has now totally shifted.
In the process it has tried to direct personal attacks, as it
always has. It gives the impression that it cannot do otherwise.
It cannot debate the notion of ideas. It directs personal
attacks to the minister, which is nonsense. That is not what it
promised to do when it came to Ottawa. It is not living up to
expectations.
These things need to be said. I will read a couple of quotes
for members. One is from a fine gentlemen who writes for the
Toronto Sun, Hartley Steward. He used to publish the
Ottawa Sun. He is certainly not a friend of this side of
the House but perhaps more of the other side of the House. Here
is what he had to say on this matter:
—despite claims by the magazine industry's lobby groups that
this is the beginning of the end for Canadian magazines, the deal
is a pretty good one for those who own Canadian magazines.
American split-run editions will be allowed to carry only 18%
Canadian advertizing. Should they wish to carry more, they will
have to set up a Canadian office and carry “substantial”
Canadian content. If “substantial” is regulated to mean
“majority” it is, indeed, a major concession on the part of
U.S. trade officials.
Would the member like to comment on that quotation from Mr.
Steward?
1045
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party was and
still is, I believe, the only party
that has resisted and said that it is dead against this
agreement. The reason is that the evidence has shown that this
agreement, this so-called exemption, did not exist. The exemption
the government pretended was available to the magazine industry
simply did not exist. I believe it was very misleading for the
Liberal government to pretend it did.
When the free trade agreement was signed in 1988, Canada
supposedly had an exemption clause on our cultural industries,
but there was a cost to that, a price to be paid. The price to be
paid was that if Canada did that, the United States had the right
to retaliate in equivalent effect. That is the essence of this.
We have seen it come home. We have seen the cultural industries
now say that they do not want any more exemptions. The
government told them about how great these exemptions were but
they are not serving them well at all.
Instead of saying that the magazine industry has been
sacrificed, I would say it has been misled. It continues to be
misled because this is the same government that suggests in a
report tabled today that Canada is going to protect cultural
industries in the next round of the world trade talks, that there
is going to be a cultural instrument, a cultural agreement in
place.
We know what happened in the so-called failed talks of the MAI.
One of the key reasons that failed was the cultural industries
exemption. They could not arrive at any agreement as a result of
that. I suggest that there is not agreement and there will not
be agreement at the World Trade Organization for that exemption
clause or any cultural agreement.
Most Canadians would suggest that the United States is the main
threat to Canadian culture. That is what is perceived. That is
the reason these things are designed. We have NAFTA. We have
the original free trade agreement, whether the World Trade
Organization comes to an agreement or not.
The United States' biggest export, I believe, is its cultural
industries. The Americans regard it as commerce. Think about it
for a moment. It is their biggest export. If we think they are
going to say that these things are off limits or exempt, I do not
believe that position is credible.
It is wrong for the government to pretend that certain
conditions exist internationally that will protect our cultural
industries in that way. It is wrong and I do not think the
government should be doing it, nor the parliamentary secretary or
the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The best thing that can be said about what has happened with
Bill C-55 is that it is very much a face-saving gesture.
Canadians lost. The Canadian government lost because now we are
going to have to subsidize the magazine industries. The Liberal
government lost. It got beat up very badly on this. It put the
Canadian companies that were on the retaliation list through a
painful period of time in our history. For one year they did not
know if they were the industries that would be retaliated
against.
We had all kinds of presentations from the steel, beef and
lumber industries. They told us not to let this thing pass
because they may be the ones that would face retaliation.
Industries that had already faced tough times in dealing with the
Americans possibly would be the ones that would be hit with
further duties. It put them through an uncertain time which is
unfortunate. It was an uncertain time.
There are legitimate fights that we need to take action on with
the Americans. This is not one of them.
There are legitimate fights in the area of softwood lumber. The
agreement on softwood lumber is due to expire in less than two
years. It is one where Canada has to make significant progress
next time around. The softwood lumber managed agreement which
this Liberal government put in place is not working. The United
States has taken action against rough header lumber. It has
taken action against pre-drilled studs. There is going to be
more action. We were promised five years of peace by the Liberal
government for the forestry sector. What did we get? Anything
but.
There is going to be a fight. Energy will be expended in the
area of softwood lumber in the next two years. I suggest that at
least we put our energies where we have some chance of winning
and where we are right on the issues. That is not taking place
at the moment.
1050
The cattle industry is facing dumping charges and countervail
actions by the United States. The steel industry is continually
harassed in terms of facing dumping charges and it has to defend
itself against unreasonable action. That is where the trade
department and the Canadian government should be putting their
energy. Unfortunately that is not the case right now.
With that, I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that there
are many different views from Canadians as to whether it is a win
or a loss here. If he were to canvass some of his colleagues on
the government front benches, he would find there was division
all through this debate right inside his own government.
When Canadians are asked what is important to them, what are the
priorities and what we should be fighting for, they are talking
about things like lower taxes. They are talking about things like
less regulation in their lives. The so-called cultural
protectionism this government has been providing and advancing as
a priority is certainly not a priority for Canadians.
We need to be honest with Canadians. We have to give them a
firm assessment of what is possible and what is not possible in
future trade talks. I would submit it is not possible to get
this cultural protection in any international agreements because
there is not international agreement out there.
The United States is probably one of the countries that is most
opposed to the idea of cultural protectionism. The Americans
very much see this in a different light than Canadians do. They
see this as an aspect of business, of commerce, and this Liberal
government does not.
I am concerned when this government talks about cultural
protectionism. What if other countries were to take the same
attitude? What if other countries were to say that they were
going to make their countries off limits to Canadian cultural
businesses?
What about Canadian artists who want to work in Nashville? What
about Canadian artists who want to work or who are currently
working in Hollywood? If the Americans were to take this dog in
the manger attitude that we have no access to their country, that
they are going to protect it, a number of Canadian artists would
not have the access to work in the United States.
It is badly designed legislation. The evidence of that is here
in the amended version of Bill C-55.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
respond to the remarks of the hon. member from the Reform Party
regarding this bill.
I am somewhat surprised that the Reform Party on the one hand
keeps claiming we can direct U.S. policy on trade and that we
should somehow be standing up for farmers. On the other hand,
when it comes to our cultural industries and what is important to
Canadians and identifying Canadian symbols, the Reform Party
would have us just walk away and do whatever the Americans want
us to do.
Before the hon. member leaves, I would like to say that in terms
of his comments regarding the cultural industries in our
committee report, we did not come out and claim that somehow in a
new round we would be able to protect all of the cultural
industries in Canada. Our recommendation stated that at the WTO
there should be a way in which countries can come together to
discuss culture and put forward some of the interests of Canadian
culture. We feel the Canadian government and certainly the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and her parliamentary secretary
have done that very well with regard to Bill C-55.
We should take that issue further. At the next round of WTO
negotiations in Seattle at the end of this year, we should come
together with the different countries in the world that feel
culture should be on the table and find a forum under which we
can discuss those issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. The
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade thanks the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, her parliamentary secretary and
her department for all of the hard work they have put into this
bill.
We are very appreciative of our Minister Marchi and the Prime
Minister who together with the Minister of Canadian Heritage
stood up for Canadian interests.
1055
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Have the rules changed in the House and we are going to
refer to each other by our names in this place? The member was
talking about Minister Marchi.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the member refer to
Minister Marchi. Normally if I hear that sort of thing I would
certainly intervene. I am sure if the hon. member for
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant made such an error he would not want to
repeat it.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I was so proud of the work
done by the Minister for International Trade that his name might
have slipped out of my mouth. It in no way was meant to go
against the rules of the House. I would never do that.
The work done by them was work done on behalf of Canadians. It
was certainly done under duress at a time when most of the
opposition parties were onside with us, with the exception of the
Reform Party. It constantly criticized us for not standing up
for one sector of society and criticized us at another time when
we were standing up for an important sector of our economy and
standing up to the Americans.
Sometimes in international trade it is difficult to get a deal.
Rules are complex and different interests and different parties
are involved. These things take some time. Industries such as
the steel industry in my riding, which is very important, have an
interest in this.
I want to also take the time to praise the industries that did
not jump on the bandwagon and take the American line like the
Reform Party did. They put forward good arguments when
discussing this matter with my minister and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage as well as our caucus members. Again I thank
the Minister of Canadian Heritage for standing up for the steel
industry in her area.
It is important to recognize that these amendments to the bill
represent a new stage of certainty and security in the evolution
of Canadian culture as expressed by the Canadian periodical
sector. In the legislative void created we accepted and
implemented the WTO decision. It is very important to remind
members that when the WTO came down with its decision, Canada
followed the rules. We came forward and did what the WTO did, as
we do internationally and as we hope other countries do. We went
further to make sure Canadian culture was protected.
Security in the future of Canadian stories told in these
periodicals will continue to thrive through an investment policy
which will foster Canadian content. Most important, there will
be jobs for Canadians in the periodical sector. Canadians will
be provided with the opportunity to read about themselves and to
know about themselves and to appreciate more what their country
is about.
We have achieved this end through discussion, through
co-operation and through working together with our American
friends. This is the way two countries so intertwined in trade
should work. Rather than battle a country with which we share a
common border and are close in many ways we should resolve these
issues through discussion.
We pointed out that Canada has one of the most open markets in
the world for foreign magazines. Canadians enjoy reading about
themselves but they also enjoy reading about foreign lands and
seeing these through a Canadian perspective.
We explained and we also listened. In the end we struck a deal
that was not only consistent with our cultural policies, but for
the first time in our bilateral relationship with the United
States, it agreed to and has recognized that Canadian content is
a legitimate Canadian trade objective.
That is the first time our American friends have done this.
1100
These achievements, however, did not come without a cost. In
any negotiation there is some give and take. We had to provide
something in exchange. That is how negotiations work.
We agreed to let foreign publishers have limited access to the
Canadian advertising services market, but not enough to inflict
damage on our ability to promote that market. It was enough to
show that we were willing to give something in negotiation, but,
most importantly, not enough to jeopardize Canadian culture as it
is expressed in our magazines. However, it was enough to remove
the threat of damaging trade action by the Americans.
Between January and last week no less than 10 meetings were held
between Canadians and American groups working on this agreement.
After all, we are each other's best customers. We find that if
we can negotiate, if we can sit down, if we can show each other
our differences, then we can move forward more quickly.
We have more than $1.5 billion in trade crossing the border
every day. That is why we sought to resolve these issues through
dialogue. A trade war would have been far more damaging.
We gave a little, maybe too much for some of our friends on the
other side, maybe too little for others, but that is what happens
in negotiations. There is give and take.
We should also remember that Canada and the United States have
agreed, through dialogue, to other agreements, which were
mentioned by the Reform Party, concerning issues of softwood
lumber, issues of wheat and agricultural products. When all of
these issues came forward we did not end up with a battle; we
ended up again giving a little, taking a little, but we ended up
with an agreement.
I do not think anybody who knew about the free trade agreement
and the NAFTA which followed expected everything to be rosy. In
fact, I do not think any trade agreement in the world could make
absolutely certain that there would not be disagreements with
neighbours. However, we find the best way to deal with these
disagreements is through negotiation.
The desire to resolve these disputes through discussion is not
only a matter of preference between friends, it is also the
practical approach and the best way to deal with these issues. If
the United States did retaliate against those industries that
were the targets—steel, apparel, plastics and lumber—there
would have been a chilling effect on our export markets and our
export contacts in these areas. While we would have had the
right to challenge the United States pursuant to the NAFTA,
Canadian exports still would have suffered. The rules are there
and we have to make sure that we understand those rules to put
forward our argument and to protect the industries that we hold
important in this country.
That is why the Government of Canada preferred a negotiated
solution; not a solution at any price, or one that played one
sector off against another, but a mutually satisfactory agreement
and a balanced agreement.
It was the balanced agreement which was signed last week that
led us to introduce these amendments. The amendments to this
bill provide increased certainty and security for the Canadian
magazine sector and, thus, an ongoing and strengthening venue for
Canadians to communicate with each other and to learn more about
their country.
We certainly thank the industry itself, which provided the
government with a lot of the information and a lot of the
resources it needed to put forward this argument. That is the
best way to do it; to work through the industry, through those
sectors that are concerned about these issues, with the
co-operation of the provinces, with the co-operation of Canadians
and the NGOs to put forward an argument.
That is why we win these arguments. That is why we have moved
ahead in trade. That is why our trade numbers keep growing.
Even though we are a somewhat small country, when we are put
against our larger neighbour to the south I think we do pretty
well. If we go around the world and talk to other countries that
deal with the Americans on trade issues, most of them look to
Canada to see how we do it because we have been successful.
1105
I want to say thanks again to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister for International
Trade and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for their hard work.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to the hon. member, who spoke about the
international trade aspect of the magazine bill which we are
debating today. He said in his remarks that if Americans did
retaliate there would be a chilling effect on our trade.
If he knows that there would be a chilling effect, why does he
not bring the whole issue into perspective and mention it to the
minister, whose selfish motive is to have this bill passed even
if it affects the steel industry, the plastic industry, the
agriculture industry and the textile industry? Would there not
be significant damage done to the international trade relations
we have with the U.S.? We have more than $1 billion in trade
with our major trading partner every day.
The member also mentioned that Canada will have to argue at the
World Trade Organization in the case of retaliation. We all know
that subsidies hurt Canadian businesses or Canadian interests. We
know what the story is on softwood lumber. We know what the
story is on agricultural trade. We saw what happened a few
months ago with agricultural trade. We also know that the
government sold out the Canadian interest on the Pacific salmon
fishery in the recent treaty it negotiated. It has already lost
the war on magazines with the Americans.
Can the hon. member shed some light on this? What will be the
effect? Since he is an international trade specialist himself,
can the hon. member shed some light on how much these subsidies
will cost Canadian businesses, as well as American businesses?
Because if this goes to the World Trade Organization, according
to chapter 11 of the NAFTA, the subsidies will have to be given
to American businesses as well. How shameful. Can the hon.
member shed some light on how much these subsidies will cost
Canadian taxpayers?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier,
international trade is a very complex issue. I think the hon.
member should go back to his researchers to ask them why they
would give him such false information as to put forward in the
House the suggestion that we would have to subsidize American
companies. That is not the case. It is not even on the board.
Most people who have been following this issue know that.
I want to tell the hon. member, because it is a very important
point and I think it is an important point for Canadians to know,
that what we are talking about here is the 20% of the market that
we now control. American and other foreign companies have 80% of
the shelf space. We are only talking about 20%.
Is it his position and his party's position that we should all
of a sudden give up this 20%, that we should not stand up for
Canadian periodicals and Canadians? That is certainly not the
position on this side of the House.
The hon. member should know if he is sitting in this House as an
elected Canadian member of parliament that it is the role of the
Canadian government to stand up for Canada; not to mouth American
interests, not to mouth American big business interests, but to
stand up for Canadians and to allow Canadians the opportunity to
learn more about themselves, to learn more about their culture.
We have a large country. We cover millions of square kilometres
of space, with people from the far north to the west coast and to
the east coast who want to know about each other, who want to be
able to read magazines about life in these areas.
1110
I want to make it clear that they are not afraid to read
American magazines or foreign magazines, but they would like to
know about these issues from a Canadian perspective. We are only
talking about 20% of the market that we hold in that shelf space.
There is some point at which Canadians need to stand up to
bullying tactics. That is what we did. We told our friends, and
again I say our friends the Americans, that we were not prepared
to let their invasion go any further. That is what the Minister
of Canadian Heritage did and every Canadian should be proud of
that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
mentioned in his speech that 80% of magazines on the stand are
foreign magazines. Let me give him some true facts.
The government has also been saying that 50% of magazines
purchased in Canada are foreign magazines, but the latest numbers
on readership, taking into account controlled circulation, the
magazines distributed via bulk delivery, including magazines
received in newspapers, show that only 4.9% of magazines read in
Canada are bought off the stands.
Magazines received by paid subscription account for 35.7% of
magazines read in Canada, and 59.4% of those magazines read are
received through controlled circulation. Therefore, 75% of all
magazines read are received by controlled circulation and 95% of
those magazines are Canadian owned.
In light of these facts, I ask the hon. member once again, in
dollar terms, what is the value of the subsidies they will be
giving to Canadian businesses and possibly to American
businesses?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague down
the way says, nonsense. The fact is that we will not be giving
any subsidies to American companies. That is just one of the
facts.
At some point in time, as a government and as Canadians, we have
to decide whether or not to take a stand. We decided as a
government—the Minister for International Trade, the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage—that the
Americans had crossed the line and that we were not prepared to
give away that part of the industry.
That is exactly what we did. That is what these amendments are
doing today. They are trying to make sure that Canadians in the
future, our children and our children's children, will be able to
read about their heritage and their country from a Canadian
perspective. They will be able to read things which are written
by Canadians and they will be able to see the world through a
Canadian lens.
Had we not acted, that would not have been the case. I thank
all of those in the industry, members on our side of the House,
and those in the opposition who understand the importance of
this, for their hard work. We took a stand and Canadians will
remember that in years to come.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in
opposition to Bill C-55, as well as the Senate amendments.
However, I want to speak in support of my colleague's amendment,
the amendment put forward by the heritage critic of the official
opposition.
Bill C-55 concerns advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers. The heritage minister, right from the
beginning, has mismanaged the bill.
If enacted, the bill will prevent Canadian advertisers from
advertising in foreign magazines that come into Canada. This is
not a heritage matter; it is an international trade matter.
1115
The international trade minister and the heritage minister are
fighting over the issue. The trade minister wants to do his job
but the heritage minister will not let him do it. She goes so
far as to almost ruin our trade relations with the U.S., our
greatest trading partner.
When the minister bans Canadian advertisers from selling their
goods and services in foreign magazines, the minister is telling
Canadian advertisers that when it comes to freedom of speech they
are second class citizens. The Surrey business community which I
represent should not be told how to run its business. Businesses
should not be prevented from doing anything that will grow their
businesses, make them more prosperous and enable them to hire
more workers or maintain the present jobs they have created in
the small business industry.
In the government's attempt to control the American magazine
industry, it is trampling on the rights of Canadian firms from
coast to coast to coast. Why should Canadian firms allow the
heritage minister to dictate to them where they can or cannot
advertise their goods or services?
Did the minister consider the damage that would be caused to
these firms? I am sure she did not. Did the heritage minister
consider the damage that would be done by the retaliation
promised by the Americans if Bill C-55 is passed? I am sure she
did not. She is not concerned about the fate of small businesses
and their lack of advertising opportunities. Once again we are
experiencing the arrogance of this weak Liberal government with
no vision.
Before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with
the hon. member for Calgary East.
The big question is how much are these subsidies to the industry
going to cost Canadian taxpayers? We asked the minister this
question but did not get an answer. Canadians deserve to know
the answer.
Canada's small businesses know what they need to grow and to be
prosperous. They know how to run their businesses. They do not
need to be dictated to and to have their freedom restricted by
the government. The government continues to kill jobs in Canada.
It is not bad enough that Bill C-55 will hurt our economy and
our firms, what is worse is the minister pushed the Americans
into promising retaliation if Bill C-55 is enacted. She is going
ahead with Bill C-55 anyway without knowing what the effect will
be on Canadian businesses.
This is the same minister who insisted that she would abolish
the GST in order to get elected. That promise was broken and she
was forced to abandon her stubborn ways and seek re-election
because the GST was a lot more powerful than she was. The
business community across Canada suffers from the effect of the
GST and the heritage minister has already shown us that she
cannot help us with the GST problem. There should be no
mistaking the American promise of a billion dollar trade embargo
for a Liberal GST promise.
The Americans are not fooling. They are not desperate Liberal
members of parliament who will say anything to get elected. They
mean what they say. The Americans are quite serious when they say
they will hurt our economy badly with trade retaliation in the
steel, plastics, textiles, lumber and agricultural industries.
The heritage minister has poked the American elephant with a
sharp stick. The American elephant has already warned her that
the American elephant does not fear mice or former rat packers.
What purpose will the minister serve with this bill if she
succeeds in having Canada slammed by an American trade embargo?
What is the point? What is the use of Bill C-55 if we are
slammed by a trade embargo by our biggest and oldest trading
partner? A billion dollars of trade a day; it is going to affect
our economy.
1120
Why is the government not more concerned about building trade
rather than damaging trade? Why would the government allow the
heritage minister to pursue her policy, which is Bill C-55, that
promises to be so terribly destructive to our trade? Let me tell
the minister that when she lives in a glass house she should not
throw stones at others.
There is another important aspect I would like to bring to the
attention of the House. As a multicultural country, many of our
ethnic communities or minorities rely on foreign publications to
keep the Canadian communities in regular communication. The
heritage minister's Bill C-55 will restrict the advertising that
Canadian firms can buy in these foreign publications. Why would
the minister be so negligent as to penalize these diverse and
sometimes small ethnic communities? These communities do not have
their own newspapers, magazines or other publications.
The heritage minister has set Canada up for U.S. trade
retaliation risking the jobs of thousands of Canadians and our
country's standard of living. The Senate cannot fix this bill
with its amendments. It cannot repair the damage done to our
trade relations with the Americans because of what the heritage
minister has done. When she banned Canadian advertisers from
selling their goods and services in foreign magazines, the
minister told Canadian advertisers that when it comes to freedom
of speech they are second class citizens.
Bill C-55 should be opposed because it puts an unreasonable
limit on free speech and freedom of the press. Furthermore, Bill
C-55 impinges on property rights and freedom of contract as
granted by the 1960 Canadian bill of rights and common law.
Bill C-55 is not worth the potential damage it will do to our
economy and our job market. Bill C-55 is not worth the risk to
Canada's international reputation as an advocate of rules based
trade that is supported and promoted by international trade
tribunals for settling trade disputes.
Therefore, I oppose this bill and I tell Canadians that this
bill is damaging Canadian trade relations and Canada's trade.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to rise today in the debate on Bill C-55, an
act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers.
Before I do that, as I think this is my last speech in the House
before we break for the summer, I would like to wish all the
members a good summer. I would like to remind government members
that today the united alternative results will come out and they
will have a lot to think about over the summer.
I am glad to have one more opportunity to debate this bill
before the House breaks for the summer. This is a very important
piece of legislation. As the official opposition trade critic, I
am particularly interested in this bill because it explores the
contradiction between our role as an open free trading society
and the defence of our culture.
Canada is blessed with a diversity of cultures. Culture is an
extension of a civilization. It is an evolution and its maturity
depends upon how the citizenry chooses to nourish it.
Canada's identity and culture is the sole domain of its own
citizens. It is not the role of the bureaucrats to legislate
what Canadians will read, think or write, yet this is precisely
what we have with Bill C-55.
The official opposition values the cosmopolitan Canadian culture
we have today contrary to what other parties may think. We value
the right of every Canadian to pursue the logic extension of
their culture and religion. Yet we have here in Bill C-55 an
attempt by the minister, by her bureaucrats and by self-interest
groups to push their own vision of Canadian identity on the
majority knowing full well that this is not what Canadians want.
The Liberals continue to pursue an agenda of protection in the
name of Canadian identity at the expense of other industries.
1125
Last year in October the Minister of Canadian Heritage
introduced Bill C-55. Last year the World Trade Organization
handed down two rulings which found the provisions under the
previous magazine advertising legislation ran contrary to GATT
and WTO.
The government chose to introduce Bill C-55 which has never
enjoyed wide public support. This bill is not about protecting
Canadian identity; it is about protecting the Canadian publishing
industry. This bill is about money, plain and simple.
In this debate I have heard the minister and colleagues across
the House speak about wanting their children to read Canadian
stories. They want their children to read about Canadian
achievements. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a good
idea. I think every Canadian would like to read about the
achievements of their fellow Canadians, about culture, the works
of Canadian authors. On that part I agree 100%, but this
legislation is not doing that.
This legislation is wrong. This is ill thought out legislation.
Why do I say that? Plain and simple, this legislation attempts
to protect a small industry, the publishing industry. The
publishing industry can survive on its own. Canadians will read
what is written by other Canadians.
This bill is not about that. I disagree with the government
when it says this bill is about Canadians and about Canadian
achievement. It is not. This bill is the protection of one
industry, forgetting that Canada has huge industries, forgetting
that other industries are involved. We have signed trade
obligations that we have to live up to as well. How will we do
that? It is very simple. When they write and read what is
published, Canadians will decide.
The fundamental point is that what is going to be read by whom
is not for the government to legislate down our throats. It is
for Canadians to decide what they want to read, what they want to
buy, what they want to do. Those who are in the Canadian cultural
industry have risen to the occasion without government support.
They do not need government support. There are excellent cultural
artists in this country who write good books, who write good
stories. They do not need a government prop-up. They can do it
and Canadians will love to read their writings. We can start by
doing it in our schools.
This business of attempting to force on the Canadian public what
the minister of heritage thinks should be cultural policy is
wrong. A fundamental point on this bill is that the government
should stay out of it and let Canadians decide. The artists who
are capable do not need to be propped up by the government. That
is the fundamental problem we have in supporting this bill. That
is why we are not in agreement with this bill.
It is wrong for others to say that we are against what can be
called our Canadian culture. We are not. We take extreme pride
in seeing the achievements of our artists and people who work in
the cultural industry but we also have obligations to other
industries and this is impacting other industries.
The U.S. is right across the border. It has a huge cultural
industry. We may feel threatened, but I do not think we will
feel threatened with education and with the Government of Canada
publicizing the great achievements of Canadians and such things.
We can do more service for Canadian culture, for Canadian artists
than just shoving a bill down our throats.
We have opposition from the advertising industry which is the
one that is going to pay the price for this. We have opposition
from other industries, the steel industry. All over the country
we have this problem. Why? For just one little bill that is not
going to have a major impact, I am sorry to say. Do we really
think Canadians will go out there just because of this bill and
read about these things? They will not.
Canadians will read about Canada and Canadian achievements when
the books and the things they desire are out there and when they
have the desire. Canadian identity is on the rise in this
country. We are all proud to be a Canadian.
1130
The bill is absolutely wrong and that is why we are opposing it.
We are not opposing it because we do not believe in Canadian
culture. We are opposing it because it is an ill-thought out
bill that has an impact on other industries and on jobs. It has
a narrow definition of Canadian identity and Canadian culture.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today
to speak to Bill C-55.
I know members are eager to return to their ridings and to go
home, but we in the NDP believe that the bill today is a very
important bill. We intend to have as many members as possible
speak to the bill because it is very critical in terms of the
protection for our cultural industry.
Earlier today, the member for Saint John rose in the House to
call for an emergency debate on the merchant marines. She stated
that the merchant marines who served in the war have never had
recognition nor have they had their pensions. I make this remark
because she said very eloquently that we would not be here today
if the merchant marines had not fought or contributed to
defending our country and democracy. That is very true. We
would not be here today in the House or in this kind of
democratic institution.
In the same vein, we should think about what it is that defines
us as Canadians, which is partly what the bill is about. What is
it that defines us as Canadians. Sometimes people believe that
is a difficult question to answer. I, as do my colleagues in the
federal New Democratic Party, believe that one of the things that
defines us as Canadians is our culture. Whether it is our
writers, our filmmakers, journalists, editors, publishers,
printers, readers, children who may be involved in creative
writing, our artists, visual artists, performers or theatrical
artists, our Canadian culture and diversity is something that is
very critical to who we are as a nation and as a people.
That is why members of the NDP are so concerned about Bill C-55.
Even though it represents a small portion, just one piece of our
cultural industry, it is an important piece and needs to be
examined under the microscope of whether or not the bill will
protect and enhance Canadian culture in this country or whether
it is taking us down the slippery slope and the road toward
further destruction.
In listening to the debate today, in particular from the Reform
Party members, it has been very interesting to hear the
discussion and the points of view that are held and to hear the
Reform members raise the question of how we regulate culture. I
have heard Reform members say that it cannot be done. However,
in their next breath, they have also pointed out that the biggest
export from the United States, a very massive economy to the
south of us, is the cultural industry.
Reformers say that culture cannot be regulated or protected, but
just a few moments ago we heard a Reform member say that culture
is just another industry. The Reform member said that we should
not worry because the bill was just about another industry and
that we should leave it to marketplace. We in the New Democratic
Party have a very different view.
We believe that, yes, there is a cultural industry but it is
intrinsic to who we are as Canadians and it demands, because
there are imperatives, whether it is on magazines, broadcasting,
the printing industry or the performing arts, that we stand in
solidarity with the 987,000 cultural workers in this country who
give us that definition of who we are and who allow us to speak
to one another with vast differences in the regions, where we
have come from and who we might be.
1135
The NDP believes that we must stand up and protect our cultural
industries and our magazines. That is why we believe this debate
on Bill C-55 is so important.
My riding of Vancouver East is home to many cultural workers. I
think there is a myth that somehow Canadian society or the
government subsidizes cultural workers and the arts. In actual
fact, I think the opposite is true. Cultural workers, and very
often the culture industry, subsidizes the rest of us.
I know from artists, writers, people involved in magazine
writing and independent journalists that people are desperately
trying to get a message out about what is happening in their own
communities and in their own lives and to have debate about
different issues. Many of those people operate in an environment
that is threatened all the time. This is again why the NDP
believes very strongly that we have to stand in defence of
Canadian culture and Canadian cultural workers. Our critic, the
hon. member for Dartmouth, has expressed this many times in the
House. She is, herself, a well-known Canadian playwright.
It is really coming from that sort of premise that we in the NDP
are very distressed, maybe not surprised but certainly
distressed, about the route and direction that Bill C-55 has
taken.
Originally, our party gave lukewarm support to Bill C-55 as
something that would provide some protection. However, what has
become increasingly clear over the course of many months and
so-called negotiations is that the government has caved in. I
have to agree with the Reform member who just spoke. It is not
just on this issue that the government has caved in. One just
has to look at the salmon treaty in my province of British
Columbia to know that the Canadian government caved in on that
one too.
It is distressing because the Liberal government had an
opportunity to defend Canadian interests in dealing with the
Americans and protecting our cultural industry. By not using the
cultural exemption contained in NAFTA, which is yet untested, and
by ignoring even its own legal advice about Bill C-55 being
WTO-proof, the government in these so-called negotiations has
actually shown that we have no interest in protecting our own
culture.
It is also distressing because what we have learned from this
process is the lesson the Americans have learned. They know that
if they threaten a trade war, we will surrender. I heard a
Liberal member earlier proudly stand up and say that we did not
end up in a battle with the U.S. on this. I would agree, but the
reason we did not end up in a battle is because we simply gave in
to it. We should have had a battle. We should have been out
there on the front lines, maybe with support from other parties.
I know our critic would have been there if she had been invited
to the table. We would have been there with cultural workers to
say, “yes, this is something we want to have a battle on because
we are not about to give in. This is the thin edge of the
wedge”.
By refusing to use the existing trade rules to protect our split
runs in magazines, we are basically saying that we will allow the
Americans to make up international rules as they go along. We
are very concerned about this. It is the thin edge of the wedge.
It is only a matter of time before this massive industry, the
largest export industry in the U.S., which is culture, goes after
Canadian content on television or ownership levels in
broadcasting.
They might even go after our book publishing industry which, as
we know, has been a very dynamic industry over the years. It is
a dynamic industry but it is also very vulnerable to the massive
industry south of the border. They could also threaten our
Canadian film industry and our feature films. The list goes on
and on.
1140
I and my colleagues believe that the debate today on Bill C-55
is not just about the specific provisions of the bill. The
debate is also about what will happen in the future, what the
Liberal government will decide to do, and what course it will
chose to take in terms of our cultural industry.
I would like to spend a few minutes just looking at the
highlights of this so-called American deal, which I think we
would characterize as a Liberal sell-out, and the amendments that
have come back from the Senate. The reality is that the deal was
made after the Americans threatened a trade war. Canadian trade
experts, both inside and outside the government, have stated
repeatedly that the Canadian version of Bill C-55 was WTO-proof
and that the cultural exclusion in NAFTA would also protect
Canada in any trade war.
What have we seen? After months of behind closed door
negotiations, we have learned that the Prime Minister directly
intervened and, as a result, Canada surrendered. If somebody
doubts that, they just need to read the debates in the House, the
discussions and the questions during question period.
The member for Dartmouth, our critic for culture and
communications, has been following and monitoring this very
closely because she has a keen interest in it and has a very good
understanding of what the debate is all about. To give the
member for Dartmouth credit, she has been able to expose and
bring forward in the House just what a sell-out Bill C-55 is.
It is curious that the Liberal members characterize the
amendments that have come from the Senate, that were part of this
so-called American deal, as providing certainty and security. We
have to really question that. What certainty and what security?
It seems to us that the only certainty is that we are now
embarked on a course where our interests are continually being
put on the table and then whipped off the table because they have
been sold off.
We know that the heritage minister responsible for this industry
and for this bill went to the Senate and introduced the
amendments that we now see in the bill. These amendments are
really implicit to the capitulation that took place to the
Americans. In fact, after using time allocation in the Senate,
the Senate passed the bill—surprise, surprise—and we have it
back in the House today.
What did Canada give away? Well, definitions of Canadian
content, now editorial content, is considered Canadian as long as
it is original to a magazine aimed exclusively at the Canadian
market, not, and I stress not, if it was written by a Canadian. I
think that is a very disturbing kind of definition.
The precedent is now set for the Americans to challenge the
definitions of Canadian content under the WTO and NAFTA, which
could have profound impacts on our protections in broadcasting,
book publishing, film and even protections around all of our
cultural institutions.
When we had control of our own market under the original Bill
C-55, it was illegal for new split-run magazines to accept
Canadian advertising. Under this deal, the Canadian government
has agreed that we will allow new split runs to be created to
invade our market with up to 18% Canadian advertising and, as we
know, over a three year period. Since Canadian advertisers can
write off a portion of their ad expenses spent on Canadian
magazines on their taxes—and remember that can now include
magazines with no Canadian content—the government is actually
saying that it is Canadian taxpayers who are providing a subsidy.
1145
When Bill C-55 first came forward it was with the support of the
NDP caucus. We felt it was better than nothing. We were
lukewarm warm about it but we did provide some support. It
offered some protection to Canadian magazines from new split-run
editions of American magazines.
We expressed our frustration very clearly. The bill seemed to
be subject to bargaining with the Americans behind closed doors.
Even so, the minister gave us her assurance that the spirit of
Bill C-55 would be respected in any deal. We raised this point
in the House continually, and we were always assured that the
substance, the spirit and the intent of the bill would remain
solid and would not be given away.
We now know differently. The so-called deal that was made is
actually substantially different and has set us in the direction
of completely selling out. The negotiations have not provided
the kind of protection and the kind of defence that the minister
stated publicly time and time again in the House and elsewhere.
The deal that was put together committed Canada to amending Bill
C-55 in the Senate to permit foreign owned publishers to benefit
from increased market access with respect to advertising directed
primarily at the Canadian market. The deal also committed Canada
to amending our foreign investment policy so that it falls under
section 38 of the Investment Canada Act, allowing cabinet to
regulate or prescribe what and how much foreign ownership
Americans can have in our industry.
The agreement also forces Canada to allow for increased
ownership, up to 51% after 90 days and up to 100% within a year,
subject to the benefit test. The deal also committed the
Canadian government to change the Income Tax Act to allow
advertisers to receive deductions for placing ads in American
publications aimed at the Canadian market.
When we consider what has taken place over the last few months,
the deal really sets out the surrender of our market by
prescribing the formula to allow for American split runs to
invade our market up to 18% within 36 months. As we have heard,
we are already flooded with American material.
One of the most disturbing points for the NDP is that in
creating this so-called deal it is curious the amendments and the
process came through the Senate. Should that not have happened
in the House of Commons? Why is it that the government allows
that to happen in terms of introducing those amendments after the
original introduction of Bill C-55? Why is it that took place
in the Senate, a body that is undemocratic and unelected?
We are now debating a substantially different bill with major
amendments from the Senate. The bill should have originated in
the House with debate and discussion in the House. On those
grounds alone we have very grave concerns and opposition to the
bill because of the process used.
I will give an example of what the bill means. It is a very
technically complex bill. I will lay out the following scenario
of what might be possible. What is possible under the amended
Bill C-55 if it goes through?
Suppose Mr. Jesse Helms set up a magazine in Miami aimed it at
the Canadian market to attack our policy on Cuba. This is not an
unlikely scenario. A majority of the editorial content of the
magazine is written only for that magazine, meaning that under
the Senate amendments to Bill C-55 it is considered a Canadian
publication.
Canadian advertisers in that magazine can therefore deduct a
portion of their advertising costs from their taxes. This allows
the publisher, Mr. Helms, and his magazine to supply lower ad
rates. The only Canadian who touches this magazine would be the
consumer, if anyone happens to read it. No Canadian writers, no
Canadian editors, no photographers or printers are required for
the magazine to be considered Canadian under Bill C-55, the new
deal.
1150
The consequence is that existing Canadian magazines will suffer
as a result of the subsidized ads in the new magazine, the
so-called Canadian content, when ads are no longer placed in
existing Canadian magazines. That is the consequence of the
so-called certainty, security, defence, and protection from the
Liberal government for our magazine industry.
This is why we stand in the House today to say that we will not
go along with it. We can see through it and we will tell
Canadians that this is a sellout. We have seen capitulation on
other issues in this session. This is a sellout. We will not go
along with it but not for the same reasons as the Reform Party.
We want to defend and protect our cultural industry for Canadians
because it defines us as Canadians.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
to the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I
sometimes have had a soft spot in my heart for the NDP when it
stands for certain things.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I did say sometimes, especially when
it stands for its principles. Lately we have been exposed to a
few cases where it has not been very consistent. That is neither
here nor there.
The member used some words repeatedly, ad nauseam throughout her
remarks: capitulation, surrender, sellout and cave-in. I would
like her to comment on the following quote. I asked the same
question of the member for West Nova yesterday so there has been
fair warning if she has followed the debates. It is a note that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage received on May 25 and it
states:
Congratulations for hanging tough on your recent negotiations.
A compromise was forced instead of the usual capitulation. They
play hardball—but so do you! I admire your style. Stay healthy
and strong.
Best regards,
Norman Jewison.
I would expect the member would agree that Norman Jewison is
certainly a very well respected Canadian icon in our cultural
field. How then would the hon. member reconcile what he had to
say with what she has just said?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say
that the NDP is a party that has principles. We stand by them.
We have stood by our principles when we were the CCF and now that
we are the NDP. We know what we stand for, unlike the Liberals
who like to shift around and basically take the direction of
their strongest opposition, listen to the Reform Party and go
down that road. We are a small group but we are very proud of
the fact that we have the courage to defend our principles.
An hon. member: We don't cave in.
Ms. Libby Davies: We do not cave in. In terms of the
letter, it is a very nice letter to the minister; but on an issue
like this one, or any issue really, we should look at the total
breadth of the issue. We should look at the debate that has
taken place. It is easy for the member to pull out one letter, a
nice personal letter to the minister from someone saying she did
a good job.
We could pull out any number of debates, comments, media
commentary and discussion around Bill C-55 which tell the member
loud and clear that the real judge, the Canadian people who watch
this debate and see what is going on, do not hold the same
opinion. They do not think the government held tough. They do
not think the Canadian government defended our cultural
industries.
On balance, I believe that my comments are defensible and
credible. I stand by them. We were sold out.
1155
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure today to speak to Bill C-55. Canada has a longstanding
commitment and a tradition of commitment to protecting the
Canadian magazine industry. This began in 1961 with John
Diefenbaker's O'Leary commission, which was designed originally
to develop a plan to protect the Canadian magazine industry
against dumping from the U.S. and foreign magazines.
In 1965 the split-run legislation was introduced, again to
protect the Canadian magazine industry. This is an issue which
combines the elements of the free market with the elements of the
importance of protecting Canadian culture.
We are not alone as a country in seeking to protect our culture.
Most countries in trade agreements around the world have sought
and successfully attained protection for their culture in trade
agreements.
The Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney was
successful in protecting Canadian culture in both the FTA and in
NAFTA. Unfortunately the Liberal government fervently opposed
the free trade agreement and now embraces free trade. It has not
even utilized the cultural protection instruments within the free
trade agreement at this juncture to protect Canadian culture.
The parliamentary secretary said that he had a soft spot in his
heart for the New Democrats. The only thing worse than hardness
of heart is softness of head. I would argue that the U.S.
arguments and threats of what would be illegal retaliation are
far in excess of the dollar value of the Canadian magazine
industry's advertising revenues in question. This revealed
elements of an industry in the U.S. that demonstrated hardness of
heart. In response we have a government whose softness of head
provided very little opposition and in fact capitulated before
the battle even began.
U.S. industry groups that made these threats were not the trade
negotiators. They were not representatives of the U.S.
government. They were members of U.S. industries with a vested
interest. The threats that were made were in unrelated
industries. The sanctions would have involved for instance steel
and specifically targeted in a rather nefarious manner the home
city of the minister of culture. The threats were in the amounts
of up to $600 million when in fact the government had determined
that $100 million was the actual dollar value of the advertising
revenue in terms of Bill C-55.
The minister seemed to be standing firm during this debate and
assured the House that Bill C-55 was tenable, was the right thing
and would be consistent and defensible in our trade agreements.
She provided reassurances to the House that it was a lock-tight
agreement and that we would be able to protect the Canadian
industry without incurring the wrath of our trading partners.
At the very last minute, after using the House in a very
manipulative manner to develop Bill C-55 and providing those
assurances, she gave in. It was almost as though the minister
throughout that process huffed and puffed and then the Americans
blew our house down. It was not the steadfast visionary
leadership which is constructive in both protecting our culture
and at the same time further promoting and developing our trade
relationships with our trade partners.
The Reform Party has had a position from the beginning as being
opposed to Bill C-55 and supporting in some ways the illegal U.S.
threats. The Reform Party has said that it does not believe in
regulating culture and that culture should not be regulated.
This is the same party whose literati have suggested that the
book Lolita be removed from the parliamentary library
because it is somehow offensive. On one hand it wants to
regulate culture and on the other hand it does not want to
regulate culture. I cannot quite figure it out. Perhaps we
should be able to regulate tawdry publications like Lolita,
but we should not be able to regulate culture to protect Canadian
jobs and Canadian culture within the confines of our country.
I disagree with that inconsistency demonstrated by the Reform
Party.
1200
The PC Party and the government of Brian Mulroney had the
foresight to protect culture under NAFTA and the free trade
agreement. During the free trade agreement negotiations the
Liberals were saying that we would lose our culture and that it
would not be protected. The Liberals were saying that we would
lose our medicare because of the free trade agreement.
Interestingly enough, since 1993 some of the Liberals'
predictions have actually occurred. Our medical system has been
attacked in an unprecedented manner. Across Canada the medical
systems are in a shambles or in crisis in many provinces. That
has nothing to do with NAFTA. It has to do with a government
whose priorities were clearly not on the health care system in
Canada.
We have seen a further example of an inconsistency with the
Liberal position. We see the diluted and gutted Bill C-55
potentially threatening Canadian culture. Not only have we seen
our health care system attacked by the Liberals and not because
of NAFTA, but we are seeing our cultural industries threatened by
the Liberals' weak-kneed capitulation. They are not really
fighting the good fight and utilizing the cultural protection
elements and instruments in NAFTA which the Progressive
Conservative government had the courage and foresight to put in
there.
That is part of a larger issue. It is one of vision, foresight
and understanding of public policy, of not just where the Liberal
Party is going in the next election but where the country is
going in the next century.
Last weekend I attended the Free Trade at Ten Conference in
Montreal. The conference evaluated the impact on Canada of free
trade over the past 10 years and of agreements like the FTA and
the NAFTA. Donald MacDonald was there. He is a former Liberal
cabinet minister and chairman of the MacDonald commission who
came forward in the early eighties with a recommendation that the
free trade policy with the U.S. be pursued.
It was very interesting to hear him compare former Progressive
Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Wilfrid Laurier.
He said during his speech at the opening of the conference that
Mr. Mulroney had the foresight and vision to do what would help
Canadians in a new global economy. He compared Mr. Mulroney to
Mr. Laurier except he added that Mulroney was able to achieve
more of his vision than was Laurier.
That type of visionary leadership is very important and critical
now as Canada faces more challenges in a global environment than
we ever have. The protection of culture is becoming an
increasingly complicated affair because of the advent of
technology, globalization and the pervasive nature of the
Internet and the fact that we are increasingly going to develop
electronic means to effect change on issues of censorship and
regulation in terms of protecting culture.
It is a new world and there are significant challenges. We
should not be folding up our tent and going home. We should be
rising to these challenges and fighting to protect Canadian
culture.
The Liberals are responsible for the capitulation on this very
fundamental agreement, this longstanding tradition of protecting
Canadian culture which began in the 1960s. This has nothing to
do with NAFTA. The Liberals have refused to exercise the
instruments of cultural protection.
1205
A New Democrat member said earlier that there are instruments
within NAFTA and the free trade agreement to protect Canadian
culture. Before utilizing those and before taking every possible
step to protect Canadian culture, the Liberals gave in because of
threats from the U.S.
This creates a tremendously dangerous international precedence.
Whenever there are threats of trade wars, sanctions, or
retaliation from any of our trade partners on any range of issues
such as culture or the environment, we have demonstrated that we
will give in before we exercise to their fullest extent the
instruments we have within our trade agreements to defend them.
This is clearly inconsistent with the principles of NAFTA and the
free trade agreement.
The Liberals' gutting of Bill C-55 is inconsistent with the
heritage of the Liberal Party of Canada which in the past has
been consistent in the defence of culture. At this juncture the
Liberals have turned their backs on a very important heritage. It
appears less and less to be the Liberal Party of Pierre Trudeau.
It is becoming the party of knee-jerk reaction, Earnscliffe
polling, focus group economics and all types of crisis management
and poll driven populism. Frankly it is the antithesis of what
Canadians need at this juncture.
I mentioned earlier that the government has used parliament as a
a pawn in this agreement. It has used parliament in the passing
of Bill C-55 as a bargaining chip with the U.S. More offensive
than that, the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55 have
dramatically changed the intent and direction of this
legislation. Whether or not the legislation is in order is in
question.
When a piece of legislation is changed so dramatically and
completely emasculated by a government and when it is not
consistent with the general principles and directions of that
legislation as passed in the House, it should require a whole new
legislative process and a new piece of legislation. Clearly, the
end agreement is not consistent with the agreement that the
minister and the Liberals were talking about for so long. Their
platitude to describe this agreement was that it would allow
Canadians to talk to one another and communicate with one
another. When the government gets through with this, the only
way Canadians will be able to communicate with one another is by
telephone.
The government has turned its back on a longstanding tradition,
a tradition that was protected by the government of Brian
Mulroney in both free trade agreements. In its commitment to
Canadians the heritage of the Liberal Party should create a sense
of conscience to be consistent in its protection of Canadian
culture. Instead of fulfilling the promise to Canadians and
instead of the minister fulfilling her promise and commitment to
the House that she would stand up and defend Canadian culture,
she gave up before the fight.
I am very concerned not just about the contemptuous use of
parliament as a bargaining chip and a pawn in this process, but
also about the international precedent this will set, that any of
our trading partners can bully us with threats of illegal
sanctions and retaliatory actions without those claims being
researched. Even when legal experts have advised us that these
claims and retaliatory measures were untenable and would be
illegal in their nature, we have given up.
We have given up. That is not the signal we should be sending as
we pursue more trade agreements and as we negotiate to play a
larger role in a global environment, an environment that is
becoming increasingly protectionist.
1210
For instance, both on the far right and the left in the U.S. the
protectionist movement is gaining steam and getting stronger. As
that occurs and as we demonstrate at every possible turn that we
are willing to give in, to cave in and to knuckle under when
someone from another country in a specific industry group huffs
and puffs, over a period of time the benefits we have gained in
NAFTA and the free trade agreement will be lost significantly.
We will not have commensurate dispute settlement. We will not
be utilizing the dispute settlement mechanisms that have been put
in place intentionally to not only ensure access for Canadians to
markets in other countries, but also to ensure that the issues
and concerns that are important to Canadians, be they
environmental or cultural, are protected.
While there are some who argue that this is some form of
protectionism, the free trade agreement and NAFTA were both
consistent in providing instruments by which we could defend our
Canadian culture. Those are what we should be focusing on. We
should be exercising those to the fullest extent. The government
has clearly abdicated its responsibility to do so.
If we want to move forward on this and if we want to examine the
types of policies that would really help further the
competitiveness of the Canadian magazine industry both within
domestic sales and potential opportunities for export, in the
long run the best trade policy would be a sound domestic economic
policy.
The PC Party would argue that the government has to couple its
trade policy with a more forward thinking economic and fiscal
policy. We have to address the issues of personal and business
taxation in Canada.
The Mintz report on business taxation recommended that the
corporate tax system in Canada be made more neutral. Treat all
industries as consistently as possible and eliminate the
non-neutralities and distortions within the corporate tax area.
The Mintz report also recommended that corporate taxes to the
greatest extent should be based on profitability. The profit
insensitive taxes should be removed. Taxes on capital which have
a negative impact on investment and a negative impact on
productivity should be removed.
Canada has the third highest corporate tax levels in the OECD
countries. Canada has a capital gains tax regime that is twice
as repressive as that in the U.S. Our personal income taxes are
the highest in the G-7. All these have a negative impact on all
types of Canadian enterprise and business, including the Canadian
magazine industry.
While we support and believe that, we need to ensure that
Canadian culture is protected through the vehicle that has been
espoused by parliament since the 1960s through the split-run
legislation to protect the Canadian magazine industry against
dumping from the U.S. We also believe that the best way in the
long term to ensure the viability of the Canadian magazine
industry and all industries and small businesses in Canada is to
ensure that we have a sound, innovative and forward thinking
economic policy. Tax reform should be an integral part of that.
The government should utilize this opportunity now, not just for
tax reduction in small politically palatable directions where the
government sees fit and focused on a leadership convention or the
next election, but in the long term on what Canadians need in the
next century. A visionary and holistic approach to the systemic
issues within the tax system is needed.
Mr. Speaker, have a good summer.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
friend in the Conservative Party gave an eloquent defence of
protectionism in the area of culture.
He suggested that we need to have that. However, would my friend
agree that culture really is in the eye of the beholder and that
when it is in the eye of the beholder it makes it impossible to
defend through any type of protectionist measure?
1215
I wonder if my friend would not agree that when we start putting
up barriers to protect culture, ultimately what we are doing is
putting up barriers to protect somebody's very narrow definition
of what that constitutes. I would argue that is the wrong way to
do it because everybody has a different view of what constitutes
culture. What we are doing is leaving it to bureaucrats and
politicians to make those decisions.
I ask my friend, what is his definition of culture? How can we
protect culture in Canada with legislation when it means
something different to everyone?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
absolutely right, it is difficult to gauge or evaluate what is
culture. It is fairly nebulous in some ways and it evolves over
time. I know he argues that we should not even be trying to
regulate culture, yet there are members within his party who feel
we should remove Lolita from the parliamentary library
based on some definition of what is culture. I would point to an
inconsistency in that regard.
The issue of culture and the issue of what is unique to Canada,
what is unique to Nova Scotia or Alberta, the distinctive
elements of both our regions and our country, are clearly within
the realm of Bill C-55 to protect, to ensure that there is an
ability for Canadians to produce Canadian-originated stories
about Canada and about the issues that are relevant to Canadians,
and that there are vehicles to ensure that those stories and
publications actually reach other Canadians. That is the issue.
When U.S. commercial interests are given unimpeded access to the
Canadian magazine industry, the possibility for dumping magazines
becomes immense. We have an 18% limit, which is a huge shift in
policy. Actually, it becomes a trade issue because U.S.
magazines have already covered their fixed costs.
I know that the hon. member's party has some real difficulties
with the CBC. It is the same argument. However, there is a role
for the CBC to deliver the stories and cover the issues that are
relevant to Canadians. If we are to continue to be a
knowledgeable society, a people respected globally for our
global vision, a citizenry that fully supports the role that
we play as Canadians as a middle power in an increasingly
complicated world, we need to maintain and protect the Canadian
identity. This is not, as some would argue, an anti-American
view. Let us face it, we sit next to a cultural juggernaut, the
U.S., and we are in a very difficult position.
The U.S. has one of the largest cultural industries in the
world, particularly pop culture. We have to be very careful to
ensure that the Canadian identity is not swamped as we progress
into the 21st century.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is
going down that same vague, muddy road. I asked him what
constitutes Canadian culture and I think he was completely unable
to tell me. Then he said that we need to protect the Canadian
identity. I would argue that is the same sort of nebulous term
that means something completely different to everybody.
1220
What this boils down to is deciding what is culture for
ourselves or what is our Canadian identity. To some people it
will be toques and back bacon and drinking beer. To other people
it will be going to the NAC to see the symphony orchestra. We
have to decide that ourselves. If we do not decide for ourselves
it will be decided for us by bureaucrats, which is how we got
programs like Bubbles Galore and all of the other
boondoggles we hear about.
I say to my friend again, until we can reconcile this problem,
how can he possibly say that the United States can somehow put in
place these protectionist policies which are completely contrary
to the whole idea of free trade? How can my colleague say that
we can do that when everybody has a different view of what
constitutes Canadian culture and Canadian identity?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the perspective which
Canadians have on Canadian culture is one of the things that
makes Canadians and Canada uniquely diverse and distinct. If we
ask Canadians what their definition is of culture, we are going
to hear a significant breadth and depth of perspective on that
issue.
I would agree with the member for Medicine Hat that culture is a
difficult issue to define. It is interesting that we are having
in the House of Commons perhaps an unprecedented discussion
between two finance critics about culture. It really frightens
me about where we are going.
Culture is very difficult to define. We have a significant
amount of indigenous culture in my home province of Nova Scotia
which has been successful in global markets. I would like to say
that part of it is completely market driven, but often the
incubation of that cultural entity is provided with some level of
protection.
We have in Canada a very small population which is spread over a
huge land mass. This is also part of the national unity issue,
about which I remain very concerned. The ability for us to
maintain some level of distinctiveness may be one of the threads
which keeps the country and the regions together.
I do not think any country in the world can define culture in a
paragraph or in a sentence. Most countries are interested in,
devoted and dedicated to protecting some element of culture. As
we get into a more global environment, as we see the decline of
the role of the nation state in terms of the government's
influence slowly declining and economies being integrated, it
makes it increasingly important for citizens and for nations to
protect their cultural entities and identities. This is very
important to people. People want to participate in global trade
opportunities and we can.
The U.S. agreed in both the NAFTA and the free trade agreement
to a set of conditions and a set of instruments to respond to
this kind of debate and specifically to protect culture. My
argument and my party's argument is that they were included
specifically and the government has not utilized those
mechanisms.
Censorship is going to be another issue that we will have to
watch very closely, as well as privacy issues, especially with
the evolution of the Internet. All of these things are evolving.
I would say that it is best for us to have discussions here and
to collectively develop solutions. We should certainly not turn
our back on Canadian culture, as nebulous as it may be. We
should seek to understand culture and perhaps to define it
better, but we should never stop protecting what is unique about
this country and our cultural distinctiveness.
1225
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the government has once again caved in to American
pressure. The government has once again tried to tell the
Canadian people that a slap in the face is a pat on the back.
The government is happy to sell out the interests of the Canadian
cultural industry and happy to pretend, despite all evidence to
the contrary, that this deal, this watered-down bill, is in the
best interests of Canadians.
When the Minister of Canadian Heritage spoke yesterday in the
House she asserted that the new requirements for Canadian content
were in some way a victory for the Canadian magazine industry.
Let us get some things straight.
Before these amendments were introduced, Canadian content was
not even an issue. Split-run magazines were to be illegal,
banned and prohibited. American companies were to be stopped
from sending recycled American stories into our country and
stopped from taking Canadian advertising dollars out of our
economy, out of our industry and placing them in American bank
accounts. For the minister to claim that these new requirements
are a victory for Canadians simply beggars belief.
Perhaps, if I could be so bold as to suggest lines for the
minister's speech writers, the government should shift its
emphasis and tell the truth to the Canadian public. The truth is
what we have with this new and neutered Bill C-55. It is a
conditional surrender; not an unconditional surrender, but one
where the Liberal government was allowed by its American masters
to preserve a shred of its dignity in the hopes, no doubt, that
this ever so pliable administration would be around for years to
come to do the bidding of those in Washington.
This surrender will be the first step in a wholesale attack on
the protection Canadians have erected to preserve their cultural
industry. We can expect to see the American magazine industry
pressure their government to launch a challenge to our laws under
the provisions of the WTO and the NAFTA. This surrender, the
loss of this first battle, has opened a hole in the Canadian
defences which threatens the very heart of our culture.
By acknowledging the ability to negotiate Canadian content
requirements for magazines, the Liberal government has laid down
a carpet for the long line of American entertainment businesses
which are all too eager to swamp our country with their cheap
television shows, low quality radio broadcasting, American books
and movies.
Now that they know we are willing to trade on our heritage, to
trade on the minds of our writers, actors, painters and
broadcasters, there will be no stopping them. I know that the
government dismisses fears such as those that I have just
expressed as being apocalyptic, anti-American and who knows what
else, but I disagree.
I have no problems with the United States and I stand with all
members in the House in admiring the many contributions our
neighbour has made to human progress. However, that admiration
is qualified, as all admiration should be if it is not to descend
into fawning hero worship. That is what I fear has gripped the
government: an awe at being so close to such a powerful country
that it has rendered the Liberals unable to discern what is in
Canada's best interests, an awe that has opened the doors of our
country to ideas about American health care, American justice and
American governance, thinking of the ever increasing power of the
prime minister's office and making comparisons between it and the
American president's white house.
Those are elements of America that I am happy to see remain on
the south side of our border. The line between admiration and
adulation is a thin one and I fear it may have been crossed. We
are truly the mouse lying down with the elephant.
That is not a negative reflection on either party, for we in the
New Democratic Party are firmly committed to the equality of all
things. It is simply a reflection of the reality that America's
cultural industries are the largest in the world and we, because
of our close ties, are more susceptible than any other country to
domination by them.
1230
There is no reason for us to slam the doors and introduce
protectionist measures that will exclude American magazines from
the Canadian market. Our objection is that we should pay U.S.
companies to take money out of our country. That is what Bill
C-55 calls for.
At first that level may be 18%, but we can bet that in a couple
of years it will increase and then increase again. Those
magazines with their large budgets and market penetration will be
able to attract Canadian advertisers through the simple exercise
of the law of supply and demand.
We cannot blame those companies for choosing to advertise in
split-run publications. They are simply making the best use of
their advertising dollars. However, we can blame the government
which allows those magazines to exist for choosing to cave in to
American threats instead of defending Canadian businesses that
will lose out because their government refused to defend them.
All too many times we have heard members opposite insult my
party for our stand on business. The New Democratic Party is
proud to defend Canadian businesses, to defend this whole
industry, while the government is happy to serve as the B movie
cast of this Hollywood controlled production.
What we are debating should not be reduced, as some have tried
to do, to an argument over culture. Another battle in the war I
referred to earlier is for the right of Canada to determine its
own economic and cultural policies. If the bill becomes law,
those whose interests may be threatened will examine every bill
passed by the House. They will see that laws can be changed to
suit their needs and that as long as the compliant majority
government sits in the benches opposite, no law, no bill, no act
or motion need pass without their veto.
In the years since the transformation of the GATT into the WTO
and the FTA into NAFTA we have seen numerous violations of those
agreements by the Americans. Whether it be softwood lumber,
salmon and now magazines, there is a consistency to those
disputes that bears mentioning. Every one was won by the
Americans. Some they lost on paper, as international tribunals
and other august bodies passed judgment in our favour, but when
it came down to it the logic of the mouse and the elephant came
into play.
The elephant knows that it can win every time. It only needs to
move a bit to make us do what it wants. The elephant really has
moved with the bill. The Americans have pushed the government
into doing exactly what it promised would never happen by
allowing new split-run magazines to be introduced with watered
down requirements for Canadian content and a built-in flexibility
that is bound to see the percentage of allowable Canadian
advertising in split runs increase year after year after year.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that whatever changes
were made the spirit of the legislation would remain unchanged.
She was either misled or misleading.
The original Bill C-55 presented to the House contained solid
planks upon which to build a defence of the Canadian magazine
industry. One by one those planks were removed under American
pressure until eventually nothing was left.
The minister asked for credit because the trade dispute with the
United States was avoided. How much credit should we give
someone whose actions will damage Canadians in much the same way
as a trade war while denying us the right to retaliate in kind?
I was elected to protect jobs in my riding. One of the few
sectors of the Cape Breton economy that is booming is our
cultural sector. It makes me angry when I look through the
provisions and implications of the legislation and realize that
government funding for local magazines, concerts, festivals and
recordings could be threatened. The government may be so
enamoured of American culture that it is happy to watch it engulf
our own.
I believe that there is much worth fighting for in this country,
not the least of which is our culture.
1235
Once again Canadian advertisers are not at fault. They are
simply trying to get by, but the failure of the government to
resist the bill means that in due course there will be no
Canadian magazines left to protect.
The minister's discourses on percentages and phase-in periods
will amount to nothing more than sound bites to be excerpted in
the latest edition of Time, the Canadian edition with
George Bush Jr. on the cover, with stories about storms in Kansas
and fires in California and advertisers from The Bay, Canadian
Tire and CIBC on the inside. O Canada.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-55 and the amendments that
have come along with it. I would like to share my time with the
hon. member for Medicine Hat.
What is Bill C-55 really about? We have heard all kinds of
comments involving culture, which seems to be the primary issue
involved. I am being told from individuals in my riding and from
my own heart, soul and mind that the bill is about big money and
big government trying to impose its version of culture on
Canadians. Those are the two issues the bill is all about.
I refer to the the order paper of June 8. The Senate is sending
a message to the House of Commons on an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
It is very clear that it is not about culture. It is about
money.
I refer to quote from a Canadian publisher that will benefit
from the money aspect of Bill C-55. It is by a gentleman by the
name of Jean Paré, publisher of L'actualité. He says that
Bill C-55 is a fold, a capitulation. He says that the government
is giving our lunch to the Americans, lunch meaning money, and is
proposing to give us welfare. Canadians will be providing more
money. Rarely do we see any talk about culture until we get into
the House.
Maude Barlow is chairwoman of the nationalist Council of
Canadians. That is almost a misnomer. The material I have seen
coming from Maude Barlow literally makes me sick to my stomach.
She does not represent a majority of Canadians by any means. She
represents a small minority of people who end up in the NDP camp.
That should be made very clear.
She says that this is total capitulation by the government and a
farce. Our NDP critic says we are now in danger of not only
losing our magazine industry but our national soul as well.
That gigantic emphasis of an issue is not even factual.
1240
Had Bill C-55 had not been brought to the House, could anyone
say that Canadian culture would have suddenly stopped and we
would no longer make progress in developing our culture as
individual Canadians? It would have continued with much less
waste of money and time than we have spent in the House on the
bill. It has cost us gigantic sums in our relationships with the
Americans. We may not be able to put an exact dollar figure to
it, but why would we as a country want to literally antagonize
our best friends in the whole world?
I have personal dislike for the supposed nationalists of the
House and of the country slamming Americans. That is exactly
what is being done in the House today. My grandfather came to
the country in 1902 from Iowa. His family was in that neck of
the woods. Whether or not anyone likes it, we in Canada are
Americans. We are on the North American continent. We are in a
relationship with people and together we comprise the North
American continent. When I hear people speak against Americans
and refer to the United States, in essence they are talking
against ourselves.
Let us talk about the fact that our heritage minister has
personalized the debate to make it evident to everybody in the
country what the bill is about. I have listened to her many
times in question period and in her speeches in the House going
on and on about what would happen if the bill did not go through
and we do not protect culture. She wants to force the culture
she believes is Canadian down the throats of every Canadian. I
do not believe she has a full idea of what Canadian culture is,
but she certainly wants to force her version and the Liberal
government's version of culture down our throats.
She refers to her daughter and providing culture for her
daughter and for my daughters and those of everyone else by
extension. The government's and the minister's version of
culture literally makes my stomach turn. I will tell the House
why. The minister and the government have put large sums of
money into their version of culture, which includes among other
things pornographic movies such as Bubbles Galore. She has
put gigantic sums into Canadian culture as she perceives it in a
dumb blonde joke book.
The National Film Board, which is funded by taxpayers, is
producing movies that degrade, demonize and make our military
into something that it was not. Our military was recognized
worldwide for the great job it did in World War II. The veterans
of the country said that our culture was not expressed in the
glory and valour type movie put out by the film board. That is
not what they went to Europe to fight for. They fought for the
right to be free and to develop the Canadian culture which flows
naturally out of the interaction of humans and is not forced.
1245
What is happening is that Bill C-55 is an attack on freedom of
speech. I have already mentioned the negative impact it has had
on trade and will have in the future. I mentioned that it is
force-feeding a culture that is in essence not real. It is an
artificial concept of what the government believes.
I wonder how independent this great magazine industry can be
when it is going to be subsidized to the tune of millions of
dollars, probably per annum, which will not take too many years
before it will be in the billions, in order to help it to compete
with the rest of the world?
Once anyone receives money from the government, the government
calls the shots. Believe me when I say that the magazine
industry is going to have to pay attention when the Prime
Minister calls up and says that the government would like to slam
the NDP or the Reform a little bit more, or wants an article
massaged to make the government look good. I wonder if that does
not have a real negative impact on Canadian culture and on the
country.
We saw what was done with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
If we look at its reports, its media analysis and the way it
portrays this country and the various political parties, it might
as well have been written by the Prime Minister's office. The
Prime Minister appoints all of the directors and the chief
executive officers of the CBC.
We see a loss of this ability to be independent. It is a big
negative on the country to have that happen. The CBC is a good
example of what the magazine industry will be coming up to. The
industry will lose its independence. I do not know whether it
feels it is independent now, but it will certainly become a lot
less independent.
I just want to deal with the issue of culture. Canada's
landmass has existed for billions of years. The best historical
evidence available is that about 11,000 years ago the aboriginal
people came to this country. Even without government subsidies,
they somehow managed to establish a culture and have kept it
going to this very day.
I look at my riding. The Icelandic people came to this country
and established a tremendous culture. They have written
tremendous books and magazines and have done tremendous paintings
without any government subsidy. They have not been told by
government that their culture is not what they think it is, that
it is going to buy their culture and force-feed it to them and
then they will end up being Canadian.
My final comment is that we Canadians will develop our culture.
We will do a lot better developing it without the federal
government telling us what it will be and how we are going to do
it.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask
the hon. member how he can have it both ways? How can he first
talk so easily about the freedom in this country and then pass an
opinion about the content of certain cultural entities? I do not
understand it. Is this freedom according to the Reform Party or
the Reform Party's interpretation of freedom? Whose freedom is
it? It seems to me it is either freedom or it is not freedom. We
cannot qualify freedom.
This debate has been going on for many years in this country. In
the 1970s, the province of Ontario had censorship of films. That
was done away with in favour of classification as society grew
more mature and in the name of freedom of expression.
1250
I ask the hon. member to search his conscience and determine in
his own mind what kind of freedom he is talking about. Is it his
brand of freedom, his interpretation of freedom, or is it
freedom?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the freedom that we are
talking about here is the freedom to be free of government
propaganda. It is the freedom to develop a culture that flows
naturally from our youth and and from people living in the
countryside today.
Out west we spend a lot of time outdoors. Quite often, in order
to protect ourselves from the sun, we wear a big hat called a
Stetson. That is a kind of culture thing of the west.
If we take this to the logical conclusion, where Bill C-55 is
saying that we have to protect culture, the Liberals are
protecting what they think is a small little piece of culture
like this in the magazine industry. However, culture is much
bigger than that. By logical extension from Bill C-55, Canadians
should be told by the government that, for instance, since
Montreal people like to wear berets all Canadians should wear
berets because that is Canadian.
I have a couple of real good quarter horses that I use for
sorting cattle and working my ranch. We now have the government
and the Bloc on the other side trying to tell me that the
Canadian horse is some horse that is raised down here in Ontario
and Quebec. Well that cultural horse is not the kind of horse we
use out west. Here again is big government imposing its vision
of culture on us. We want the freedom to develop it ourselves
without all the propaganda that flows when the government puts
money into magazines and tells the magazine industry what it
should do.
I want to be free from the excessive taxation. The government
puts billions of dollars into the magazine industry in order to
protect it so that the magazine industry can somehow put out
cultural articles so Canadians will know about each other. Why
should I as a taxpayer have to pay these magazine publishers to
put out a magazine? That is what we will be doing if we
subsidize them through Bill C-55.
The government is talking about tax breaks. Every tax break to
an industry means those are taxes that I, as a businessman
without any subsidy like that, will have to kick in out of my own
pocket.
I think those are the freedoms that we are talking about:
freedom from big government and freedom from the Liberal
government especially.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake for an
excellent speech. He told people how it is. I just want to
follow up on what my friend said, because I think he was going
down absolutely the right track.
I think Canadians used to have a lot of respect for the term
liberalism in the classical sense at one point. One hundred
years ago we had some respect for that. Do hon. members know
what it stood for? It stood for limited government, one of the
greatest human achievements of all time. It stood for free
trade.
In fact, at the turn of the last century we know that the Prime
Minister's own hero, Wilfrid Laurier, was pushing free trade. He
was a free trade advocate. He believed in that because he was a
liberal in the classical sense. They believed in personal
freedom. That is what classical liberalism was.
I would argue that the Liberals across the way are so far from
that today that they desecrate the memory of that type of
liberalism.
This government seems to believe that culture is what it chooses
it to be, even though, as my friend pointed out, everybody has a
different view of what culture is.
1255
As I pointed out to my Conservative colleague down the road, if
there are 30 million different views of what constitutes culture
and Canadian identity, then who ends up choosing? Should it be
each individual for himself or herself? I think it should be.
That makes sense to me. Should it be bureaucrats who impose
their values and vision on the rest of us and do it with our tax
money? They take the money out of our pockets for what they
believe is culture and we have to pay for it. We then have
spectacles like Bubbles Galore being produced, a lesbian
porno film that the rest of us have to pay for. That is
absolutely ridiculous.
I cannot believe my friend over there is laughing and thinks it
is funny. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the Liberals
would defend that so-called vision of culture.
I would argue that this party has changed to the point where it
cannot be recognized anymore. The classical Liberals of 100
years ago are spinning in their graves when they consider how
interventionist this government has become.
I simply want to point out that in the period when we had real
classical liberalism throughout the world in the 17th, 18th and
19th centuries, we saw an unprecedented advancement in human
happiness when governments were limited. For millennia, we had
toiled under governments that imposed their own will upon the
people and taxed them as they saw fit. There was no freedom.
We then saw an outbreak of freedom, going back into the 17th
century. It grew and grew through the 18th and 19th centuries.
We saw tremendous advancements in human happiness. We saw people
become wealthier. We saw standards of living go up. We saw
people become healthier. We saw people live to a much older age
because there was more food and health care.
Then, in the 20th century somehow we lost sight of what it was
that had happened and what the root was of all this prosperity.
We started to build up these big governments again. I would argue
that the bloodiest of all centuries has been the 20th century
precisely because we somehow forgot the lessons of those previous
centuries and started to embrace big government. We had huge
government, Utopian-type governments. We had national socialism
in Germany and we had communism in the Soviet Union. It was
bloody and it was hell on earth for many people.
I am not suggesting this government is like that, not at all. I
am suggesting that it forgets what it is that gave us all that
prosperity and that today it is still the root of the prosperity,
to the degree that this government allows it to show its face. I
am talking about those principles I talked about before: limited
government, free trade, personal freedom. Those are great things
but we cannot simply say that we want to have personal freedom on
Monday, but that on Tuesday, when we are dealing with culture,
that we do not really want to have that because we have a better
idea of what constitutes culture. I reject that.
I say that the Liberals do not have a better idea. I say that
each individual has to make that decision. That is why I reject
Bill C-55 on principled ground. It is a violation of the freedom
of speech. It is a violation of our right to trade freely and
exchange goods and services on a voluntary basis. It is
ridiculous that we have the nanny state intervening and telling
us what we can watch when we have to pay for it. I think it is
absolutely crazy, but that is what the government defends every
day.
When the government does this, I believe it desecrates the
memory of classical liberalism and what it used to mean to be a
real liberal in that classical sense.
I want to talk a little about some of the specifics of this
legislation. I want to argue, just on a pragmatic basis, that to
enter into this legislation was perhaps one of the most
ridiculous, stupid political moves I have ever seen in my life.
We live in a country that is very dependent on free trade,
especially with the Americans, with whom our trade is worth over
$1 billion every day.
1300
What do we do? We basically poke them in the eye with a sharp
stick and say that we want to defend this undefined nebulous
concept called culture which means something completely different
to everyone else. In doing that we are going to jeopardize this
trade that we do every day and the millions upon millions of jobs
that go with it.
Did the government for a moment consider that? Apparently not.
It wandered into this and suggested that this nebulous concept of
culture is more important than food on the table and jobs for
many people. Of course, the Americans were not blind to this.
They said that they would retaliate in areas like steel and
plastics. Interestingly, steel is the industry we see very much
of in the heritage minister's riding. As a result of that the
government started to back away when it saw that the Americans
were fighting hard.
I do not believe that this is an issue of backing away from the
Americans. To the contrary, I believe what this issue is
ultimately about is the belief that Canada can compete without
protection in any field. We do not need the nanny state telling
us what to do and protecting us. We can compete because we are
as good as or better than the Americans and everyone else. Our
people are just as competent. No, they are more competent. I
believe that. I am sad that this Liberal government does not
believe it.
I am sad that the Liberals do not respect their heritage, from
where they came 100 years ago when they used to believe in those
sorts of things. They have given that up. They have bought into
this inferiority complex that has become a national joke. I
think it is sick. I am embarrassed that the Liberals sit across
the way and laugh about this. They smirk. I think it is
absolutely ridiculous. They should be embarrassed.
We are approaching Canada Day. Some day I would like to see a
Canada Day when we do not have to have all these regulations,
barriers and so-called protections for the government's narrow
little definition of culture. We are grown up enough to stand on
our own two feet.
I am ashamed that this government would do this. I just wish we
had enough people on this side to stop this ridiculous
legislation.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on
some of the comments we heard from some of the Reform members
this morning.
The member for Peace River said earlier when he was criticizing
the legislation before us that it was creating barriers to the
American publications. I want to make sure that the people
listening to this debate know that that is totally inaccurate.
The Canadian magazine market is totally accessible to all
foreign publications. Anyone can go into any magazine shop in
any city or town in the country and buy just about any magazine
published in the United States principally, because we happen to
receive about 80% to 90% of the export of American magazines in
Canada.
For the member to argue that we are creating barriers is
tantamount to misleading the House. I want people who are
listening to be aware of that.
The member for Peace River said that the foreign publishers
would be eligible for subsidies should we provide subsidies to
our Canadian publishers. Under the WTO arrangements and under
our national treaties, agreements of this kind have never
required national treatment under subsidy programs. To make that
affirmation that should we desire to help our magazine industry
in Canada we would have to extend the same to the American
publishers is inaccurate. I wonder on what basis the member made
such a suggestion.
Then the member for Selkirk—Interlake talked about how terrible
it was that the government would personalize this debate, and
that the Minister of Canadian Heritage would infer that she
wanted her daughter to have access to stories from Canadians
about Canadians in Canadian magazines. That came from a member
who just prior to that had made extremely disparaging remarks
about someone else, about Maude Barlow.
We may or may not agree with the views of Maude Barlow but to say
comments like “whatever comes from Maude Barlow turns my
stomach” and then say the government is personalizing a debate
is uncalled for.
1305
The member for Selkirk—Interlake made a comment which I think a
lot of people are going to find rather strange. He said that
chastizing the NDP for attacking the Americans does not matter
because “we are all Americans”. I have news for him. I am not
an American. I am a proud Canadian and I sure as hell want to
keep it that way.
The latest intervention was from the member for Medicine Hat,
the theory of social evolution à la Monte. I am starting to
understand where the Reformers are coming from.
Mr. Speaker, I thought this was questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is right.
It is questions and comments but he has taken almost four minutes
of the five that are available. The member for Medicine Hat does
have the right of reply.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if in
the member's comment that all things bad come from government, he
has in his social theory the notion of wealth sharing for the
common good, and is he prepared to abandon that? Is he showing
the true colours of the Reform Party? Industries and common good
do at times have precedence and do count for something in this
country but the member obviously does not care about that.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of
the issues my colleague has raised.
He suggested that there are no barriers being created to
American magazines. Of course that is completely untrue. The
fact is that if American magazines want to come here and pursue
advertisers, then they have to follow certain Canadian rules.
Those are barriers. It does not mean they have unfettered access
to come in here. They have to follow the government's
regulations. Again they want to micromanage the industry and in
doing that they deny Canadian advertisers the ability to
advertise with whomever they want without facing a penalty.
The member mentioned the WTO and whether or not we would have to
give national treatment to foreign magazines coming into Canada.
There is a long established principle of reciprocity under free
trade agreements. It is not beyond the pale that this would be
the case. The Americans would pursue this under the WTO and ask
for reciprocity and the same sort of dealing for their
publications as are given to Canadian publications. I think the
member is talking through his hat.
My friend across the way said that the member for
Selkirk—Interlake said that we were Americans. He was talking
about all of us being from the Americas, North Americans.
Although my friend is trying to push the anti-American hot
button, it is not going to work.
I simply want to make the case that I argued for limited
government, something the member's party believed in some time
ago when Canada was a country that was growing and was a lot more
prosperous than it is today. The member should be ashamed that
he abandoned that.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to make a few comments concerning Bill C-55. This is a
very important issue for all of us. What we are debating embodies
some very important principles.
The House of Commons, with the support of the NDP caucus, passed
the Canadian version of Bill C-55. I say Canadian version
because we know that what we are looking at now has a slightly
different approach to it. When we passed this bill a few months
back we gave our support because of the protection this bill
offered to Canadian magazines from new split-run editions of
American magazines. That was the reason for our lukewarm
support. We had a lot of concerns about this bill but we did
stick with the government and we did support the bill.
At that time we expressed frustration because the bill seemed to
be the subject of bargaining behind closed doors with the
Americans. This concerned us greatly. The minister gave us her
assurance that the spirit of Bill C-55 would be respected in any
deal that was worked out. How wrong we were to have believed
that.
1310
Let us look for a moment at the contents of what we call the
Canadian bill. What did it provide?
Bill C-55 would make it an offence for a publisher to provide
advertising services aimed at the Canadian market to be placed in
foreign periodical publications, except for those currently
receiving Canadian advertising. They could continue at the
current level of Canadian advertising under the grandparenting
provision.
An offence was enforceable by a Canadian court in any Canadian
jurisdiction chosen by the crown after an investigation ordered
by the minister using powers of investigation borrowed from the
Criminal Code. The penalties ranged from a maximum of $20,000
for an individual first offence on a summary conviction to
$250,000 for a corporate offender on indictment. There were also
provisions for jail terms.
Offences that took place outside Canada by foreign individuals
or corporations were deemed to have taken place in Canada for the
purpose of enforcement of this act. The government could collect
unpaid fines levied upon conviction in the same manner as a civil
judgment.
There were a lot of things in this bill that perhaps merited
some consideration. But what happened to this bill? The
Americans became concerned and they threatened a trade war.
Canadian trade experts both inside and outside government stated
repeatedly that the Canadian version of Bill C-55 was WTO proof
and that the cultural exclusion in NAFTA would also protect
Canada in any trade war. Yet after months of behind closed door
negotiations the Prime Minister directly intervened and Canada
gave in. We surrendered. We caved in.
An hon. member mentioned earlier that we are all Americans, but
we know full well that there is quite a difference between
Canadian culture and American culture. Even though we all are
part of the North American continent, there is quite a difference
in approach and in cultural identity and so forth between our two
countries.
Quite often we see that Canada gives in to the Americans. We
give in on matters that involve our environment. We allow
substances to be put into our environment because the Americans
will sue us if we do not allow those substances to be used. We
give in to big brother so to speak.
The heritage minister had the Senate introduce amendments which
we now see in this bill in order to implement our capitulation to
the Americans. After using time allocation in the Senate, the
Senate passed the bill and it is before the House today.
What exactly did Canada give away? Let us look at the
definitions of Canadian content, editorial content or
non-advertising. It is considered Canadian as long as it is
original to the magazine and aimed exclusively at a Canadian
market; not if it was written by a Canadian, but as long as it is
original and aimed at the Canadian market.
The precedent is now set for the Americans to challenge the
definitions of Canadian content under the WTO and NAFTA. This
could have a profound impact on our protections in broadcasting,
book publishing, films and even our protections in all cultural
institutions.
An hon. member from the Reform Party made some reference to the
NDP critic's description of culture and the use of the term soul.
I am proud that we in the NDP are concerned with issues that
relate to the soul. We are concerned about things that are
meaningful to us. We go beyond the dollar and cents value that
quite often is placed upon things by so many others. Quite often
that dominates and determines what the end policy is going to be,
rather than the heart and soul having some role to play in terms
of our Canadian culture.
With respect to control of our own market, the original Bill
C-55 made it illegal for the new split-run magazines to accept
Canadian advertising. Under the American deal we will allow new
split runs to be created to invade our market with up to 18%
Canadian advertising phased in over three years. Canadian
advertisers can now write off on their taxes a portion of their
ad expenses spent on Canadian magazines. In a sense the
government is making the taxpayers subsidize the American
industry.
1315
The original bill grandfathered existing split runs such as
Reader's Digest, Time, Sports Illustrated and
so forth, but the new bill allows for new split runs and that is
the real threat to our magazine industry.
I could go on at some length about some of the problems with
this deal, but it is a cave-in by the Canadian government. Often
the Liberal government caves in, sells out and gives up on the
basic values that are important to us.
I could go through a number of examples of how this happens. I
look, for example, at the need for a national shipbuilding
policy. Again this is an issue on which the government has caved
in. It is afraid to face up to the fact that we need a national
shipbuilding policy to enable many skilled people who are looking
for work in this area to pursue that work in a meaningful way.
The government constantly says that it has a policy. It gives
one or two examples of a few concessions here or there but
nothing that sets any sense of direction for a national
shipbuilding policy.
Let us look at the most recent issue of the treatment of
merchant mariners. These honourable veterans served their
country well. Yet after the war they ended up being mistreated.
They were not given the opportunities that were given to the
regular military. These men have been fighting for years to be
recognized as having contributed in a meaningful way to the
protection and well-being of their country.
We get to a point where finally some recognition is given
through legislation. However they are saying they want some
compensation for lost opportunities. They want the government to
show in a symbolic way that it understands what they went through
and what they suffered, not at the hands of the enemy so much but
at the hands of their own government.
The government had the opportunity to correct the situation. An
all party committee listened to witnesses from across the country
who felt that these men should be adequately rewarded. What did
the government do when there was the opportunity to correct the
situation? Again it looked at the bottom line of the dollar
figure and caved in.
We receive letters from many constituents on this matter. One
letter was from a navy veteran in the province of New Brunswick
and concerned the article in the Times transcript today. He
did not agree with the chairman of the committee that most
veterans did not think they should get the $20,000 payment. He
did not know to whom the chairman had been been talking but he
knew the way veterans felt about it and that they did not feel
that way. He wanted something to be done to ensure that the
actual feelings of the veterans were heard. We feel that these
merchant mariners should get this compensation.
Other veterans are speaking out on behalf of merchant mariners.
People from all across the country are speaking out. Yet the
government caves in.
Then we have the issue concerning the military ombudsman. Well
over a year ago the government put in place a system designed to
facilitate men and women in the armed forces in obtaining an
independent means of redress of their concerns. Even then the
government did not make it truly independent. Rather than the
ombudsman being accountable to parliament, he ends up being
accountable to the Minister of National Defence.
We thought we should give it a try and see how it would work.
Well after a year the military ombudsman is sitting powerless. He
produced a report which he called The Way Forward. He sent
it on to the minister for a response. That report has been
sitting on the minister's desk for over 150 days. The minister
is sitting silent. He has caved in again, perhaps to the top
military brass. We do not know. With hundreds of complaints
waiting and thousands expected, the minister has not yet
responded to the military ombudsman's report to enable him to
begin his work.
There is clearly a need for the government to look seriously at
accountability and fairness and how these concepts can be
enhanced through an ombudsman concept for the military and
perhaps even for the federal government as a whole.
Again it is an example of caving in, an example of looking at
the dollars and not giving any consideration to the other
principles involved in trying to help people resolve their
problems.
1320
Then again we look at employment insurance and the employment
insurance grab that took place, another example of grabbing the
dollars and forgetting about the unemployed men and women out
there who could benefit from those funds in a meaningful way.
Recently with Bill C-78, the pension surplus grab, the pension
funds of the Canadian military, the RCMP and public servants were
being grabbed for the government's coffers without any
consideration of how best to improve the benefits being received
by survivors and contributors to the pension funds. Again it is
a cave-in by the government. We could also look at pay equity,
another big example of a cave-in by the government.
I return to one example that is very dear to my heart and very
important to me. I am referring to a small community in my
riding that is without a good, clean, healthy, drinking water
supply. One might ask in this day and age how it could be
possible that a community is drawing water from wells that is not
suitable for drinking and not suitable for washing clothes. There
are young children and older people in that community. These
people are living next to the main water supply for the city of
Halifax. It passes them by. It is unbelievable in this day and
age.
We have been struggling to get funds to enable the project to
move ahead to get these people hooked up to the central water
system. We are only asking for a small contribution from the
federal government for that project, a contribution which could
have well been handled under the Canada infrastructure works
program. Because of a slight mix-up the project did not get in
under that program. Even money that had been committed by the
federal government has been taken off the books. We are
struggling to get some money to assist with the project.
Where are the government's priorities? Cave-in, cave-in,
cave-in. That is what is happening with Bill C-55. The changes
that have been made to the bill are a cave-in by the government.
It is an attempt to try to avoid protecting Canadian culture. If
we are to be seen as truly proud Canadians, at some point we must
stand up and be counted.
I spoke to an hon. member from the government side who said to
me just yesterday that it was awful to have to do something one
does not want to do. I asked him if he was referring to the
merchant marines and he said that was right. I told him that I
thought it was time he stood and was counted and that he did not
have to do something he did not want to do.
When I was campaigning I said very clearly to my constituents
that I did not want politics to change me. If it ever get to a
point where I will not stand up for what I believe to be right
and make a decision based upon my conscience and upon what I know
to be right, I will be ineffective in politics and it is the time
for me to get out.
Whenever we are considering changes to legislation hon. members
should remember that we have to stand and be counted. We have to
base our stand upon the principles we believe in as individuals.
We have to be true to ourselves if we are to be true at all in
forming legislation that will be meaningful.
With those remarks I would say the amendments and changes to the
bill do nothing to enhance Canadian culture. They do nothing to
secure or protect our magazine industry. I urge all hon. members
to consider this point, to reject what we call the American deal,
and to promote a truly positive deal for Canadians.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to have an opportunity to participate
in this important debate on Bill C-55.
To follow the words of many of my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party, I remain firmly committed to our objective of
preserving and enhancing Canadian culture and see the bill as
exactly opposite, an anathema to that objective.
As my colleagues have done, I would also like to acknowledge the
work of the hon. member for Dartmouth who has been so vigilant on
the issue from the beginning.
She brought her personal involvement in the cultural artistic
fabric of the nation to the process and the bill, which gives
them real meaning and definition. I congratulate her for leading
our caucus in preserving a sense of meaning around the debate and
doing everything possible to persuade the Liberal government that
what it is doing is wrong when it comes to preserving Canadian
culture.
1325
I bring us back to what it means when we talk about culture.
What does Canadian culture mean? Many others have done the same
in this debate. They have tried to talk about how culture is the
spirit of a nation. Many others have talked about culture being
the mirror which reflects the lives, the history and identities
of Canadians.
It is a celebration of everything that is unique, special and
important about a nation. It gives expression to our struggles,
our history, our values, our beliefs, our troubles and our
moments of ecstasy and joy in the development of a nation.
Many have written on this subject. Many have tried to find the
words that will impress upon governments everywhere the
importance of acknowledging what culture is and how important
cultural policy is in the pursuit of adhering to the true
definition of culture.
I refer to a couple of writers who have tried to express what we
are talking about. I am drawing on a document produced about a
year ago by the Canadian Conference of the Arts called the
“Final Report of the Working Group on Cultural Policy for the
21st Century”. I will refer to this document on several
occasions throughout my speech because it encompasses much of
what we are all about today, why the bill is so important, and
why we are so concerned about the direction the government is
taking us.
That report uses quotes from a well known author, essayist and
novelist, Hugh MacLennan, who said in 1978:
We know intuitively that we will become great only when we
translate our force and knowledge into spiritual and artistic
terms. Then, and only then, will it matter to mankind whether
Canada has existed or not.
That is the essence of what we are talking about today. We are
talking about the means by which we can translate our past, our
present, our hopes and our aspirations into spiritual and
artistic terms. Others from all walks of life have tried to
express these thoughts as well.
I also want to put on record the quote of a Vancouver
businessman, David Lemon, who said in 1993:
The arts are intrinsic to a sense of nation. They are intrinsic
to the cultivation of a shared identity. They are intrinsic to a
prosperous economy.
This is something that has been overlooked in the debate. We
talk about the importance of culture as an expression of our
inner most feelings and of our history as a nation. We talk
about how it is a mirror and how it gives us some identity, but
we sometimes overlook the value of arts and cultural activities
in terms of the economy. Certainly it is a message I would hope
Reform members are listening to and trying to understand in order
to rethink their policies when it comes to culture.
We are not short of studies which show that this whole area of
the arts and cultural industries is probably one of the most
labour intensive aspects of our economy and one of the greatest
contributors to our prosperity as a nation.
1330
Mr. John Solomon: It is one of the top five.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has reminded me that culture and the
arts are ranked among the top five contributors to the economic
life of this country. There are many spinoff benefits. There is
an incredible economic value to this whole sector which we cannot
ignore.
If we put together our intrinsic belief in upholding and
preserving the culture of the nation with the economic benefit,
surely we have a formula that is beyond reproach in terms of
support and significance in terms of government action,
legislation and policy.
That obviously leads to a strong cultural policy. It is
important to note that this country does not have a national
cultural policy. For at least 10 years groups like the Canadian
Conference of the Arts and many others across this country have
been clamouring at the doorsteps of the government for a national
cultural policy.
To this day, June 10, 1999, we do not have a national cultural
policy. We have seen study after study after study, but no
action. Another subcommittee of the heritage committee has just
completed another cross-country tour trying to find out what
Canadians think about cultural policy. It heard the same message
again and again. Yes, we need a cultural policy to give meaning
to what it is that we want to preserve as Canadian culture.
Given the fact that we are dealing with Bill C-55, I am
beginning to understand why we may not have a national cultural
policy. I am beginning to understand that it may have been a lot
more difficult for the government to bring in this regressive
American legislation on the magazine industry of this country if
it had in place a national cultural policy.
I will quote again from the policy paper of the Canadian
Conference of the Arts, which was released in June 1998, just one
year ago. It makes a very important point. It asks the
question:
Why do governments exist? What is the purpose that sustains them
and gives them the moral and political grounding necessary to
continue to function? The essence of the answer is
sovereignty—the right of a nation to take charge of its own
destiny and chart its own course through history.
According to the conference, sovereignty has three key
components. The first is political sovereignty, a great deal of
which we have given up in the course of the last couple of years
in terms of how this place functions, how many times the
government has brought in closure, how many times it has bypassed
parliament, how many times it has said one thing and done
another, and the list goes on.
According to the Canadian Conference of the Arts, another key
component is economic sovereignty. We do not have to look too
far to appreciate just how much we have sold off as a nation, how
much we have given away, how much we have thrown to the wind in
the interests of the globalized economy, in the interests of
large multinational corporations which would like to have access
to a completely unfettered marketplace without any barriers in
their way, including such things as a national health care plan,
which we used to have in this country, including such things as a
universal pension plan, reasonable unemployment insurance, and I
could go on to mention any number of areas.
There is a third key component of what it means to truly have
what we all want and that is cultural sovereignty.
The definition applied to that is:
The affirmation of the right of sovereign nations to foster and
promote the creation, production, distribution and preservation
of the works of the imagination in their many forms, or artifacts
and objects of importance to the collective history of the
citizenry of the nation state, through direct governmental
measures.
1335
I could add, through a proactive government, through a
government that has the wherewithal and the political will to
ensure that cultural sovereignty is preserved and is a reality.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts provides some very good
words around just how important that is. It says in its report
at page 8:
Cultural expression reflecting the common and diverse
experiences, observations and aspirations of the citizens of a
nation state is central to the creation and maintenance of a
shared sense of identity and the promotion of understanding among
diverse elements resident within the same political boundaries.
Cultural expression builds a sense of common purpose and
tolerance, and a respect for the differences inherent in peoples
who have brought to the nation a wide array of distinctive
traditions, values, and perceptions. Cultural expression fosters
and expands the fundamental cohesive elements within a state.
I think that just about says it all in terms of why we on this
side of the House are so concerned about the preservation and
enhancement of Canadian culture and why we are so opposed to Bill
C-55. We had an opportunity to use the tools of government to
ensure that we create that sense of identity, that sense of
tolerance, that expression of appreciation for all the diversity
that makes up this nation and we blew it. In that typical
scenario of the mouse beside the elephant we allowed ourselves to
be squashed. Maybe it is more like the flea on the mouse sitting
by the elephant. We allowed ourselves to be squashed, to be
stamped out. We could have stood up to our American neighbours
to the south.
I want to take us back a few years to 1986, 1987 and 1988. At
that time I happened to be the minister of culture and heritage
for the province of Manitoba. I, along with my colleagues in the
provincial government of Manitoba, as well as many colleagues
from different parts of the country, worked day in and day out to
express our concerns about the proposed free trade agreement. We
identified at that point that the free trade agreement would be
dangerous, would be a barrier, would be devastating in our
pursuit of the preservation of Canadian culture.
I hope Conservative members are listening. We were told at that
time by the Brian Mulroney government of the day not to worry,
there was an exemption for culture. We were told that we would
never lose anything by way of cultural artistic expression in
this country because there was a strong exemption which would
prevent any kind of erosion as a result of American actions.
This government had a chance to test the cultural exemption in
the free trade agreement and the NAFTA. It could have tested
that exemption to stand firm on its earlier commitments and to
show clearly that it was prepared to do everything possible to
preserve Canadian culture. It caved in.
There was an indication from the WTO that Canada had a strong
case.
There was certainly all kinds of support from the cultural
community in Canada. There were all kinds of legal arguments.
There was all kinds of advice. There was all kinds of solid
evidence to suggest that the government use that supposed,
absolutely rock solid provision which would preserve Canadian
identity, that exemption for cultural affairs in this country,
and the government chose not to.
1340
The result, as my colleague from Dartmouth said, is a sellout to
the Americans. There is no question that Bill C-55, as amended
by the Senate, according to the wishes of the Americans,
particularly the giant media magazine corporations in the United
States, is a sellout. Others have used the term cave in, but it
is the same thing because we did have a choice.
In making the deal on magazines this government has shown that
it is willing to sacrifice Canadian cultural policy without a
fight. When the Americans come back with more threats against
other cultural initiatives, whether it is Canadian content,
ownership of our broadcasting industries, subsidizing the CBC or
even our support for artists through the Canada Council, the
precedent is set for us to cave in.
Instead of taking this opportunity, using that supposed
wonderful exemption, fighting for and setting a precedent for all
aspects of Canadian culture, the arts and creative enterprise,
this government chose to cave in, just like we saw it do on the
MMT issue. It could have stood and fought. It could have shown
leadership and used the provisions that were available to make
the case, but because it was threatened, because it was
intimidated, because there was a question of retaliation, a
question of suits, a question of financial compensation, the
government chose to cave in before it had even fought the battle.
The precedent is set.
Do members opposite not understand why we are so concerned about
this bill? Do they not see where it might lead us? Do they not
understand how dangerous this can be for the future?
It does not matter whether we are talking about culture, water
or pharmaceuticals. Let us not forget what this government did
when it caved in on pharmaceuticals. Liberals stood in the House
before they formed the government in 1993 and said that Brian
Mulroney was wrong to bring in Bill C-91, which extended patent
protection to the pharmaceutical giants, because it would give
profits to those big corporations and hurt the poor and the sick
in this country. What did it do? It caved in to the giant
pharmaceuticals.
Today this government is caving in to the giant American based
magazine industry, and we will all pay the price. It is not too
late for the government to reconsider, to understand that it is
important to stand for Canadian culture. What we are talking
about is our very identity, our very traditions around tolerance
and acceptance of diversity and appreciation for struggling
together for the common collective good.
I urge the government to reconsider. I urge it to stand for
Canadian culture.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was not intending to speak to this bill, but in listening to
the NDP, the Liberals and the Tories talk about a national
cultural policy, it just sounds like something I would hear from
some socialist communist regime.
Canadians do not want government telling them what our culture
is or government shaping and moulding it. Government will
promote and foster what it values and it will unlikely reflect
the values and culture of its people.
In my own view I see this as just a means of social engineering
society.
When I hear words like tolerance and values, I believe they are
code words for “see things the way I see them or you are wrong in
your views”. I am very apprehensive about government trying to
shape and mould culture. That smacks of a government which
thinks it knows more than the ordinary people. It is telling us
what to think, filtering what we will hear and telling us what we
are going to say. Generally this is a huge waste of money.
1345
How would a cultural policy reflect the views of Canadians when
the government that would implement it was elected by 38% of the
vote? The hon. member talks about how dangerous it is to not
bring in some strong bill like this. I think it is much more
dangerous to get government into moulding culture.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the Reform member
in making those kinds of comments is insulting just about every
individual and every organization that has played a part in
contributing to the quality of life in Canada.
The words I used to define culture come directly from the
working group of the Canadian Conference of the Arts and its
report on cultural policy for the 21st century. Those
organizations together said that Canadian culture is about the
expression of our common and diverse experiences, observations
and aspirations. It is about building a sense of common purpose,
tolerance and respect for the differences among people.
Is the member from the Reform Party suggesting that is not a
noble goal? Are we not all here trying to ensure that we are
tolerant and respectful of one another and trying to build a
sense of common purpose, trying to ensure that public good takes
precedence over selfish greed? Is that not what we are all
about? Is that not what culture is all about?
The Reform member can insult me all he wants. But what he has
just done is insulted the Confederation Centre of the Arts, the
Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Book Publishers
Council, the Specialty and Premium TV Association, Simon Fraser
University, the Pacific Music Association, the Office for
Cultural Affairs in the city of Vancouver and on and on. Every
organization involved in this field has been absolutely committed
to do the opposite of what the Reform Party is suggesting.
As my colleague from Saskatchewan has just said to me, maybe
that is why the Reform Party is at 9% or 10% in the polls. The
most important thing for us today is to get beyond where Reform
is coming from.
I will quote once more from the Canadian Conference of the Arts
paper:
When cultural sovereignty is eroded, lost or subsumed within
narrow political or ideological objectives the nation state is
deprived of one of the most compelling bonds of nationhood.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member give her speech and my colleague make his
comments. In any country of the world where culture has been a
forced issue, in other words where a government or some group has
been forcing culture upon any group of people, it does not work.
That is quite obvious in history. A recent case is the Soviet
Union where culture and politics were forced upon people and we
all know what happened.
Would the NDP member like to comment on that? She quoted from a
study done by a group of people who in my opinion are forcing a
culture upon Canadians.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, when one has
blinkers on, I suppose it is very hard to understand what we are
talking about when we propose a cultural policy for this country
and when we express our opposition to this bill.
I want the member to know that no one is trying to force
anything down anyone's throat.
Whenever members of the Reform Party have difficulty with
something, they like to portray it that way.
1350
We are trying to create a climate where our artists, writers,
movie producers, filmmakers, book publishers, singers and dancers
can have an opportunity to use their talent and express their
sentiments. Surely that is something we all appreciate and
enjoy, the freedom of expression.
We are not talking about forcing anything on anyone. We are
talking about the fact that it is very hard as Canadians to
compete with the Americans to the south of us. It requires
proactive government. It requires us to do whatever we can to
support the artistic cultural fabric of this nation. Otherwise it
will be stamped out and I would hope that the Reform Party is not
suggesting that for one moment.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think the member is twisting what we are saying. We
support museums and all the various groups around the country
that promote—
The Deputy Speaker: That does not sound like a point of
order to me. It sounds like debate.
On questions and comments, I will go to the hon. member for
Surrey Central. He has not had a chance to do that yet.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I heard the hon. member preaching about what Canadian culture is
and how it should be dealt with. She mentioned imposing culture
on all Canadians. She should commend the Reform Party which
believes in the equality of all citizens. We believe that every
community has the right to promote their culture, but it is not
up to the government to promote Canadian culture.
I ask the hon. member if taking God out of the constitution is
the culture she wants to promote, as an hon. member from her
party is trying to do.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the
member for Surrey Central said I was preaching. I certainly feel
as if that is what I am doing today. I am preaching to people
who have yet to be converted to just what it means to have an
expression of who we are as a nation, to be able to share that
with the world, to be able to pass it on to our children.
I do not understand the gist of the question as posed. To do
anything but what we are proposing today would be to say let
American culture rule the day; let us stamp out all of our unique
expressions.
When it comes to the whole question of economics, we are not
talking about wasting money and causing taxpayers extra burden.
We are talking about the opposite. The member should know that
the largest subsidy to the cultural life of Canada comes not from
government, corporations or other patrons, but from the artists
themselves through their unpaid or underpaid labour. When
creative activity is diminished because many artists are unable
to earn a decent living, something is lost to all of us and our
entire culture fails to fulfil its promise.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to
correct the record. We support museums and we support various
groups around the country promoting their culture.
My question for the member is, are we not Canadian and do we not
have a culture without government trying to get involved in
shaping it?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier
to the member for Surrey Central, I think the members of the
Reform Party by their words are suggesting that we give it up and
allow the American culture to dominate everything.
As I said earlier we are simply trying to create the climate
with every tool possible provided by government to support the
unique aspect of Canadian culture, to ensure that we can express
what is unique about being Canadians to the rest of our society
and to the world.
I cannot think of a more noble objective if we are truly
interested in preserving any sense of nationhood and allowing our
children to understand exactly what it means to be Canadian and
all of the history that has been before us.
1355
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: In the event the House does not sit beyond
today, I wish to thank all members for the way in which they
have co-operated with me in my role as Speaker of the House in
recent months.
[English]
I know that all chair occupants appreciate the co-operation of
hon. members and since I may not be sitting again this afternoon,
I wanted to tell all members to have a very pleasant summer.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MEMBER FOR BURNABY—DOUGLAS
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the years I have been faced with numerous situations that have
tested my personal convictions and beliefs. Despite this,
nothing could have adequately prepared me for the most recent
attack upon one of the key moral foundations of this nation.
Sadly this unprecedented attack originated here.
Earlier this week the Ottawa Sun ran a disturbing headline.
The said article quoted the member for Burnaby—Douglas as saying
God “is offensive to millions of Canadians”. As if these
ridiculous comments were not bad enough, this member continued
throughout the week to advance these outrageous and inflammatory
notions.
Few should argue that we are in this place to provide leadership
and representation to the people of Canada. This country has
existed and flourished for over a century in part as a result of
our pluralistic society's moral and spiritual foundations under
God.
Make no mistake: as a Christian member of this House I will
defend the reference to God in the charter, in the constitution,
in our national anthem and in all acts adopted by this House. I
applaud the NDP leader for her party's strong public religious
reaffirmation and in light of recent events I urge all hon.
members to do the same.
* * *
CHILD HUNGER
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
“Feed the Children, a Report on Child Hunger in Calgary”
identified there are at least 14,500 children who experience
persistent or intermittent hunger in the city of Calgary.
The effects of child hunger are wide ranging and include
psychological, economic and behavioural consequences. A number
of community based programs designed to combat this problem are
currently in place. However, despite their strengths and the
dedicated work of many volunteers, gaps in the system continue to
exist.
The federal government must take a proactive role in eliminating
child hunger by providing tax cuts to low income and single
parent families. The costs of leaving the issue of child hunger
unaddressed are simply too high to be ignored.
* * *
55TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was honoured on June 6 to take part in the
rededication ceremony of the town of Wallaceburg's cenotaph to
commemorate the 55th anniversary of D-Day. Royal Canadian Legion
Branch 18 president Velda Green led the solemn proceedings.
The event was held to recognize those veterans who fought and
died for our freedoms and in particular to honour those veterans
whose names have been added to the cenotaph with the research
done by local historian Al Mann. It was truly a community effort.
We commend Tymen Hopman and Councillor Chip Gordon for ensuring
that the cenotaph was revitalized for all generations to
appreciate. Reverend Hugh Appel, Chatham-Kent Mayor Bill
Erickson and Walpole Island First Nation Chief Joe Gilbert also
joined me at the cenotaph.
Congratulations to the legion's superb efforts in the community
to memorialize our fallen veterans.
* * *
[Translation]
SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
September, the Prime Minister of Canada will be hosting the 8th
Sommet de la Francophonie.
The city of Moncton, New Brunswick, will be welcoming 52 heads of
state and of government who have the French language in common.
As a new millennium fast approaches, this summit represents a
major event for all francophone communities throughout the
world.
It is important to know that the francophone community in Canada
ranks second in the world, after France. Our country has seven
million citizens who speak, write, sing, work and live in
French. Of that number, one million live outside Quebec.
This summit also constitutes an important event for our youth,
who will be the focal point of the debates and actions of the
summit. They are the future of the Francophonie. The summit
will place them in the forefront and we will be attentive to
what they have to say.
In September all eyes will be on Moncton. I invite all
Canadians to celebrate our francophone community.
* * *
1400
[English]
LIVINGSTON CENTRE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Tillsonburg's
Livingston Centre has received a certificate of excellence from
the Public Sector Quality Council of Ontario and the National
Quality Institute.
The Livingston Centre is a partnership of service and education
providers serving the tri-county area of Oxford, Elgin and
Norfolk. The centre houses the Tillsonburg and District
Multi-Service Centre, the Tillsonburg and District Association
for Community Living, the local office for HRDC, the Thames
Valley District School Board and Fanshawe College.
In addition, the Livingston Centre has been asked to be one of
only 30 exhibitors at the Public Sector Quality Fair '99 taking
place in Toronto June 15 and 16. The quality fair will increase
awareness of quality principles and practices in the public
sector within Ontario and showcase achievements of public sector
quality teams.
I am very proud to see the Livingston Centre's tremendous
success is now being recognized across the province.
* * *
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations to Bernard Lord for bringing about the
spectacular end to the Liberal's 12 year reign in New Brunswick.
Part of the Conservative Party's election platform included the
promise to join the other provinces in the court challenge of the
federal gun control law. This despite the fact that it could
mean the end to 200 or 300 federal jobs in the Canadian Firearms
Centre in Miramichi.
New Brunswick joins the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Ontario and the three territories in their opposition
to the Liberal government's gun registration scheme because it
intrudes on its exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil
rights granted them in the constitution.
That is half the provinces and more than 57% of the population.
When will this democratic reality finally hit home? What will it
take for the government to realize that it made a grave mistake
by ramming Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, through parliament in
1995 without proper consultation with the provinces?
* * *
[Translation]
AGING POPULATION
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in October 1999, the world's population will pass the
six billion mark. This is of major importance to our country,
for the changing demographics will result in a greater number of
seniors in the coming century.
The aging of the world's population will present us with a major
challenge, to strengthen intergenerational ties and to provide
health and social services to those of all ages.
We must start preparations right now for addressing that
challenge. A strategy of adaptation to population changes
requires collaborative efforts in all areas of human activity to
make our society senior-friendly.
This strategy must include a public recognition of their
contribution, the creation of a senior-friendly environment, and
the promotion of the role older people play in the family and in
society.
In this International Year of Older Persons, I encourage all my
colleagues to support any initiatives to that end.
* * *
THERAPEUTIC USE OF MARIJUANA
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday,
two individuals may now grow and smoke marijuana for therapeutic
use without infringing the Canadian Criminal Code.
Two weeks ago, 87% of members voted in favour of motion M-381,
which I introduced here in the House of Commons. This historic
vote underlies the research project unveiled yesterday.
Public commitment by doctors such as Réjean Thomas and Don
Kilby, the support of the Canadian Aids Society, the
COCQ-sida, the Canadian Hemophilia Society in Quebec, the
Compassion Club in Vancouver, Canadian and Quebec seniors'
federations and the generous involvement of lawyer Allan Young
have enabled Jim Wakeford and Jean-Charles Pariseau to win their
fight for patients' right to dignity.
Their efforts have now paid off. Many patients will finally be
entitled to a better quality of life through the legalization of
marijuana for medical purposes.
* * *
[English]
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we welcome the military ceasefire in Yugoslavia on the basis of
the G-8 countries' recent peace proposals.
We welcome the UN security council's vote today by 14 to nil
with one abstention, authorizing immediate peacekeeping and
peacemaking activities under the aegis of the United Nations and
in full compliance with the United Nations charter.
These are objectives which the Canadian government had actively
pursued from the beginning of the conflict.
1405
Our Canadian Armed Forces should become fully engaged in the
specialist peacekeeping activities, including clearance of
landmines, in which they have excelled in past UN missions.
Canadian involvement in the return of refugees, in rebuilding
infrastructure destroyed or damaged in recent military operations
and in restoration of economic and social stability on a larger
regional basis should follow.
* * *
THE LATE GORDON TOWERS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this week
Alberta lost one of its most prominent sons, Gordon Towers, who
died at the age of 79.
Born in Red Deer, he devoted his life to the people of Red Deer
and Alberta. We were neighbours south of Red Deer, and I have
known him for a long time. We did not always agree, but I always
respected his sense of community and his loyalty to the people of
Alberta and Canada.
Towers, a strong supporter of the Progressive Conservative
Party, was a five time member of parliament for the Red Deer
riding. In the course of his career as a MP, he served as a
parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general and later to the
minister of science and technology. Towers ended his public
career as the lieutenant-governor of Alberta, but at heart he was
always a constituency man.
I am sure that the people of Red Deer will always remember him
for the model that he set. Central Alberta has lost a favourite
son and he will be deeply missed by his family, friends and
former constituents.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development often mentions her
“Gathering Strength” document and recently allocated $1.6
billion for employment training, with $100 million going to the
three northern territories.
The Yukon has one of the largest aboriginal population bases and
a 15% unemployment rate. Our population is equivalent to that of
the other two territories. The department does not fund trades
training at all, but the Yukon will receive only $3.9 million of
the $100 million. This is blatantly unfair. It is an
unjustifiable division of resources, less than 4%.
It appears the minister will allow only two territories to
gather strength, while starving the Yukon of desperately needed
training dollars.
* * *
[Translation]
HARBOUR DUES
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we learned this morning that the Minister of Transport
will be announcing in July a significant increase in access fees
for the ports he wants to transfer to local officials.
This is fairly incredible news, since today is probably the last
day of the session, so that we will not be able to put any more
questions to him. What fine transparency.
With the airports transferred, the railroads dismantled and bus
transportation deregulated, this decision may well further empty
the regions and have a major effect on shipping.
Let the Minister of Transport take it as read: despite the
parliamentary recess, he will find members of the Bloc Quebecois
in his path if he maintains this decision. He is not dealing
with any ship of fools.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, peace in
the Balkans, here at last, thank God.
All members of the House and Canadians everywhere most
enthusiastically welcome the signing of a peace accord in Kosovo
and its approval by the United Nations security council. The
pathway of peace will lead to the safe return to their homes of
nearly one million Kosovar Albanians.
The international community now faces the formidable challenge
of reconstruction of a war-scarred, devastated land; of ensuring
a secure, democratic and self-governing Kosovo; and of
stabilizing the entire situation in southeast Europe. It will be
the most complex peace implementation operation in modern times.
We acknowledge, with pride, the contributions of our Canadian
Armed Forces in this theatre of war and wish them well as they
enter into a perilous peacekeeping deployment.
Peace in the Balkans is here at last, thank God.
* * *
FUNDY—ROYAL
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, as summer
nears, I would like to send out an invitation to all Canadians to
visit my constituency of Fundy—Royal this summer.
Fundy—Royal straddles the beautiful and scenic Bay of Fundy
which has the largest tides in the world. In fact, tourists from
around the globe come to the region to witness these record tides
and, of course, to enjoy down-home maritime hospitality.
Fundy—Royal has so much to offer: the beautiful Fundy Trail,
the waterways, fishing, cycling, boating and camping.
Fundy—Royal has it all. We have picturesque covered bridges and
lighthouses adorning the shores of our communities.
Throughout the summer, Fundy—Royal communities host fairs and
festivals, like the Sussex Balloon Fiesta and the Rothesay Craft
Festival. For a special historical perspective on the region,
one can visit the coal mining museum in Chipman.
No one leaves New Brunswick without enjoying some maritime
cuisine like lobster, salmon and fiddle heads.
I invite one and all to visit Fundy—Royal this summer.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada has a presence in Laval. These days, two
important events testify to this.
First, our government is contributing financially to the
volleyball trials for the Paralympic games in Sydney, Australia,
in the year 2000. These trials will be held in Montmorency cégep
in Laval between June 16 and 18. Eight international teams are
participating, and the finalists will represent their country in
Sydney next year.
In addition, I would draw your attention to next Monday's
inauguration of a pilot project funded by $527,000 from the
health care services adjustment fund, with the aim of assessing
the implementation of integrated geriatric, respiratory and
oncology services at the Laval Centre hospitalier ambulatoire.
Laval thanks the federal government.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today not only as a member of parliament but also
as a former parliamentary intern.
Thirty years ago, inspired by Alf Hales and James Hurley, this
House passed a motion creating the parliamentary internship
program. The program is now run by the Canadian Political
Science Association and gives young people an inside look at our
parliament.
Today there are 300 alumni across the country and around the
world. They are leaders in government, academia, business, law,
advocacy and diplomacy.
A Parliamentary Internship Alumni Association was launched on
May 13 to promote strong connections among current and
ex-interns. The event took place in the house where Sir John A.
Macdonald lived and was attended by 100 ex-interns. It was a
great success thanks to help from the British High Commission and
the Institute on Governance.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for agreeing to serve as the
association's honorary patron.
* * *
CYPRUS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the division of
Cyprus.
Cyprus has been in a constant state of conflict for the past
quarter of a century. Currently there is no political settlement
in sight. A peaceful, just and lasting solution to the Cyprus
problem is necessary for the security, political, economic and
social well-being of all Cypriots.
The United Nations has reaffirmed its position on the parameters
for a diplomatic resolution and in December 1998 called for the
reduction of tensions on the island, including the de-mining
along the buffer zone as initially proposed by Canada.
The Cypriot community in my riding of Kitchener Centre has
indicated its wish to see peace for Cyprus, and for Canada to
play a leadership role. I am pleased this matter will be on the
agenda of the G-8 meeting later this month.
As chair of the Canada-Cyprus Friendship Group, I believe it is
important to recognize this anniversary and for all members of
this House to be aware of the political problems that Cypriots
face each and every day.
* * *
JUVENILE DIABETES
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to rise in the House to pay tribute to Dr. Alex
Rabinovitch and the University of Alberta.
As part of the partnership between the Medical Research Council
of Canada and the Diabetes Research Foundation, Dr. Rabinovitch
was chosen, along with Dr. Diane Finegood from Simon Fraser
University, to lead a network of health research experts in the
area of juvenile diabetes.
Dr. Rabinovitch has been the recipient of numerous honour awards
for exceptional medical research, and because of the outstanding
work of individuals like him, the University of Alberta will soon
be indisputably recognized, both nationally and internationally,
as one of Canada's finest universities in amongst a handful of
the world's very best.
On behalf of the official opposition, I wish Dr. Rabinovitch and
his team the best of luck in their efforts to tackle the
crippling disease of juvenile diabetes.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREST RESEARCH
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the exceptional work being done by the
Consortium de la recherche sur la forêt boréale commerciale, of
the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, which was selected by the
Conseil de la recherche forestière du Québec for the Méritas
1999 award. This award highlights the role and work of the
consortium, the activities of which are co-ordinated by
researcher Réjean Gagnon.
The consortium, which is involved in very important work, such
as research on the boreal forest and sustainable development, is
seen in Quebec as a model of co-operation and rapprochement
between the research community and users.
The new soil protection and recuperation method developed by the
consortium will change reforestation practices and approach
throughout Quebec. The presence of such organizations in the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region can only further spur the growth of
this already very dynamic region.
We wish you much success in this groundbreaking work—
The Speaker: We will now proceed to oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all members of the House welcome the news that NATO and
the Yugoslav generals signed an agreement last night, since
ratified by a UN resolution today, that clears the way for
implementing a peace plan in Kosovo.
The bombing has been suspended. Yugoslav security forces are
withdrawing from that province and hopefully hundreds of
thousands of refugees will soon be returning to their homes.
Is not today an appropriate time for the House to formally
extend its congratulations to our Canadian Armed Forces that have
done us proud once again and to our NATO allies for this great
achievement, but also to extend our goodwill to those moderate
Serbs who have demanded that their leaders accept this peace
agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.
That is exactly the reason I wanted the occasion at 3 o'clock to
make a statement extending congratulations to our soldiers who
have done an excellent job there and to the Americans.
I talked with President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair earlier
this morning. There will be more to say when I give my
statement.
I take this occasion to thank the parties in the House of
Commons for the support they have given to the position of the
government. Despite the differences we might have, when there is
a question of principle like this we have shown that we can be
united and stand strong and firm in defence of the values which
are so dear to Canadian people.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the maintenance and enforcement of the Kosovo peace
agreement, including the protection of returning refugees, is
very much dependent on the success now of the peacekeeping
operation which must take place.
The peacekeeping forces, now under a UN mandate, will roll into
Kosovo within days and Canada will be among them. Canadians
would now like to know the details of what our troops will be
doing.
I ask the defence minister what specific role our troops will be
called upon to fulfil and how long we can expect them to be in
Kosovo.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the initial group that will go into
Kosovo, hopefully tomorrow, will involve approximately 100
Canadians who will accompany the British fourth brigade. They
will be the engineers who will go in to help clear the roadways
and routes for the troops who will follow them.
We also have a reconnaissance contingent. Part of them are
already in Macedonia. Some of them are leaving Greece where they
picked up the equipment, the Coyotes, the helicopters, et cetera,
and will now be moving them in.
I expect the full contingent of 800 will be there in just a
matter of days. They will stay there until the peace and
security for the people of Kosovo are secured and the refugees
can return to their homes safely.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the estimated number of peacekeepers required to enforce
the Kosovo peace agreement continues to increase.
The defence minister has talked about sending more than the
current 800 Canadian ground troops to Kosovo, despite warnings
from the chief of defence staff and other military experts that
say our forces are already stretched to the limit and that any
further commitments are unrealistic.
Will the defence minister now confirm whether or not he intends
to make further commitments to Kosovo and, if so, where he
proposes to get those resources?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration.
There are a number of aspects of it that require examination,
including what would fit in with the team in Kosovo.
There are many countries contributing to the NATO core UN
authorized team. They need to provide complementary skills and
roles. We are looking to see what is possible in that regard.
Let me at the same time say that those who have been there to
this point in time, particularly those who have contributed to
task force Aviano, have done an absolutely superb job. They have
done Canada proud.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister threw quite a bash last night for his biggest
contributors. The so-called Laurier Club showed up at 24 Sussex
yesterday for a gabfest that no doubt included just a little
seminar on how to be discreet when doling out money to the Prime
Minister.
1420
Want a contract? Hold off on that real estate deal until after
CIDA has said yes.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister just how many government
contracts were handed out last night as door prizes.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was delighted to receive some Canadians who came from across
the land to tell me and my colleagues how happy they are with the
good government that we are providing.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it must have been just like the Shawinigan hotel convention. I
am sure the Prime Minister's shindig was just fabulous,
particularly for him.
'Twas the night before recess, they snacked on sweetbreads
When visions of contracts just danced in their heads
Gales of laughter were heard while the Prime Minister told jokes
about this—
The Speaker: Order, please. Under the circumstances, I
would ask the hon. member to go to her question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning the
gales of laughter we could hear on Sussex Drive. The Prime
Minister was telling jokes about the taxpayers who do not even
get it, about brain drain—
The Speaker: The question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the question is: Did
anyone go away empty-handed, without a government contract last
night?
The Speaker: That question is marginal.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they came to 24 Sussex and they were very happy because
I was in a position to tell them, for example, that in the first
quarter of this year the growth in Canada has been 4.2%.
I told them that there was to be a party tonight at Stornoway,
the place that was supposed to be a bingo hall, the place that
was never to be occupied by a certain person but that he seems to
enjoy. I hope he will be there for a long time and that the
united alternative will not lose him as a leader.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we know that the Prime Minister has a thin skin when it comes to
integrity.
He was trigger-happy and quick to judge his predecessor, Brian
Mulroney, in the Airbus affair.
Before we break for three months, too much remains unexplained
in the case of Compagnie 161341 Canada Inc. On this last day of
the session, does the Prime Minister realize that he owes the
public an explanation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 6 of this year, the ethics counsellor testified. He gave
all the information about this operation and established clearly
that I was absolutely not in any conflict of interest.
I have complied with all the rules. I had Mr. Wilson examine
them. He confirmed that my conduct in this affair was what was
required in the circumstances.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot understand how the Prime Minister, who is thin-skinned
when his honour is at stake, is still unaware of the scandal
slowly taking shape and undermining his credibility.
The Prime Minister cannot afford any ambiguity. With the
troubling facts that have come to our attention, does he not
understand that prevarication will not help Canadians judge his
conduct?
The Prime Minister would like us to take him at his word. We
would like him to table the bill of sale. Let him do so.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have nothing to add to the answer I have just given.
I have complied with all the rules and Mr. Wilson confirmed this
to the committee on May 6, at which time the opposition parties
had an opportunity to question him. He gave all the facts and
said that there was absolutely no conflict of interest nor any
appearance of one.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under the
previous Progressive Conservative government, the present ethics
counsellor, at the time with the Department of Industry, showed
great sensitivity to government pressures. He was even faulted
for that.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by placing all of his
defence on the testimony of the ethics counsellor, he is placing
enormous pressure on that individual?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every minister in every circumstance has sought the opinion of
the ethics counsellor. Mr. Wilson has appeared regularly before
committees and has explained all the procedural rules he
followed. He has made himself readily available for press
questioning.
I believe Mr. Wilson is doing a good job. Before him, the
position did not exist; now there is someone who can speak on
behalf of the ministers, on behalf of the administration, even
on behalf of MPs, when a conflict of this nature arises. This
ensures the openness required by everyone, as well as respect
for the private affairs of each member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand
that the Prime Minister feels Mr. Wilson is doing a good job,
but we do not share that opinion. The Prime Minister himself
chose the ethics counsellor. He appointed him, and Mr. Wilson is
under his control.
By seeking the support of his own ethics counsellor, is the
Prime Minister not setting himself up as both judge and jury on
the matter of his own virtue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
of course I select many people in the administration. I have an
excellent cabinet, because I used good judgment in selecting
those who are with me at present.
Hon. members can see the smiles on the faces of the ministers of
Finance, Transport, Labour and Human Resources Development. I
always take my responsibilities very seriously, and for each
position, I select the person able to do the best job, under the
circumstances, to serve Canadians well.
* * *
[English]
CULTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The government time and again assured Canadians that our
cultural identity and cultural sovereignty were not at risk and
not up for negotiation, but later today when the House votes on
the magazine bill the hollowness of those assurances will be
exposed for all to see.
The U.S. threatened illegal trade action. The eagle squawked
and the beaver caved. Given empty past assurances, why should
Canadians believe similar assurances about the Canadian health
care system?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am frankly surprised that the NDP is not
recognizing that for the first time in any international
agreement the United States has agreed to accept the concept of
Canadian content.
It has never happened before in any international agreement. It
is our belief that this should be a portent of future
negotiations at places like the World Trade Organization. We
recognize, as does the American government for the first time,
that culture is unique and quite different from other
commodities.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
fact remains that the government caved, caved to illegal American
threats, but that is the record of the government. On Canadian
culture, it caved. On Pacific salmon, it caved. On plutonium
imports, it caved. On environmental polluters, it caved.
This raises the terrifying question of what is next. Will it be
customs union, the American dollar or American health care? Does
the government have any policy position other than flat on its
back?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only member of parliament who is in a cave today is
Svend Robinson.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1430
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to
please not use each other's names.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians need
more than the Prime Minister's word to believe his claims of his
integrity. They need more than the word of an ethics counsellor
who has no independence, no clout and no teeth. They are not
getting real answers from the Prime Minister.
Once again I ask the Prime Minister, will he take politics out
of the search for the truth and ask the auditor general to review
these three projects?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general is supposed to look at all projects.
It is his job. He is paid for that. He reports to the House of
Commons four times a year. We have extended the possibility for
the auditor general, who had to report only once a year, to
report four times a year. He is free to look at any operation of
any department anytime he wants.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, when HRDC
withholds 363 pages of my access to information requests on
Pierre Thibault and Yvon Duhaime, the government cannot claim
full disclosure. When the Liberal industry committee chair
prevents the Prime Minister's trustee from testifying in public,
the government cannot claim full disclosure.
If the Prime Minister is innocent of these charges, why is he
afraid of releasing all of the documents, letting his trustee
testify and calling in the auditor general?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all documents have been
released in compliance with access to information guidelines in
this country and in this parliament which protect, of course,
commercial confidences and the privacy of third parties. We
respected absolutely the guidelines. There is no problem with
that at all.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
will remember the transitional jobs fund, that granting society
that has to first be approved by the Prime Minister.
Now we have access to information documents that show the
following: Aerospatial Globax received $2 million in grants on
the eve of the election and then gave a $4,000 donation to the
Prime Minister's campaign. Confections St. Elie got a $285,000
grant from the same program on the eve of the election and then
gave a $1,500 donation to the Prime Minister's campaign.
What is the relationship between speedy government approval for
these grants and donations to the Prime Minister's campaign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is great about the system is that when anybody
contributes any money above $100 we have to make it public, so
there is absolutely no link.
Perhaps I should see if there are any members of parliament,
especially of the Reform Party, who have worked to receive grants
from the government and who have received donations in the past
that are legal under our system.
We have a long list of Reform Party members who have benefited
from those programs, and in doing that they have just done their
job, which is to work for their constituencies.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
challenge the Prime Minister to find one who sold a money losing
hotel to his grant recipient before the thing was approved.
Megatech Electric also got a government grant under the
transitional jobs fund and it also gave money to the Prime
Minister's election campaign.
It seems that there is just one happy coincidence after another
for the Prime Minister. There are millions of dollars in
suspicious grants. There are criminal investigations of an
associate of the Prime Minister. There is a half million dollar
land deal involved with a $6 million CIDA contract. The list
goes on and on.
We have to ask the Prime Minister, how many coincidences—
The Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members opposite are just trying to create something
because they have nothing else.
I suspect that after the party at Stornoway tonight, following
the vote release, there will be two or three parties on the
right. They will have other problems, so they want to create
problems for us.
I think that when a contract is given to somebody who has bid
$6.5 million, when the second bid was $9 million, the government
was right to give it to the lowest bidder. I understand that the
Reform Party would have given the contract to the one who bid $9
million.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this government specializes in formal morality: it appoints an
ombudsman for the army without any power, it has an ethics
counsellor to give the Prime Minister private answers and it
sets up commissions of inquiry and then does everything to
stifle and sabotage them subsequently.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the trademark of this
government and this Prime Minister not in fact these very empty
and glitzy morality measures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time these issues have been discussed before
House committees through the participation of the ethics
counsellor.
In the past, no such questions could be posed in these areas,
because there was no one to analyze them and we were obliged to
hold strictly to the statement by the individual in the House of
Commons.
Now, there is an independent official, who has the job and the
power to study and answer questions before the committee, when
he appears, according to the rules of this House.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, we
recall how sensitive he was to any whiff of scandal and
patronage.
Is the lesson the Prime Minister learned from the experience of
the previous government not “we must not do it” but rather “we
must not be caught doing it”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
quite honestly we now understand why they are dropping so
quickly in the polls, with remarks like that.
This government has been in office for six years, and there has
been no proven scandal that has forced the resignation of any
minister, because we have established very strict rules of
ethics and mechanisms in order to revise them regularly, to make
sure that all standards are followed by each member of the
administration.
* * *
BLOOD SYSTEM
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we learned
that a Quebecer falsified his blood donor questionnaire.
Actions such as this could endanger the lives of Quebecers who
depend on our blood system for their survival.
The Minister of Health is responsible for the safety of Canada's
blood system. Can he confirm to the House that he will lay
criminal charges against Joël Pinon in order to discourage this
kind of irresponsible and dangerous action?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
up to the police to decide whether or not to lay charges.
As far as I am concerned, the action as reported in the
newspapers was clearly irresponsible and unacceptable.
According to the newspapers, the individual lied on the
Héma-Québec forms. He answered no when he should have answered
yes.
Apparently, Héma-Québec has taken action to ensure that the blood
is not used, and Health Canada will help them in this regard.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the blood
has already been used. If the answer had been yes on the
questionnaire we could have held the blood back for three weeks
and made sure it was safe by re-testing it.
This minister is responsible. This minister had a blood scandal
that he did not handle very well. Is he going to preside over
another, similar blood scandal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the reality is that Héma-Québec provided a form to a potential
donor. The donor was asked questions and, according to news
reports, answered dishonestly, with the result that blood was
taken onboard and then put into the system. The form was
prepared and distributed in accordance with the way we do things
in this country. We ask people who are giving blood to tell the
facts and we act on that. That is good practice. If someone
lies, there is not much we can do.
Héma-Québec is tracing the blood, trying to get it out of
circulation. It is taking every reasonable step to make sure
that no one is harmed by this event.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
apparent conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister and
business people in his riding, the more the Prime Minister tries
to answer our questions, the less we understand.
My question is for the solicitor general. Given that doubts
remain with respect to this affair, could the solicitor general
not just this once do his job and ask the RCMP to investigate
the Prime Minister's conduct?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the RCMP receives a complaint they
evaluate the complaint and deal with it.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Airbus affair, the Liberals sent the RCMP after Brian Mulroney
for less than that.
Why is the solicitor general refusing to ask the RCMP to
investigate this affair? Is it to protect the Prime Minister?
If not, he—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to proceed directly to his
question.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I will get to the question if
I am allowed to continue.
Why is the solicitor general refusing to ask the RCMP to conduct
an investigation? Is it to protect the Prime Minister? If not,
he should ask the RCMP to conduct an investigation, because that
is the solicitor general's responsibility.
[English]
The Speaker: We are getting very close to imputing motive
here.
[Translation]
If the solicitor general wishes to reply, he may.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has displayed
quite openly that he can very well defend himself.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Prime Minister, Canada does not have a brain
drain problem and all those people out there who say that we need
tax relief to stop it are just part of a big conspiracy. I bet
that Elvis is probably in on it too.
Is that why the Prime Minister will not cut taxes, because he
thinks it is part of a vast right wing tax relief conspiracy
against him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has already started to cut taxes. We do
everything in a balanced way. We have promised that half of the
surplus that we are earning, because we have run a good
administration so far, is going to debt reduction and tax
reduction. We have reduced the taxes since we were elected by
$16 billion over a period of three years, including billions of
dollars of reduction in the EI premiums that people pay.
We still have social and economic problems to deal with and we
intend to have a balanced approach.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Boy, he really
is in fantasy land, Mr. Speaker.
It is the grassy knoll and black helicopters and now all these
secret meetings between Canadian business people plotting this
strategy.
The Prime Minister had better drop the paranoia act. I hope it
is an act anyway.
On the last day of parliament, is it really this Prime
Minister's message to Canadians that he is not going to cut
taxes, that everybody is against him? Is that really his final
message to Canadians on the last day of parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I say again that it is the policy of the government to
reduce taxes.
What the Government of Alberta did before us was to balance the
books before cutting taxes, something that was not done in
Ontario. The responsible thing to do is to balance the books.
In the last two budgets the Minister of Finance has reduced
taxes by more than $16 billion over a period of three years. I
would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for that.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this government's requirements in terms of morality take
various forms.
In the Airbus affair, the facts were a lot less serious, precise
and corroborative than here. However, the Liberals did not
hesitate to undertake an investigation and pay a lot in damages.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In order to avoid a
repetition of this painful experience, does the Prime Minister
not realize there is a very simple solution that would save
taxpayers' time and money, and it is for him to table the sale
contract?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have already answered this question about 50 times.
Mr. Wilson clearly described the situation before the committee.
I have nothing to add.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in February, in answer to my question in the House on
the Armenian issue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated
that he had held a consultation process which involved members of
parliament, concerned Canadian communities, historians and
others.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please inform the House of
any conclusions that have been reached as a result of this
consultation?
1445
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
and all others who worked on this process.
On behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I wish to inform
the House that together with all Canadians we remember the
calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy
was committed with the intent to destroy a national group in
which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to
atrocities which included massive deportations and massacres.
May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as
well as to the reconciliation of present day nations and
communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work
together toward world peace—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again the agriculture minister is showing callous
indifference to western farmers. Over two million acres of
farmland are under water in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Farmers
cannot plant their crops and will have little or no income for
1999. The minister's poor performance on the AIDA program has
destroyed western farmers' confidence in this government.
Will the minister look past the Ontario border and declare the
flooded region a disaster area?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of
the reports from western Canada as to the flooded areas, the
minister will be taking a personal trip out there tomorrow to
view firsthand the results of the flooding and to talk to
producers on the ground about what should be done next.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the agriculture minister already knows how
serious the flood is. The agriculture minister has been saying
that farmers gave nothing back to the country in the good years,
implying that they should receive no help today. However,
farmers have shared their hard-earned profits through excessive
Liberal taxes.
When the minister goes out there, is he going to also meet with
the agriculture ministers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan so that
this disaster can be declared immediately and help be forthcoming
immediately?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
of agriculture has stated that in good years farmers should be
contributing to the NISA program which are 50-cent dollars and
that in bad years they should be withdrawing those NISA dollars
because they are bad years. That is the purpose of the program.
When the minister goes out to see the extent of the devastation
on those two provinces, he will then take further action after
consultations with the producers on the ground.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week
the minister responsible for western diversification indicated
that a new aid program could be in the works for waterlogged
Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers. Yesterday however the federal
minister of agriculture talked only about the possibility of
building a little flexibility into either of the two existing
programs.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What does the government
intend to deliver, a new aid program, top-ups to the existing
programs or more likely nothing at all?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was I who made the statement which was that the
minister of agriculture was showing some leadership on this file,
that he would be going to Manitoba, that he would be assessing
the situation and subsequent to that would be reporting back to
cabinet as to what if anything could be done in order to help the
farmers affected. That is what was said.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting. There is one minister over there responsible for
western diversification and the rest of them are responsible for
promoting western alienation.
We agree with the minister of agriculture when he says that
farming is a risky business. Therefore farmers need some
safeguards and protection.
1450
Why will the government not acknowledge that there is a
full-fledged crisis in southeastern Saskatchewan and southwestern
Manitoba and put out a disaster assistance payment on an unseeded
acreage basis and do it tomorrow?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development)(Western Economic Diversification),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the two individuals involved here, myself
and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, have been giving
the same message. It is a critical situation. It is being
examined. Subsequent to that examination, the government will
make a decision. It is clear. It is precise. It is exact.
* * *
FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Marine Atlantic ferry service in Newfoundland is in crisis.
Traffic and freight backlogs are causing havoc. Tourism, an
important growth industry in the province, is being hampered
every day by an inadequate ferry system between the isle of
Newfoundland and the mainland.
The Newfoundland tourism minister, a Liberal, has said “the
four Liberal MPs from Newfoundland are sleepwalking through this
debate”. He has called on them publicly to come out of their
comas and do what is right for Newfoundland.
Is the transport minister prepared to commit today to the
purchase of a new ferry as the wide awake Liberals in
Newfoundland have recommended?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a silver lining in this. The fact
is the pressure on Marine Atlantic is due to the increase in
tourism to Newfoundland as a direct result of the buoyant economy
and the policies of this government. However, this does pose
quite a challenge as to capacity requirements. We are reviewing
it. Over the summer I propose to go to Newfoundland, travel on
the ferry, meet with the workers, and learn firsthand what has to
be done.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
section 32 of the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland
commits Canada to maintain a suitable passenger and freight
service between Port-aux-Basques and Sydney. Does the Liberal
government believe that the current cattle car level of service
lives up to this commitment by the Canadian government, or is the
minister willing to accept his responsibility and purchase the
ferry that is available to give Newfoundland the service that it
deserves?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said, Marine Atlantic is assessing its capacity
requirements and that could include getting a new ferry. We just
do not make knee-jerk decisions based on political requests of
the opposition. What we do is thoroughly analyse the demand. We
will do that and that may mean a new ferry, but we will do things
in an orderly systematic fashion.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
This week the Craig family of Dunrobin, Ontario launched
“Sandrine's Gift”, a campaign to raise awareness about organ
donation in memory of 11 year old Sandrine Craig who died as a
result of a school bus accident.
Can the minister tell the House what he is doing to promote and
encourage organ donations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when Sandrine Craig died last month, the community shared the
family's grief. It was a tragic loss. One can only imagine the
pain of her parents and her siblings.
The family has decided to make something positive come of this
tragedy. They have decided to draw public attention to the need
for organ donations. They have launched this campaign to
encourage Canadians everywhere to think of others when it comes
to organ donations.
The health committee has made recommendations to the government
which we are considering. We will soon announce an approach but
above all, awareness is an important part.
The family in their courage has shown that Sandrine Craig did
not die in vain.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
There are only nine days left on the parliamentary calendar. As
parliament is expected to prorogue, I would like to ask the
minister about the youth criminal justice act.
Last week my party offered unanimous consent to move that bill
into committee and get some fast action on a bill which is very
important to the House and to Canadians. Why is the Minister of
Justice abandoning the youth of this country and the youth
criminal justice act?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not abandoning
this piece of legislation. I would be willing to give unanimous
consent on behalf of our party to proceed to committee
immediately after question period. It will be part of my
business statement to make this a priority for the fall. We are
still committed to the bill.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as we all know, a good reputation is priceless.
The Prime Minister has had a long political career. That too we
all know.
Why then is he allowing doubt about his integrity to remain? Why
is he taking such risks at the end of his career?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been very clear. I have explained very clearly that, before
becoming Prime Minister, I sold these interests. Everything was
handed over to the person administering my assets, who must take
the necessary decisions.
Everything was done according to the rules and in consultation
with Mr. Wilson. We cannot be more clear than that.
I have absolutely nothing to hide. I look at all the members in
this House, in my party and in other parties, with confidence. I
can look them straight in the eye. I have no problem at all.
* * *
[English]
MERCHANT NAVY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of
the many communications I received on this government's demeaning
and atrocious failure to compensate Canada's merchant marine
said:
I believe this is absolutely appalling after they were assured
that they would finally be compensated for their services as they
so richly deserve.
Will the government commit to redressing its vile decision not
to offer financial compensation to Canada's merchant marine, or
is it really content simply to spit in the collective faces of
these Canadian war heroes?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know,
the committee heard numerous witnesses and has issued a report
that was carefully considered. The Minister of Veterans Affairs
will give the report the careful consideration it deserves and
will, following consultation with his cabinet colleagues, provide
the committee with the government's response in due course.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today the British press is praising the work of the NATO G-8
members at the negotiation table in Macedonia. The trouble is,
the only NATO G-8 member not at the table was Canada. It was our
chance to demand the total disarming of the KLA.
Why was Canada, a member of the UN security council, left out of
the direct negotiations again?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my minister today was in
Germany. As a matter of fact, we watched the report coming from
Germany at that time. If he was not physically present, it was
because he was somewhere else.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. On that high note, we will
conclude question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Khalid Bin
Mohammed Al-Ankary, Minister of Higher Education of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1500
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I wish to seek unanimous consent that the House revert to
ministerial statements under Standing Order 33 to permit a
statement by the Prime Minister and corresponding responses from
other parties.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
KOSOVO
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members of the House will be aware that today NATO has
decided to suspend its air campaign against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia and that the United Nations security council
adopted a resolution which set the term for an end to the
conflict in Kosovo.
This paves the way for the establishment of a peacekeeping force
led by NATO and for the return of refugees to their homes in
peace and security.
This is a great day for the values that we have been fighting
for in the world. This is a great day for the stability and
security of Europe. This is a great day for Canada.
Our NATO partners knew that they could count on Canada, as they
did every time European democracies have resisted the brutal
force of tyranny throughout this century.
During 78 days, our fine Canadian pilots risked their lives to
accomplish their duty in the name of Canadian values. Our
efforts were not limited to military action. Canada played a
central role in the diplomatic effort to find a peaceful solution
to the conflict.
Patiently we worked through the G-8 and bilaterally to bring
Russia to understand our action and to play a constructive role
in dealing with the Yugoslav regime. In the end, Russia was a
peace-broker and this country deserves the gratitude of the
international community.
[Translation]
At the request of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Canada
welcomed over 5,000 refugees from Kosovo. Canadians demonstrated
again that they spontaneously open their arms and their hearts to
those who suffer.
We made important contributions to the work of relief agencies
assisting the refugees in countries neighbouring Kosovo: Albania
and Macedonia.
Today is an important milestone in the search for a solution to
the Kosovo crisis, but we are aware that a gigantic task remains
ahead of us.
First, let us have no illusion.
While we are confident that the agreement between NATO and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the obligations set by the
security council will be respected, we remain realistic.
We have seen the Yugoslav regime betray its commitments many
times before. I call on the Yugoslav authorities to fully
respect all the provisions of the resolution. But until the last
Yugoslav soldiers and policemen have left Kosovo, and until the
international peacekeeping force is firmly in control, there
remains a possibility that hostilities will return.
Our most urgent task is to monitor the departure of the Yugoslav
forces and to deploy the peacekeeping force without delay.
Another key element of the peace plan and the UN Security Council
resolution is the demilitarization of the Kosovo liberation army.
We welcome the commitment of the Kosovo leadership to fulfil this
obligation, and we call on the KLA and all Kosovars to co-operate
fully with the peacekeeping force.
1505
I am pleased to confirm that the Canadian contingent of the KFOR
is on its way to Kosovo, and will be ready to move in within
days. The challenges and risks that our peacekeepers will face
will be real and we wish them Godspeed in their important work to
secure and stabilize Kosovo.
Once the peacekeeping force is deployed in Kosovo, we will start
to organize the return of refugees, build democratic
institutions, work toward confidence and reconciliation, and
reconstruct the province.
Canada will participate in this effort within international
organizations such as the United Nations, the OSCE and the World
Bank, and through its own bilateral assistance program.
There will be no sustainable peace in Kosovo, and elsewhere in
the former Yugoslavia, without justice. Canada has strongly
argued for the provisions of the UN Security Council resolution,
which facilitate the work of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia.
The tribunal's role will be indispensable in building confidence
in a just settlement in Kosovo, one in which the perpetrators of
crimes against humanity will be held accountable.
Canada has supported the tribunal's efforts in other parts of the
former Yugoslavia and will continue to do so in Kosovo. Earlier
this week we already announced that we were contributing a team
of forensic experts to assist the tribunal's investigations
there.
[English]
This was not a war against the Serbian people. Canada remembers
that for years Yugoslavia was a friend. We fought alongside
Yugoslavia in the struggle against tyranny during two world wars.
Our friendship with Yugoslavia has deep roots and could be
revived easily, but this friendship did not extend and will never
extend to a regime that adopted the thinking and the methods of
the tyrants of the Europe of the 1930s.
We sincerely hope that Yugoslavia will soon be re-integrated
into the community of democratic nations sharing the values on
which the Euro-Atlantic nations are based. We stretch out our
hand to the Yugoslav people. We will be pleased to offer them
assistance for democratization, the economic reforms and the
reconstruction of Yugoslavia.
However, before this can happen, major changes will have to
happen in that country. First and foremost, the leadership of
Yugoslavia will have to change. Five of the leaders of the
country, including President Milosevic, are indicted by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They
are entitled to a fair trial and I hope they will seize that
occasion to defend themselves, paving the way for new leadership
to take the helm.
The decision of the UN security council is a recognition of the
human dimension of international peace and security, From Rwanda
to Kosovo, there is mounting evidence that internal conflicts not
only crush human security but also threaten to destabilize entire
regions.
We believe that humanitarian and human rights concerns are not
just internal matters. Canada has fought for this issue to be
given new weight in the international community and, in
particular, in the United Nations. We believe that the agreement
reached today in the council is an important step toward a
broader definition of security by the international community.
Now that we are at the end of a terrible crisis that has caused
problems for many of us, I would like to thank all the members of
the House for their candour, the expression of their views and
the support of the parties for the cause we were defending and
the values that we believe in.
This is a very good way for members of parliament to go back home
to their constituents, who showed confidence in them during the
last election. Members will be able to show them that
collectively we have participated in a big move forward to make
sure human security and human rights are preserved around the
globe in a new fashion in the future.
1510
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to join with the Prime Minister and others in
expressing the profound relief and thankfulness of the members of
the official opposition, and I am sure all Canadians, that
temporary peace has been achieved in Kosovo and a temporary peace
which we hope and pray will become a lasting peace.
As has been noted earlier today, the bombing has been suspended,
Yugoslav troops are pulling out of Kosovo, hundreds of thousands
of refugees hopefully are preparing to return home and a
peacekeeping force with a UN mandate, including Canadians, will
soon roll into Kosovo.
As I said during question period, it is a day to extend our
profound thanks and appreciation to NATO and those brave
Canadians who served with NATO for this great achievement. This
is also the time to express our thanks and appreciation to those
moderate Serbs who, under very difficult conditions, have brought
pressures to bear on their own government to accept this
proposal.
I want to suggest that this is also an appropriate time to pause
and measure our progress toward peace in the Balkans against the
objectives that we set for ourselves when this conflict first
began.
The moral objective of NATO and Canada's involvement has always
been to halt the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Yugoslav
government and to care for the victims of Serb aggression.
The political objective has been to create a safe home for all
the Kosovars in the region and to stabilize relations between
Kosovo and the Republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours.
The military objective, which was set at the beginning, was to
damage the military capability of the Yugoslav government to
carry out ethnic cleansing and hopefully drive it to the
bargaining table.
Measured against the scale of those three objectives, we can now
say with some confidence that the military objective has been
achieved, that the moral objective has been at least temporarily
achieved, and that the great challenge now before us is to
achieve the political objective of creating a safe home for all
Kosovars in the region and the basis of a lasting peace.
I want to suggest that achieving this political objective will
be an even greater test of our ingenuity, our resources and our
determination than achieving the military objective. However, we
cannot turn back now.
I will raise a question: Are there any lessons which Canada can
learn from our participation in this NATO exercise thus far and
which call for follow-up action by the government and this
parliament? Let me suggest two lessons.
The first lesson is that years of neglect and mismanagement of
our armed forces by this government and others have left us and
our armed forces personnel in an unacceptable position. Canada
has had great difficulty in mustering the minimal resources
required to be an active participant in this NATO operation. If
we are called upon to do more or to sustain another peacekeeping
operation somewhere else in the world at the same time, it would
simply be beyond our capability.
We therefore call on the government to address this problem in a
meaningful way immediately as well as in the next throne speech
and budget if it is our intention to be a real player in
maintaining world peace.
The second lesson to be learned from this Kosovo crisis, and
this was referred to by numerous members during the take-note
debate, is the very real need to create a better legal framework
for multinational actions against inhuman acts by the governments
of the sovereign state.
In the Kosovo case, NATO took the initiative to halt ethnic
cleansing and to restore regional stability in an area of the
world where NATO countries have a strategic interest.
1515
The UN mandate to send in peacekeepers came after the NATO
initiative, although I think many of us would have preferred if
it had come before. The question still remains on what grounds
should other states be permitted to intervene in the affairs of a
sovereign state. How are such interventions to be regulated in
law so as to permit multinational efforts to stop ethnic
cleansing as in Kosovo but also to safeguard against the abuse of
the right to intervene?
The most thoughtful speech given in the Chamber on this subject
was given by Václav Havel, President of the Czech Republic, when
he addressed the Chamber on April 29. Dr. Havel's convictions,
like those of Nelson Mandela's, are not only sound because they
are well reasoned but are sound and acceptable because he has
suffered so much for those convictions.
Dr. Havel told the House, and he was applauded by all members
when he said it:
While the state is a human creation, humanity is a creation of
God.
From that premise he reasoned that human rights rank above the
rights of states and human liberties constitute a higher value
than state sovereignty. He said in reference to NATO actions in
the Balkans:
It has now been clearly stated that it is not permissible to
slaughter people, to evict them from their homes, to maltreat
them and to deprive them of their property. It has been
demonstrated that human rights are indivisible and if injustice
is done to some, it is done to all.
He then went on to justify NATO military action in the Balkans
on the grounds that in this instance protecting human rights
should take precedence over respecting the rights of states.
I want to suggest that the challenge for the future is therefore
to find a framework in international law which provides for
international intervention in the affairs of sovereign states, if
those states persist in violating basic human rights, while at
the same time ensuring that international law does not permit
alleged violations of human rights to become an excuse for one
group of states to attack the sovereignty of another.
As in most issues involving human rights and the rights of
states, the challenge will be to find the right balance, and
finding the right balance is a task for which the country has a
peculiar talent. This is a challenge which all of us must
address in the months ahead so that the tragedy of the Balkans is
not repeated in other parts of the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that a ceasefire has been reached successfully in
Yugoslavia, and a peace plan put in place that will ensure the
return of the Kosovar refugees to their country.
We can only hope that the Yugoslav president will honour his
commitments, although this has not been his wont.
I should point out that we have nothing against the Serbs, the
only enemy of humanity is the Milosevic regime.
We hope that Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will
rejoin the community of nations as soon as possible. There is
no doubt that the NATO action was justified by the necessity to
see human rights win out over barbarism.
We therefore supported the government's resolution to endorse
the NATO air strikes, even if we are as opposed to the use of
force as many other Quebecers. This resolution was not,
however, a good representation of the need to find short, medium
and long term solutions to the political problem behind the
conflict between the Kosovar people and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.
In recent months we have witnessed one of the most disturbing
human tragedies since the second world war: ethnic cleansing,
deportation and dispossession of close to one million Kosovars,
who have been deprived on both a number of civil rights and
their right to self-government by the Milosevic regime for some
ten years now. This is what has led to the tragedy we now see
unfolding before our very eyes daily on our television screens.
1520
But there is now cause for celebration: the war and destruction
are over, and the era of peace and reconstruction is beginning.
How can this peace be built?
A number of problematic issues must be addressed and complex
political challenges faced, for the political stability of the
entire Balkan region is at stake.
For example, there are many questions yet to be resolved
concerning the status of what is legally a Serb province, which
will come under the administration of the United Nations, and an
international military protectorate. Under what conditions will
the return of the Kosovar refugees from Albania, Macedonia,
Bosnia, Montenegro and all of the other countries that have,
along with Canada, opened their doors to them?
After all, with all the abuse and atrocities perpetrated by the
Serbian troops and soldiers in Kosovo, there is no question of
putting the Albanian Kosovar population at the mercy of the Serb
political powers in Belgrade yet again.
What will happen to the charges of war crimes and crimes against
humanity against Slobodan Milosevic and his acolytes by the
international criminal court?
Will the Yugoslav government benefit from international
reconstruction aid that will be offered while President
Milosevic is in power?
Will Montenegro take advantage of its courageous position
against the Milosevic regime in recent months and decide its
status freely or will we abandon Montenegro to its fate and
allow the Serbian president to tighten his grip on this tiny
republic?
What will happen to the ethnic minorities in all of the
countries in the region?
We are pleased that the UN has finally played a role in
resolving the Kosovo crisis. Unfortunately, the UN has shown
itself incapable, initially, of preventing Serbia from violating
the collective and human rights of the Kosovars and of finding a
quick solution to the conflict.
This proves two things. First, the UN is incapable, in its
present form, of resolving regional conflicts and that its
institutions and its operations must be significantly reformed.
Canada should call for such a reform as a member of the UN
Security Council.
Second, it proves that, in the absence of such reform, regional
or intergovernmental military organizations will increasingly
have to take whatever action they deem necessary to ensure
international security and the respect of human rights.
The triumph of the democratic countries will reaffirm that we
are moving into a new era of international law in which despots,
tyrants, terrorists and dictators have to understand that they
no longer have the immunity they thought they enjoyed.
Moreover, charging Slobodan Milosevic will remind those
responsible for crimes against humanity, torture or terrorism
that they cannot escape justice.
Before I conclude, let me return to the proposals I made in
April.
As quickly as possible, following the reinstatement of the
individuals and collective rights of the Kosovar people, I
suggest that Canada, with other members of the Organization on
Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, promote an
international conference on the status and rights of ethnic
minorities in Europe, and specifically in the Balkans.
In the short term we must also target the sources of instability
in the Balkans, namely the difficult economic situation of the
countries in the region and the feeling of exclusion from major
European political institutions. In this regard, we must
recognize the wisdom of the position adopted in early April by
the foreign ministers of the European Community.
These countries agreed to set up a fund of at least 250 million
Euros to establish a security pact for the Balkans. This fund
for Balkan countries would be tied to partnership agreements
with the European community, including on issues such as
economic assistance and trade privileges. So, this is a step in
the right direction.
Following that, we will have to go further and integrate
interested Balkan countries into the European community and
NATO. This is necessary to ensure Europe's stability, the
region's prosperity and the security of Europe's economic and
military partners.
1525
In closing, I congratulate and thank the men and women of the
armed forces, who showed us their great courage and sense of
responsibility, as well as members of NGOs, non-government
agencies, from Canada and Quebec, who made a valuable
contribution during these difficult times.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I share with all
Canadians the immense relief that the terrible conflict in Kosovo
is drawing to a close. A peace settlement has been signed.
Yugoslav forces are withdrawing.
My party wished for and worked for an earlier suspension of the
bombing, and we regret that did not happen. However today we are
immensely relieved that the NATO bombing campaign has been
suspended at long last.
Let us hope that the Yugoslav withdrawal and the
demilitarization of the KLA proceeds rapidly. During the
withdrawal and its aftermath, let all civilians in Kosovo,
Albanian and Serb, be spared further harm.
Let us hope with the entry of the peacekeeping force into Kosovo
that the creation of a common security and the rebuilding of
basic physical, economic and social infrastructure will enable
the Kosovo refugees to return safely and swiftly to their homes.
[Translation]
Let us take this opportunity to express our deep appreciation to
the members of the Canadian forces, who have served faithfully
during this conflict and who are now going to take part in the
peacekeeping force about to enter Kosovo.
These women and men have run great risks in performing their
duty and their families have made sacrifices that deserve our
heartfelt thanks.
[English]
We also pay tribute to other public servants who have worked
with the refugees in the Balkans and with the many aid workers in
non-governmental agencies who have done their best to help the
refugees faced with this terrible humanitarian disaster.
I know from visiting with refugee families in the province of
Nova Scotia the gratitude that they themselves feel for the
assistance and the support provided to them in their hour of
need.
The beginning of the Yugoslav withdrawal and today's suspension
of the bombing are only the first step in a long journey toward a
true peace settlement and true human security. The challenge of
ensuring the safe return and resettlement for all Kosovo
civilians lies ahead. The massive destruction inflicted in
Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia must be repaired. The economic
and social institutions of the entire region must be rebuilt and
revitalized. War crimes must be investigated and prosecuted
where indicated by the International Criminal Tribunal.
A temporary civilian administration must be established in
Kosovo, and beyond that a permanent political settlement
recognizing the legitimate rights and interests of all peoples of
the region must be achieved. Let us make no mistake about it.
This will be an enormous task.
Today we urge the Government of Canada to provide leadership in
this economic, social and political reconstruction process. We
urge the Government of Canada as well to play a leading role in
the essential redefining and reconstruction of our international
institutions, because above all else this conflict demonstrates
how currently incapable and ill equipped the United Nations is
today to help resolve and, where necessary, to intervene in civil
conflict taking place within the borders of a sovereign state.
NATO intervened in this humanitarian disaster in part due to
that fact. As this terrible conflict moves to the reconstruction
now necessary, let us redouble our efforts to ensure that in
future neither NATO nor any other military alliance acts outside
of the sanctions of the United Nations.
1530
Let us now set to work to reform and revitalize the United
Nations so that it is able to deal more effectively and less
catastrophically with future humanitarian crises that arise in
the world.
We have in Canada a proud history of successful international
innovation and international achievement. We have a large
internationalist community with considerable expertise, ready and
eager to contribute to the project of creating the conditions and
the instruments to secure and maintain peace in the world. We
call on the government to make use of these resources as it works
with the international community on these vital questions.
Let us as parliamentarians, in concert with others around the
world who value peace and human security, learn the lessons of
this conflict. Surely we have learned that while there are
international emergencies such as this one, where the horrors of
the humanitarian crisis require military intervention as a last
resort, such military intervention always carries with it grave
threats to the lives of innocent civilians, to the environment,
and grave risks of catastrophic escalation.
Let us make it a central task of the international
reconstruction to face up to the difficult ethical dilemmas
involved in such crises.
If Canada and others in the international community take up
these challenges and can find ways to respond more effectively to
such grotesque human rights violations, this conflict can be seen
as the beginning of an era when the international community
recognizes its responsibilities and finds effective means to
defend human rights and secure peace in our global human family.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I want to sincerely thank the Prime Minister for
taking the time today to make a statement in the House. That is
greatly appreciated. We also greatly appreciate him taking the
time to hear all of the speeches by the leaders of each party.
I would also like to congratulate the men and women of the
Canadian forces who will be called into action. While we in
parliament are about to begin our break, the men and women of
the Canadian forces assigned to the KFOR will not be getting any
break.
I should however point out a number of elements that merit
consideration and solution as well, I hope. There have been
some slip-ups in the way this House was involved right from the
start of this conflict. Parliament ought to have taken a vote
and held a real debate. Unfortunately, it did not.
That did not keep us from supporting the government's position,
but I believe the government needs to learn some lessons from
this. I hope that the situation will never be repeated, but
should another armed conflict arise, I hope that the government
will realize, as I said in the first debate when this conflict
started, that the parliamentarians here are the best tool of the
government. The best allies of the government are here in this
House. I trust that the government will bear this in mind next
time.
Nevertheless, parliament could have got involved much earlier
and gradually more as the conflict unfolded.
Canada, as a member of NATO, may have won the war, as it were,
but this is the first time Canada has been at war without a UN
mandate since the second world war.
The Korean war was fought under a clear mandate by the United
Nations. The Gulf war was fought under a United Nations
mandate. Ever since that organization was created, all
engagements by this country's peace forces since the end of the
second world war have been by UN mandate. This is the first
time Canada has ever been at war without any UN mandate.
1535
Canada's credibility since the second world war needs
rebuilding. Its credibility as a peacekeeper, as a vehicle of
conciliation, and as one of the best channels for diplomacy and
political solutions, has taken two beatings.
Canada's credibility as a peacekeeper needs to be restored, as
does the credibility of the UN, which failed to foresee the
strikes and to provide solutions.
This is not the first time there is war in the Balkans. Never
was the UN involved, until afterwards. The international
community was not involved in Slovenia or Croatia.
There was also Bosnia, where 250,000 people died before the
international community decided to get involved.
Unfortunately the history of the Balkans is riddled with serious
problems. Did we take specific action in this country to try to
find solutions ahead of time? Reports of both
governments—Conservative and Liberal—said, when the Dayton treaty
was signed, that the next problem in the Balkans would be
Kosovo. They knew it.
The Department of National Defence knew it. It had specific
reports. Canadian soldiers and observers have been in Kosovo for
a long time. They knew what was happening, but nothing was done
about it.
Montenegro is another place in the Balkans where problems may
arise.
It is clear in the agreement that was signed—we hope it was
clear—that the Serbian army cannot leave Kosovo and move into
Montenegro in order to topple the government there, which has
NATO's support. The Montenegro government requested an
international force there. It did not work.
The agreement signed excludes the presence of any international
force in Montenegro. I hope that they will make every effort to
ensure there are no more dead in the Balkans.
I hope that Canada will again assume its role as a leader in
diplomacy and peace, and not as a leader in war. I hope that
this will happen very soon.
We also salute the men and women going to Kosovo and we will
pray hard for them.
From the beginning of the conflict, and until June 3 in fact,
the official position of the Canadian government was the
disarmament of the KLA. Now, we know that what they have in
mind is nothing more than demilitarization. Heavy arms will be
taken away from Albanian KLA troops, but they will still be
armed. We know that Canadian forces will be in the Kosovo
region, where there is a very large Serb population. Canadian
troops will therefore be at great risk.
We will continue to support the government. I hope that the
government will continue to support the former mission, which I
hope will still be valid, namely keeping the peace.
Going to war is easy. The war in Kosovo marks the first
offensive war Canada has won, unlike the gulf war, which was not
an offensive operation. Canada has won a war.
Are there people celebrating in the streets? Is this the kind
of war we are looking at now? Are people completely indifferent
to what is going on?
All this bears thinking about. Let us resume our leadership of
peace, not war.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I ask the Thursday question of the government House
leader, I take this opportunity to thank all 40 pages for their
hard work in serving and helping members.
They will be retiring from here soon and we will have a new
batch of pages coming in. I wish them all well and I believe
they have had a memorable experience working with the members of
parliament in the House.
I also take this opportunity to thank the table clerks and all
staff in the House of Commons who have also worked hard. I wish
everyone, all members and you, Mr. Speaker, a happy summer.
1540
I would now like to ask the hon. government House leader the
agenda for the remainder of this week and what are the plans for
next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the House sees its way to
complete consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-55, the
magazine bill, and Bill C-49, the land claims bill, today or
tomorrow, and I say hopefully today, I will consult my fellow
House leaders about the possibility of commencing the summer
adjournment without further delay. If these bills are not
concluded then of course we will have to complete them next week.
Let me say that it is the intention of the government to follow
the sequence I have just enumerated along with the bills I will
now enumerate either this week, next week, or when the House
resumes in the fall, whichever is the case.
The intention at this time would be Bill C-54, the electronic
commerce and privacy legislation; Bill C-68, the youth justice
bill, as I indicated a little earlier today; Bill C-56, the
Manitoba claims bill; Bill C-48, the marine parks legislation;
and Bill C-63, the new citizenship act. These are important
bills for the government to take the opportunity to debate
whether that means we sit longer or in the fall.
If we adjourn this week, these items will be given a high
priority in the autumn. As hon. members are already aware, when
the House returns in the autumn the government will be asking
parliament to deal on a high priority with legislation ratifying
the Nisga'a agreement.
[Translation]
I do want to take advantage of this opportunity to thank all
hon. members, including the House leaders, the members for
Langley-Abbotsford, Roberval, Winnipeg-Transcona and
Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough for their constructive participation
in helping the House of Commons do its work effectively, with
the help, of course, of their respective whips.
I also want express my appreciation to the hon. member for
Peterborough, whose performance as my parliamentary secretary
for the last two years stands as a major contribution to the
good operation of this House.
[English]
Over the last few days members have been particularly kind in
offering me words of congratulations about an event which will
occur next week, namely the fact that I will be receiving a
degree in history from the University of Waterloo, a little
secret I hid from most of us for 11 years. I guess it is my own
personal way of countering the brain drain.
I appreciate the kind notes that were sent to me by hon.
members, by the people at the table and by others in the House
who were similarly kind in sending me notes and expressing kind
words. I do not deserve that praise. I appreciate it enormously
however.
If I can leave one message for everyone, I do not want anyone to
think this was impossible or nearly impossible. That would be
the wrong message. The right message, I believe respectfully, is
that given the time constraints and if I were able to do it
countless Canadians could also work to improve their adult
education. I invite all of them to do so for their own
satisfaction and the future of their careers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I wish to inform the
House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders
will be extended by 36 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1545
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers,
and of the amendment.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
the closing moments of the debate on Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done by
the hon. member for Dartmouth. She has been one of the few
voices in the House of Commons that has actually spoken out and
described this legislation for what it is.
The legislation is a sellout. I think it is fair to say that
today is a retreat. We are surrendering to the American forces
on this issue. I tried to think of an appropriate way for
members of parliament particularly at this time to accept a
Liberal negotiating position. What could that be?
We would simply walk around for the next little while looking
like prisoners because we have surrendered to the Americans. We
have surrendered to American pressure. If we want to demonstrate
the appropriate way to be in the House of Commons whenever we
talk about something to do with the United States, we would
strike the appropriate pose.
The appropriate way to speak on any issue dealing with the
United States would be on our knees. This is the Liberal
negotiating position. We are on our knees doing a variety of
things. At the moment I am just going to speak about this.
We have seen this surrender to the United States on a whole set
of issues. We started off a little while back with
pharmaceuticals. We caved in to the American pharmaceutical
lobby. Bill C-91 gave 20 year patent protection.
I remember Bill S-9. For some reason the Government of Canada
decided that Canadians who contributed to American charities or
to American university fundraising campaigns should get a
Canadian tax deduction. One has to admit that it is pretty crazy
when tax deductions are given to Canadians who contribute to
American universities and colleges.
I will just resume the pose to go to the softwood lumber issue.
Once again a lot of us, particularly those of us in British
Columbia, could stand this way. We would be handcuffed because
we are essentially prisoners of war to the United States. We had
a free trade deal with the United States, or so we were told.
Then it came to dealing with softwood lumber and the government
caved in again to the softwood lumber lobby. Now we have to
accept quotas on our softwood lumber.
More recently we looked at the Pacific salmon treaty. We got
down on our hands and knees again, went down to Washington and
again caved in to American pressure. We gave away our coho
stocks. At this rate we are going to wear out the knees of our
pants.
Then we got into the plutonium shipments. The Americans wanted
to ship plutonium to Canada in order to dispose of it. We agreed
and caved in again to the United States.
Next it was the willingness of the Canadian government to allow
American warships with nuclear weaponry to enter Canadian waters.
This was despite the fact that British Columbians had almost
universally passed legislation saying that British Columbia and
British Columbian territorial waters were a nuclear-free zone.
The Government of Canada said it was going to ignore that. It
was on the Americans' side, not on the British Columbians' side.
Time and time again we have seen the government cave in. The
appropriate way to deal with American related issues is on our
knees. There is no point standing up. We might as well be on
our knees, wearing out the knees of our pants, going down to
Washington and saying that this is the appropriate position for
the Canadian negotiators.
An hon. member: On bended knee.
Mr. Nelson Riis: On bended knee or worse.
The next item would be water. Once again we have seen the
government of Canada cave in to American pressure in terms of
access to fresh water.
The House passed a unanimous motion to call for an immediate
moratorium on freshwater exports. Did that happen? No. We ran
down to the United States and said “Let us set up a committee to
study ways and means of exporting water from Canada to the United
States”. This is embarrassing.
1550
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There comes a time when grandstanding and this kind of
behaviour should perhaps be ruled on. Mr. Speaker, the point of
order is—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I accept the fact
that the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier is making a very
considered point of order. As the chair occupant I gave that
some consideration. But I also thought that in light of recent
happenings with the New Democratic Party, God knows they could
spend some time on their knees.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
intervention, but consider what we are doing here today.
Consider, as we are surrendering to the United States, as we are
surrendering to the Americans, what we are actually debating in
the House of Commons. In a letter we are agreeing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me. I think
the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier was quite correct and there is
a point beyond which we need to respect the dignity of the House.
I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys to resume his normal dignified manner in the House and if
not, we will just go on to the next speaker.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, why did I get down on my
knees in this subservient position during this debate on Bill
C-55? Why did I clasp my hands behind my neck in a symbol of
submission? It is because that is what we are doing.
Time and time and time again we cave in to the American
interests. Just once we would rejoice in this House to stand up
for Canadian interests, just one time. Whether it is on the
softwood lumber deal, whether it is on the salmon deal on the
west coast, let us just one time stand up for Canadian interests
and Canadian sovereignty and stop caving in and dropping to our
knees the minute an American walks into the room.
Listen to this. This is astonishing. When the government votes
on this legislation, we are agreeing to the following definition
of Canadian content in publications: “If it is created for the
Canadian market and does not appear in any other edition or one
or more periodicals published outside of Canada”.
It means if a resident of Waco, Texas writes a story about crime
in the streets of Dallas and it is published in Maclean's
magazine, that is Canadian content. If we look at the writings
of Jesse Helms about the situation in Cuba and it is not printed
anywhere else except in a Canadian publication, that becomes
Canadian content.
To the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who in their right mind
dreamt this up? Who in their right mind could stand in this
place and say “I believe that a Texan writing about Texas is
Canadian content”. That is what we are being asked to approve
in the House this afternoon.
It is disgraceful. Anybody in our country who is interested in
Canadian culture when they watch how people vote today will find
out who really supports developing Canadian culture.
To conclude, I think I have demonstrated clearly what I think
should be the appropriate posture for every Canadian, and
particularly every parliamentarian, when we get into the
discussion of Canada-American relations. We should assume the
Liberal negotiating position, either on our knees or with our
hands in the air as a symbol of complete submission. It is
unfortunate, but unfortunately that is the case.
1555
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
is quite right. The Liberals have been absolutely atrocious in
their dealings with the Americans.
Coming from the northwest coast of British Columbia, I know all
too well how much the people in my communities who fish are going
to suffer as a result of the Pacific salmon deal. The member is
quite right. We caved in to the Americans on Pacific salmon.
The Liberals caved in. The minister wraps himself in the flag and
tries to paint himself as the conservation fisheries minister,
but in reality what we have done is sold out to the Americans.
I would like to know sometime in my life what the Canadian
government got in return somewhere else in Canada. I am sure
there is some backroom bargaining going on.
I would also like to remind the member that I come from British
Columbia which has an NDP administration. He was demonstrating
postures so I have one for him. With an NDP administration, we
in B.C. have the posture of having no money left because the NDP
unfortunately cannot run a province.
Does my colleague have any comments to make about that since he
was demonstrating the NDP's position with respect to the Liberal
negotiating positions?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, my friend almost threw me
with that question because as he was asking it he had one of his
hands in his pocket. I was wondering what that was supposed to
symbolize, but I will leave that for debate on another day.
Let us be honest about what has happened in British Columbia.
When the federal government in its wisdom decided to seriously
cut back funding for health care and education, there were very
few provinces that decided that they were not going to see actual
cutbacks in those two fields in their jurisdictions so they
backfilled. They kept their commitments to education and health
care and they backfilled so that education and health care would
not take the hits that they have in most other provinces across
the country.
That was a priority. The Government of British Columbia decided
it was crucial as we enter the 21st century in a knowledge based
economy that education remain a priority and be accessible to
British Columbians. That is another reason tuition fees have
been frozen for four years in a row, in order to keep tuition
fees low enough so that public education at the post-secondary
level is available.
Two very important things are education and health care. I would
suspect if my friend had a chance to get to his feet after this
question he would admit that he too would value that priority by
the Government of British Columbia to keep health care and
education as number one and number two priorities in terms of
funding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1600
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote is deferred
to the end of Government Orders today.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect
of the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
continue my remarks from last Friday when we first began debating
the Senate amendments.
It is now useful to remind the House of some of the history of
the legislation before us. Back in the fall of last year the
government introduced Bill C-49. At the time it was introduced
there was a great deal of discussion among the various parties to
see if we could get all party consent to speed the bill through
the House of Commons. Apparently the bill had been before the
House before and had not succeeded. Apparently many people were
lobbying various members of parliament trying to get speedy
passage of the bill.
After we reviewed it we found that there were some flaws. We
started pointing them out to the government. A lot of the credit
for identifying these flaws goes to grassroots people living on
reserves, particularly in British Columbia, and municipalities in
British Columbia that expressed some concern about the lack of a
consultation process with regard to the use of land.
Concerns were also expressed about other areas of the bill such
as expropriation. We received a great deal of mail, e-mails,
faxes and so on, from people in the Musqueam reserve who had an
experience relevant to the legislation which certainly made them
very fearful and concerned about what could happen if Bill C-49
were passed without amendment.
We began discussions with the government talking about the
amendments we were looking for. We had some indication back in
November and December that we were to get amendments but we never
got them. Consequently, in February and March when Bill C-49
came back into the House, members of the official opposition
voiced strong opposition. We made it very clear to the
government that we would not support the bill until amendments
were made. In fact, we were to mount as stiff an opposition as
we possibly could.
Various members opposite in the government benches made public
comments about Bill C-49 at that time. I would like to read into
the record some of those comments. A news story in the Vancouver
Sun of March 4, 1999, indicated:
First nations legislation faces possible changes: Amendment in
the Senate is pursued for a bill that gives land management
powers to 14 Indian bands.
B.C. Liberal MPs said Wednesday the Senate will study and
possibly amend legislation that would give bands such as the
Musqueam and the Squamish expropriation powers on reserve land.
The seven member B.C. caucus has been inundated by letters,
telephone calls and faxes expressing concern about the bill,
which is expected to easily pass third and final reading in the
House of Commons early next week before going to the Senate.
The bill, called the First Nations Land Management Act,
transfers land management powers from Ottawa to 14 Canadian
bands—including five in B.C.
The powers include the right to expropriate any interest in its
lands such as leases if the band council deems it necessary for
“community works or other first nations purposes”.
The bill has gained notoriety because it has been linked to the
$490 million Nisga'a treaty and to the Musqueam band's imposition
of 7,000% rent increases on leaseholders living on reserve land.
Some Musqueam leaseholders say the band plans to expropriate
their leases in order to build condominiums, but the band says it
has no motives other than to enforce the Federal Court of
Appeal's ruling sanctioning huge hikes.
Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart has said that bands wouldn't
be allowed under Bill C-49 to expropriate interests on Musqueam
land except for community purposes such as hospitals or sewer
projects.
The bill also provoked concern among some mayors near the
reserves who don't feel the legislation requires sufficient
consultation between bands and municipalities prior to property
development.
And native women's groups are upset because the bill doesn't
provide adequate protection for women who often lose access to
the marital home after divorce.
The controversy over the legislation has prompted government MPs
to hold out hope that the Senate could send amendments back to
the Commons, forcing the Indian affairs minister to reconsider
her legislation.
1605
Referring to a statement by the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra, the article stated:
The very many communications and comments and criticisms...from
native women's groups, both native and non-native leaseholders,
and also municipal and similar organizations, can all be studied
by the Senate committee and taken into account in offering
possible changes to the bill as it now stands.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed out that B.C. MPs
and senators met with Indian affairs minister and got her support
for the Senate committee on aboriginal affairs studying the bill.
He continued:
I welcome Parliament's taking note of community opinions in this
way, and thank the minister of Indian affairs for her
co-operation.
According to the article the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam
was asked by the minister to begin meetings with B.C. mayors and
with chiefs of the five bands. It referred to the hon. member
for Port Moody—Coquitlam and indicated as follows:
The meetings are taking place “so we can hear everybody's side
and see what are the weak points, what are the strong points,
what needs adjusting and a few other things”.
It continued:
Liberal Senator Ray Perrault said the public feels a sense of
powerlessness over issues like Bill C-49, the Musqueam matter,
and Nisga'a. The emotion expressed in the letters he has
received is as powerful as any he's seen in his long political
career in the B.C. legislature and the Senate.
“They believe they don't have sufficient input; they feel the
democratic process is subverted”, Perrault said.
Referring to a statement of the minister, the article continued:
—she will naturally have to consider any amendments that may
come back from the Senate, but she doesn't believe Bill C-49 has
flaws.
“I feel very comfortable with the bill”, she said.
I ask all members of the House, and anyone who happens to be
watching, how the minister could be so far on one side of the
issue. She is not accepting advice from Liberal senators who
have spent their entire careers in politics. She is not
accepting advice from members like the member for Vancouver
Quadra who is recognized as somewhat of a legal and
constitutional expert. She is telling her critics, including the
critics from within her own party, that there is nothing wrong
with the bill. She does not feel that it needs any changes and
is intent on seeing it passed just the way it is. Is that the
way the House of Commons should be doing business?
Another article from the Windsor Star of March 11
indicated that a local Liberal member of parliament, the member
from Essex Kent, found himself in an unusual position of voting
with Tory, independent and 42 Reform members against a
controversial government bill that gave 14 Indian bands greater
power over land management issues. Because dissent within the
Liberal ranks was frowned upon and discouraged by the Prime
Minister, the decision of the member from Essex Kent was both
unusual and gutsy.
Bill C-49 has already drawn legitimate criticism on two fronts.
First, it would pass more control of reserve lands to band
councils, allowing them to expropriate interests on their land
such as non-native leaseholders if expropriation is deemed to be
in the community's interest. The bill does not specifically
define those interests, leading to concern that land could be
used for commercial development or even casinos.
On one B.C. reserve non-natives already have been saddled with a
7,000% increase in their rent, leading to suspicion that the band
is trying to lower real estate prices so it can keep future
compensation payments down.
A second concern outlined in the article was that native women
were concerned that the bill did not guarantee women equal rights
to property when a marriage breaks down.
Bands can create their own rules and there is no requirement for
any appeal process.
1610
Some might see the member from Essex Kent as attempting to score
political points in his riding where the government and the
Caldwell first nation have negotiated a tentative agreement that
would give the band $23.5 million to establish a 4,500 acre
reserve on what is now prime farm land. However, the Caldwell
deal raised many legitimate questions about the government's
approach to land claims and the continued promotion of the
unsuccessful reserve system. I submit that Bill C-49 feeds into
that.
In opposing Bill C-49 the member from Essex Kent accused Indian
Affairs Minister Jane Stewart and her department of intentionally
trying to avoid public consultation on—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I know that the hon.
member for Skeena inadvertently used the name of the sitting
member and meant to refer to the ministry.
Mr. Mike Scott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You are
absolutely right and I will try to refrain from doing that. It
was a slip.
In opposing Bill C-49 the member from Essex Kent accused the
minister of Indian affairs and her department of intentionally
trying to avoid public consultation on land claims and
self-government matters across the country. The evidence
suggests he is right.
I have many articles from which I could read. I have another
one from the Vancouver Sun of March 3 headlined “Liberal
raps bill to boost native power: An Ontario MP says Bill C-49,
which is sure to pass its final vote next week, is excessive”.
The article indicated:
Open dissent is appearing within Liberal ranks over the federal
government's legislation to give 14 native Indian bands in
Canada, including five in B.C., greater powers over their land,
including the ability to expropriate.
Southern Ontario Liberal...who plans to vote against Bill C-49
next week, said the bill is excessive and he criticized the
government for imposing closure to limit debate in the House of
Commons this week.
He also accused the Indian affairs minister...and her department
of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on land
claim and self-government matters across Canada.
According to the article the member from Essex Kent said:
According to the article the hon. member from Essex Kent:
—was the only Liberal to join Reform MPs in voting against Bill
C-49 during report stage Monday, and intends to rise in
opposition in the House of Commons next week when the bill
returns for third and final vote.
However, concern is growing among some B.C. Liberal MPs and
senators who met Tuesday evening with the minister.
The member for Vancouver Quadra, according to the article:
The member for Vancouver Quadra said that he did not support the
bill. The article continued:
Some concerns that have been felt by B.C. MPs on the fast track
procedure are being resolved by what's emerging as an
understanding that the Senate will study and hold public hearings
and will possibly consider amendments and changes for the House.
“The details were to be worked out in a few days”.
The member for Vancouver Quadra said:
—the bill, along with the media coverage of the 7,000% rent
increase imposed on non-natives living in Musqueam Park in
Vancouver, was fuelling more public concern over broader and more
crucial native issues such as the $490 million Nisga'a treaty,
the first modern comprehensive land claim struck in B.C.
The member for Vancouver Quadra said that Bill C-49 was poorly
drafted and supported concerns expressed by the member from Essex
Kent and B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell who said that the
expropriation rights for Indian bands were excessive.
The article continued:
The bill permits bands to expropriate interest in their land,
such as leases held by residents or businesses, if council deems
it “necessary for community works or other first nation
purposes”.
“Some critics say natives and non-natives could be removed from
their land in order to build casinos and condominiums”, but the
minister “insists expropriation will only take place to build
hospitals, sewers and other services”.
According to the article the member for Vancouver Quadra and the
member from Essex Kent also cited:
1615
The member for Vancouver Quadra said that the public's concern
is correctly focused on the bill. He said that the legislation,
which had breezed through its second vote on Monday by a 170 to
35 margin, was sure to pass the third and final Commons vote,
which was expected early the next week.
I have been laying the groundwork. I have been trying to
apprise members in the House and anybody who might be watching
that not only was the Reform Party, the official opposition,
saying there were problems with the bill, but the independent
member from the Toronto area, at least two Liberal members on the
government side and Liberal senators were saying there were
serious problems with the bill and they identified those
problems.
The member for Vancouver Quadra identified those problems
publicly and said that the bill was poorly drafted. He said that
the public's concern was correctly focused. He said that the
bill needed changing. He said that he would work behind the
scenes to see that it was changed. He must have had some
opposition from the minister of Indian affairs because she was
publicly quoted in the same articles saying that she thought the
bill was fine.
Against that backdrop, the bill was sent over to the Senate for
consideration, deliberation and debate and apparently there was
some kind of a deal cooked up in the backrooms between Liberal
backbenchers and senators that this bill was to be amended by the
Senate and sent back to the House.
When we found that out we were somewhat encouraged because we
believed it meant that we were actually going to have the
concerns addressed that were brought to us by mayors and city
councillors from the Vancouver area and from aboriginal women
living on reserve, particularly the Squamish reserve. We
received a number of concerns expressed by these women.
We were starting to believe that those issues would be resolved.
I think the House may be aware that there is a young lady from
the Squamish reserve who actually had a piece published in the
National Post. Her name is Wendy Lockhart Lundberg. I
think that she is an absolutely courageous woman who has done a
great deal to move this issue into public debate, and that is the
issue of native women's rights or the lack of native women's
right.
She published an article in the National Post. It is
really important that the House understands how she feels and how
many of her fellow band members feel, native women such as Maizy
Baker. I hope these people are watching because I know this
issue is very important to them. They have expressed their
concerns over and over again to all members of the House,
particularly members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
I believe that all members of parliament from British Columbia
have received mail from these people and they have made their
point very well.
Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, a member of the Squamish Band in the
Vancouver area, in her article that was published in the
National Post earlier this spring, said that native women
feel threatened by the federal bill. She said that while media
attention focuses on the formal treaty process, federal actions
are attempting a legislative end run around treaties by offering
bands powers over land management. Native women will bear the
brunt of these legislative provisions and will be denied the
protections that could be afforded through treaties.
She continued to say that a little publicized government bill,
Bill C-49, the first nations land management act, was scheduled
for third reading in parliament the next week and poised to
become law. Bill C-49 would give legal effect to land management
agreements which have already been signed by 14 bands. These
included her band, the Squamish, as well as Vancouver's Musqueam
Band and bands across the country and would be open to other
bands in the future.
Bill C-49 grants participating bands almost unlimited powers
over the ownership, management and expropriation of band lands.
The implications of Bill C-49 for the rights and position of
native women are large and the B.C. Native Women's Society,
supported by three major native organizations, has lodged a court
case against the federal government to require that the issue of
native women's rights be properly addressed before enactment.
1620
When the marriages of native women fail, as all too many do on
account of poverty and related conditions, they and their
children typically lose the family home. There ex-spouses
typically get possession of the family home based on decisions of
the band council. Often the women have nowhere to live on the
reserve and many end up in the worst circumstances, in urban
ghettos. Unlike all other Canadian women, native women on
reserves do not have the protection of property division laws.
Bill C-49 contains two provisions which are particularly
worrisome for native women. First, it states that rules and
procedures regarding the use, occupation and possession of land
upon the breakdown of a marriage will be determined by the land
codes of each signatory band. Yet there is little assurance that
these future provisions will be any less tilted against the
interests of women and their children than the results of the
current system.
Second, Bill C-49 offers band councils draconian powers of
expropriation which must concern native women as well as other
native people living on reserves and non-natives with leasehold
interests. Specifically, a first nation may expropriate any
interest in its first nation land that, in the opinion of its
council, is necessary for community works or other first nation
purposes.
The band need give at most 30 days notice to expropriate and it
is obliged to pay fair compensation that can be disputed only
under the rules set by the band itself.
Not only may these powers be used against native women, they may
also be used against band members outside the governing elite.
For example, the Squamish nation has valuable waterfront property
in North Vancouver which is rumoured to be the subject of band
council plans for commercial redevelopment. These plans could
displace many band members living there to a reserve area up the
coast, thus making expropriation powers very useful to the band
council.
In addition, any party having a leasehold interest on reserve
has reason to fear the strong expropriation powers for bands in
Bill C-49. With the sword of quick expropriation hanging over
their heads, current leaseholders will find few parties willing
to buy their leasehold interests and their property values will
plummet. A band can then expropriate their property by offering
fair compensation at the depressed market values.
A band council's expropriation powers will be unlike those of a
municipal or senior government. The band will be able to
expropriate for any other first nation purpose, not limited to
the need to build schools, highways and the like. Many bands see
their lands as a major means for economic development so that
leaseholders can expect their land to be expropriated. Whenever
a band finds a more valuable use the band will fully control the
zoning. With this ever present threat, how many non-natives will
want to make the investments needed for development or leasehold
arrangements with bands?
Wendy Lockhart Lundberg's mother lost her native and band status
when she married a non-native many years ago. Her status was
restored following the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, but her
father's property was never returned to her. The Squamish Band
allows someone else to occupy the property and uses its diverse
powers to block her mother's efforts to regain her family home.
Under Bill C-49 her land could be permanently lost through
expropriation.
The Squamish nation has sent a council member to Ottawa to
support Bill C-49, while not informing the general band
membership of the existence of the bill. The Squamish nation has
intervened on behalf of all signatory bands on the side of the
federal government and against the B.C. Native Women's Society on
the Bill C-49 lawsuit.
Ms. Lundberg said that she believed her mother's rights and
those of many other native women would be lost forever if Bill
C-49 passed in its present state. Their chances of obtaining
legally binding provisions that restore their human and property
rights would be much better served through an openly debated
treaty process.
A registered status native and member of the Squamish Band,
Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, said that Bill C-49 was introduced into
parliament by a female minister of Indian affairs and its passage
would be enacted by Her Majesty in right of Canada.
She said that she doubted whether either of those women share
native women's concerns about their lands, homes and families.
1625
It is beyond us to understand why the minister and the
government have not bothered to listen to the pleas from these
women who are very concerned about their lack of property rights
which all other Canadian women enjoy in the event of marriage
breakdown.
I have another example that I can share with the House and that
is the example of Maizy Baker. She tells me that there are many,
many more like her.
Maizy Baker is a member of the Squamish Band. She is an elder
in the band and she has a property that she would like to be able
to pass along to her children. We all do that as Canadians.
This is a matter of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Skeena would forgive me, I need to interrupt twice before 5
o'clock, once for the adjournment proceedings. This seemed like
a good moment to interrupt because I need to make an announcement
on behalf of the Speaker before time gets too far along.
This is for members who are watching the proceedings from their
offices. The Speaker's reception, to which all members are
invited, is currently going on in the Speaker's chambers.
Again, I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there is
other business that needs to be done.
I want to focus for a minute on Maizy Baker because I think her
story is important. It is important in the context of how we see
ourselves as Canadians and how we see our fellow Canadians and
their rights.
Maizy Baker is a status member of the Squamish nation who is
living in the Vancouver area. She is an elder. She has
children. She has property that she wants to pass on to her
children. She has lived on that reserve all her life. That is
what she knows as her home. It is her family home. It is where
her children grew up.
Many of us have these same circumstances. We grow up in
families and even in our middle years and later life we identify
with the family home as the home where we grew up. It is our
place. It is no different for Maizy. Maizy has found out that
she is living in that house by permission of the band council.
She does not own it. There is no heritability. There is no
ability for her to pass that property along to her children and
their children.
I would argue strongly that is contrary to Canadian values and
everything that we believe in and stand for in this country.
Where are Maizy Baker's rights? Where are her property rights?
Where are the rights of her family? Will they find at some point
in time when Maizy has gone, and hopefully it will be a long time
before that happens, that the family home in which they grew up
is arbitrarily assigned to another band member and no longer has
any meaning or value for them as family members?
I would argue not. I would say that the biggest flaw we have in
the reserve system is related directly to land and land
management. Let us face it, land is a very, very important
instrument in delivering individual rights to Canadians and to
all people.
Maizy Baker does not have those rights. She does not have that
ability. She cannot pass her property along to her children.
The biggest flaw in the reserve system, and there are many, is
that there are no property rights.
I am not suggesting that Bill C-49 or any other legislation that
might be brought down in this House in the near future would
provide exactly the same kind of fee simple property rights that
all other Canadians enjoy, although that is what I would like to
see; I am suggesting that the bill was an opportunity to address
that issue. There could have been private property rights of
some kind assigned under that legislation.
There could have been protection of some kind because without
some kind of property right it is impossible for the whole issue
of division of the marital home to be addressed in any meaningful
way. Without a private property right, we are left with always
is an arbitrary decision by somebody else, most often the band
chief and council, as to who is going to end up with possession
of that home once the marriage dissolves.
1630
These issues were raised by Maizy Baker and Wendy Lockhart
Lundberg with the House standing committee on aboriginal affairs.
They were also raised in the Senate committee hearings that took
place a month to five weeks ago. These ladies, and many others,
travelled great distances, all the way from British Columbia in
the case of Wendy and Maizy, to tell their story and to put their
concerns forward with the senators who were studying this bill
and who were supposed to be working behind the scenes with
Liberal MPs to make amendments that would provide the kind of
protection and address the kinds of concerns that were being
raised.
The groups made very forceful presentations. I have copies of
the minutes of the Senate committee meetings, I sat in on some of
those meetings. After the Senate committee listened to all of
those presentations and after hearing the expressions of
frustration and deep concern these women were telling, at the end
of the day the committee sent the bill back to the House with a
couple of amendments.
While the amendments are a small step in improving some of the
expropriation concerns expressed by myself and others in the
House, they do not go anywhere near the issue of aboriginal
women's rights. They do not go anywhere near the issue of the
concerns of municipalities over mutual consultation when adjacent
lands are to be developed. On the issue of compensation, the
only real change is that the bands must adhere to the
Expropriation Act, which we do agree is an improvement. However,
it does not require the bands to expropriate only for the public
works or public services that may be required by the band. It
still says that it is anything that the band council may deem to
be in the band's interest.
I have the May 14 minutes of the Senate committee on aboriginal
people. When the minister appeared before the Senate committee
on Bill C-49, she said:
Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing me to be here to
speak about an extremely important piece of legislation. I have
been following your work and I recognize the attention and
diligence that you have brought to Bill C-49.
I would start by positioning the bill and its importance from my
point of view. As honourable senators are aware, the bill
ratifies and brings into effect a framework agreement that was
signed on February 12, 1996, by the 14 First Nations and the
former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Together with the signatory First Nations, Bill C-49 is a product
of over 10 years of work that sought to find a meaningful way of
restoring land management jurisdiction to the signatory First
Nations.
I would suggest that if this is the best they can do after 10
years I am absolutely nonplussed. I cannot understand how
anybody can say that this is a good bill. After 10 years, I
would have expected something much more refined, something that
would have addressed the issues and the concerns that have been
expressed.
The minister went on to say:
The framework agreement and this legislation provide the
signatory First Nations a legitimate, organized and controlled
means of taking back the authority to manage their lands and
resources at the community level and pass laws regarding how
their land is developed, conserved, protected, used and
administered.
1635
We can already see the major difference between the Squamish
Reserve, for example, or any reserve that might be covered under
this bill, and any non-aboriginal community.
I live in a non-aboriginal community. Some members of the House
live in communities, but I think most members probably live in
communities, municipalities, cities or whatever. The
municipality I live in collects property taxes from me and has
some say in what I can and cannot do with my property. I believe
that is based on consideration for my neighbours who may not want
me to put up a barn in my front yard. However, it certainly
cannot tell me where I can live, where I cannot live, who can
live in my house and so on, because I own my property not the
community. The municipality does not own that property.
An hon. member: You can raise money on your property,
too.
Mr. Mike Scott: Yes, I can pledge my property for
security if I want to raise money for a mortgage, to start a
business and for a whole variety of uses.
What the legislation before us does is it transfers the
administration of lands which, incidentally, are lands that are
legally held in the title of the crown of Canada. This is also a
big flaw and a big mistake. Why should the land title for Indian
reserves be held by the crown? That is totally inappropriate,
but that is how they are held. What the crown is simply saying
is that it is not going to administer those lands any more,
that it is going to turn them over to the local chief and
council.
We all know that in a democracy that expresses itself to be
concerned about the individual rights of people and tries to give
individuals as much freedom and opportunity as possible, we
recognize that fundamental to that is, as I said earlier,
creating a private property right. This does not do that. The
bill just simply transfers the administration of these lands from
one government jurisdiction to another, from one body of
government to another and from one bureaucracy to another.
The Reform Party is on record as supporting the notion that
decisions made with respect to most aspects of community life are
better made at the community level than they are in Ottawa or in
the legislatures in the various provinces. We believe that the
more we devolve the decision making the more likely it is that
better decisions will be made. It is very likely that as a
result of this legislation there will be better decisions made
with respect to the business of the band and the business of land
development, but, from an individual point of view, I would argue
that it is more likely that individual rights will be prejudiced
as a result of this legislation rather than enhanced.
I will now continue to quote the minister. She said:
This means that First Nations can undertake projects without
having to turn to me for their approval.
We would agree that is a good thing. She continues to say:
They will have the flexibility to move quickly when economic
opportunities arrive or when partners approach them. In that
way, they can get on with the task of creating jobs and
encouraging economic growth in their communities.
I should also like to welcome my parliamentary secretary. We
spoke about the importance of (him) being with us today, as well.
I am glad he is able to join me.
The notions and philosophy in Bill C-49 are in keeping with our
government's efforts to increase self-sufficiency in First
Nations communities. The bill is a major component of the goals
that we outlined in “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal
Action Plan”, which was the federal government's response to the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Members will recall that the government tabled a response to
RCAP of January of last year. I remember that it was during the
ice storm because I came back here for the minister's
announcement and almost had to stay here for a week before I
could get a plane to leave again.
The minister, in referring to that, was saying that these
legislative initiatives were a response to the RCAP report. I
would remind the House that there were many people present at
that announcement of the minister, including Mr. Daniels who
represents off-reserve natives, and Marilyn Buffalo who
represents Native Women's Association of Canada. They were not
particularly enamoured with the minister's announcement and made
presentations very much in opposition to what Bill C-49 is all
about.
1640
The minister goes on to say:
In previous opportunities that I have had to meet with the
Senate, we have had a lively and informed discussion on how
appropriate it is that we move to a new and modern relationship
with First Nations in Canada.
I will now turn to the issue of the land codes. Let us remember
that the bill and the framework agreement provide for the
creation of land codes that will set out the specifics of the new
land management regime for each First Nation. Community members,
not chiefs and council, will approve these land codes. A land
code will be the basic law that will govern lands and resources,
after the land provisions of the Indian Act are withdrawn from
the community. The land code will include the rules and
procedures that will apply to the use and occupancy of First
Nations land, the sharing of revenues, accountability to members,
the enactment of laws, conflict of interest, and the
establishment of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms. The
land codes are to be ratified by on- and off-reserve adult
members in each community. First Nations will establish a
specific process for ratification within the parameters of the
framework agreement.
I want members to remember that what the minister is essentially
saying is that the band members themselves are going to be the
ones to adopt these land codes and they will be the ones who
determine how land is to be managed on the reserve after Bill
C-49 is enacted.
The aboriginal women who testified in front of the standing
committee on aboriginal affairs and the senate standing committee
had some very pointed things to say about that very issue. They
are deeply concerned that this will not be the case. I want
members to recall that. I will come back to it through the
testimony of the aboriginal women who came to Ottawa and gave us
their views.
The minister goes on to say:
We only wish it were so. She goes on to say:
The First Nations win because they can include their land and
resources in decisions that shape their future. The First
Nations and their neighbouring communities also win because
increased economic development on First Nations land will mean a
healthier economy for the region. They will be able to deal
directly with the First Nation on business matters instead of
having to go through my department.
Again, we think that is a good thing. We are not opposed to
that. As a matter of fact, the Reform Party worked very hard
trying to negotiate amendments to the bill late last fall that
would have seen us supporting Bill C-49, except we could not get
the government's agreement to support those amendments.
Now, at this late stage, we find ourselves in this unfortunate
situation of not being able to support Bill C-49, and we do it on
behalf of these people who have approached us. It is not our
issue anywhere near as much as it is theirs. They are the ones
who have asked to do this.
The minister goes on to say:
I should like to turn now to three particular issues that have
been the concern of this committee and others, not the least of
which is the issue expropriation.
The issue of expropriation deals with the First Nation
expropriation powers. Members of the committee have raised the
issue of whether First Nation expropriation powers here differ
from those provided to other entities. At the outset, I would
remind you that expropriation powers already exist under the
Indian Act.
They do, but those expropriation powers are currently in the
hands of the federal government and not in the hands of the band.
The federal government is currently bound to the Expropriation
Act.
She goes on to say:
On request of First Nations, I can exercise expropriation powers
for the general welfare of First Nations under section 18(2) of
the act.
With this bill, we are seeking to replace the powers under the
Indian Act and to ensure that the signatory First Nations have
the tools they need to manage their land. The power to
expropriate of the signatory First Nations is similar to the
expropriation power afforded to federal and provincial
governments and the public and private organizations such as
municipalities, school boards, universities and hospitals.
It is important to recognize that this bill does not allow for
arbitrary expropriation.
All of the people we heard from, including band members, are
saying exactly the contrary. If members read the wording of the
bill, it is easy to see that the minister is incorrect.
I want to repeat this. She said that it is important to
recognize that this bill does not allow for arbitrary
expropriation. It says in the bill that the band can expropriate
for any purpose it deems to be in the band's interest.
1645
If the band council has a meeting one night and decides it is in
the band's interest to expropriate a piece of property to build a
community hall or to build a sewer and water project and so on,
that is fair ball. What happens if it decides it is in the
band's interest to expropriate and take a number of band members
or non-native leaseholders out of their homes because there would
be a higher return on that property if there were multi-family
residential apartments for rent? That is the kind of concern
people have been expressing.
The minister is quite wrong when she makes that statement. She
knows she is wrong. It is very clear. Words mean something.
Words are not put into agreements because they have no meaning. I
am not a lawyer but I do know from long and sometimes painful
experience that we have to take agreements at face value. We
cannot read into them things that are not there and we cannot
read out of them things that are there.
It says very clearly that the band can expropriate for any
purpose it deems to be in the band's interest. Any purpose. It
does not say it has to be a water project or a sewer project. It
does not say it has to be a road or a hydro project or anything
like that. Any purpose. By the way, no municipality or province
can expropriate under those kinds of conditions. Canadians would
never stand for it.
Expropriations do happen from time to time in Canada but they
happen when there is clearly a public good at stake and most of
the time there is fair compensation. Too many times government
drags its feet and does not want to pay fair compensation, but
for the most part there is reasonable compensation paid as a
result of an expropriation that may take place.
In this instance for the appeal process, if they do not like
what the band offers for that expropriation, it is for the band
itself. That is clearly unfair. We are not going to suggest that
bands are going to be unfair, but it is part of any reasonable
process that a disengaged, unbiased third party would arbitrate a
dispute if there was a dispute over what fair compensation should
be for an expropriated parcel. Every other Canadian would want
to be entitled to that and every other Canadian is entitled to
that. That is the reason we have arbitration processes. It is
the reason we have our courts. Courts are disengaged, unbiased
parties who are supposed to arbitrate a decision when two parties
are in dispute.
When two parties are in dispute I do not think many people would
find it very acceptable that one party would go to the other for
a resolution of that dispute. Mr. Speaker, if you and I are in
dispute over an issue of monetary compensation, I hardly think it
would be fair that I would have to go to you to have that dispute
resolved, that you would be the decision maker. That is the way
this legislation is written. I do not think that is acceptable
at all. I do not think that is the Canadian way of doing things.
I do not understand why the government is not willing to make
changes.
I apologize if I am taking time, but I want to clearly
articulate the serious flaws with this bill. I want to say it is
not appropriate for a minister of the crown to say that she has a
fiduciary obligation to aboriginal people, which she does and we
accept that, and then to be the arbiter herself of these very
serious questions. We need to have an opinion from justice.
We need to have an opinion from some other area that can give us
an unbiased, fair interpretation of what this all means without
the burden of the fiduciary obligation of the minister attached
to it. She has her job, she should do her job. But we should
also have another party. I would suggest it should be the
Minister of Justice, the justice department that provides us with
the kind of direction that we need.
1650
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. This may well be
a good opportunity for the member to catch his breath, as I have
to read the adjournment motion.
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre, Health; the hon. member for Markham, Government
Contracts; the hon. member for Skeena, Aboriginal Affairs; the
hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette, Immigration; and the hon.
member for Davenport, Kyoto.
[English]
The hon. member for Skeena has unlimited time on debate.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the
minister making her comments and observations with respect to the
expropriation powers in the bill. She said:
I understand that specific concerns have been raised about
whether these areas have been treated with sufficient clarity.
From my point of view the bill does deal with expropriation
appropriately.
Again, from the minister's point of view she said the
expropriation issue has been dealt with properly. But from her
own backbench, the member for Vancouver Quadra, the member from
Essex Kent and members of the Senate have said clearly that it
has not been dealt with. They have said very clearly that the
bill is poorly drafted. How can we accept the minister's words?
I do not think we can.
I am trying to paint a picture of a minister who seems to have a
very strong inclination to defend this legislation in its present
form rather than to seriously consider the critique that has been
levelled against it, rather than consider the changes that would
be appropriate and that have been suggested by the Reform Party
and others. She said:
Having said that, it is important that we make our intentions
clear, I would welcome your further attention to these aspects of
the bill.
She goes on to identify the second major issue with respect to
this bill, that being matrimonial property.
In terms of matrimonial property, I recognize that we have
another important issue: the management of real property upon
marital breakdown. This is a significant issue that we must
address. There is a legislative gap regarding matrimonial real
property rights upon the marital breakdown on reserve. In cases
of marital breakdown the Indian Act does not provide guidance on
the use, occupation and possession of the matrimonial home or on
the division of the interests in land on reserve.
The minister herself identifies the problem under the Indian Act
and says that there is no redress, there is no solution, there is
no way of ensuring fairness and equity at the present time under
the Indian Act. She goes on:
The courts have been asked for guidance. However, the Supreme
Court of Canada replied in Derrickson v Derrickson that reserve
lands are under federal jurisdiction and provincial laws
respecting the division of matrimonial lands do not apply.
Clearly, this is an issue that needs resolution.
This legislation is a significant step forward as it would
enable the 14 signatory first nations to resolve the matter.
I would say to that, without the land codes and without the
benefit of being able to look at them, we have no way of knowing
whether this is a step forward, a step backward or a step
sideways. We do know for sure that the minister has identified
clearly what I have just been saying, that there are no private
property rights for aboriginal women on reserve. That leads to
the problem where in the event of a marriage breakdown, there is
no ability to divide the matrimonial home or to assign the
matrimonial home under the laws and jurisdiction of provincial
guidelines which exist for all other Canadian women.
The minister went on to say:
The first nation members are required to vote on a community
process for the development of rules and procedures for
matrimonial property. This process must result in rules and
procedures to be adopted within, at a maximum, 12 months from the
date the land code takes effect. An arbitration process has been
set up in the framework agreement to ensure that this delay be
respected. The rules and procedures cannot discriminate on the
basis of gender.
Again, the minister is saying that the land code is the way to
address this issue. What we are saying and what the people who
appeared before our committee to testify are saying is that they
do not believe that is the case. They do not believe that the
requirement to develop a land code is any guarantee that we will
actually see property rights for aboriginal women, and families
for that matter, introduced in any real and meaningful way with
the enactment of Bill C-49.
1655
She went on to say:
As hon. senators can appreciate, for those first nations who
remain under the Indian Act, we have a continuing issue and
problem. For those who will be part of Bill C-49, we are taking
a bigger step.
The larger issue remains significant. The issue of matrimonial
real property upon marital breakdown affects all first nations
that remain administered under the Indian Act. We must look
beyond the first nations land management act and determine what
can be done to resolve the current vacuum in the Indian Act
concerning the division of real matrimonial property.
She is absolutely right. We keep referring to 14 first nations
bands that are going to be covered under this bill at the present
time. That is quite true. It is incumbent upon every member of
this House to realize that any band that decides it wants to be
covered under this bill simply has to elect to do so by band
council resolution and it will automatically come under the
umbrella of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.
It is not quite correct to say there are only 14 bands.
Potentially every band in Canada will be under this first nations
land management act in the future. It is very likely we will see
more and more of these bands electing to be covered under the
umbrella of this legislation in the very near future once the
bill is enacted.
The minister went on to say:
Matrimonial property is a significant issue. It needs to be
dealt with more thoroughly as do the issues facing aboriginal
women generally.
A good statement.
We need to address the concerns that have been raised by
witnesses whose testimony reached beyond Bill C-49 and we need to
assess as well the work of the Special Joint Committee on Child
Custody and Access and your special study on aboriginal
governance which I am looking forward to receiving. I
congratulate the committee on the work that you have done to
date.
The minister is clearly acknowledging that this issue is a real
and important issue and it is an issue which affects aboriginal
women and needs to be addressed. If the minister recognizes this
and says so in testifying before a Senate committee for all
Canadians to see, then why does she bring in legislation which
does not deliver? Why does she bring in legislation that does
not provide the assurances that these women are looking for? Why
does she not do that?
These are legitimate questions. We are not trying to be
spoilers. We are not trying to frustrate the process. We are
trying to ensure that the rights of these people are finally
recognized which they have not been for 130 years. We are trying
to make sure that it is done in a real way and in a way that will
make them feel secure about their future.
The minister says:
In that regard, I should like to table a letter in both French
and English that formally requests the assistance of this
committee in that particular regard. I will not read it.
However, I should like it to be considered because this is an
area that has broad application and through which the work of the
Senate would be useful.
The minister is asking the Senate to address the issue.
A third area that has been of interest to a number of people
regards the consultation with municipalities. A few
municipalities near some of the 14 first nations have raised
concerns that they have not been consulted on the framework or on
the development of land codes. There are those who say the
provisions in the bill must be more specific and that the
legislation must require that consultation will occur. I am not
sure that one can actually legislate the quality of consultation.
What is truly effective for first nations and municipalities is
to build a consultative partnership based on mutual respect and
individual autonomy. The signatory first nations and nearby
communities have the option, if they so choose, to create their
own consultative process. In fact, this is what has been
happening. For the government's part we have been keeping
municipalities informed of the process of creating a first
nations land management regime and have left it to first nations
and nearby municipalities to decide for themselves what further
discussions would be useful between them.
1700
I can tell the House with absolute certainty that what the
minister said here is incorrect. We have met with municipalities
on the lower mainland of British Columbia who say they are
appalled that the federal government would attempt to enact this
kind of legislation without consulting them. They have not been
consulted.
Once they became aware of this bill, and they became aware of it
largely through media reports that started to surface in late
December of last year and January and February of this year, they
became deeply concerned and they started contacting members of
parliament, and members of the committee in particular, asking
why they had not been consulted.
The minister is trying to lead us to believe in her testimony
that all is well with the views of municipalities. I can say
that is just not true.
Then the minister goes on to say that this bill and the
framework agreement put land management powers back in the hands
of first nations and remove the minister from the decision making
process. Again, this is a step that we would support
wholeheartedly. We do not think that it is appropriate that a
minister in Ottawa, regardless of which minister or which
political party might be in power, should be making day to day
decisions about the use of land on reserves, or anywhere else in
Canada for that matter, thousands of miles away from Ottawa.
This bill and the framework agreement pave the way for a better
understanding and a closer relationship between first nations and
neighbouring municipalities. They remove some of the previous
constraints that impeded the building of partnerships between
first nations and neighbouring communities and now various land
and resource management initiatives will be able to proceed.
The minister said that the 14 first nations who signed the
framework agreement are leaders in land administration. This
initiative was brought forward at their request. They worked
co-operatively and in partnership, not only with each other, but
with the federal government, with the affected provinces and with
third party stakeholders. Now they are waiting for parliament to
pass this bill so they can get on with the building of their
communities.
Again, we would take our hats off to these band leaders and say
“Good on you for trying to get the decision making power wrested
away from Ottawa and brought to your own communities”. Again,
the flaw is that the federal government continues to see
aboriginal people as collectivities rather than as individuals.
When that is done it undermines the individual rights that those
people would like to have. It certainly takes away the
opportunity to address issues such as the disposition of the
marital home, the ability to inherit property, the ability of
people to feel like they have their own place which they can call
theirs, that belongs to them, their family, to their children and
their children.
After 130 years why do aboriginal people not feel that they have
the security of owning their own home? Why does the federal
government continue to turn a blind eye to the property rights of
aboriginal people? This legislation makes no attempt to redress
that. It sees aboriginal people as collectivities.
Many aboriginal people see themselves as collectivities as well
from a cultural point of view, from a language point of view and
so on. That is legitimate, but they are also individuals. I can
tell the House from a lot of experience, and I know many other
members of the House have a lot of experience, that if we go to
virtually any reserve community in this land and talk to
individuals, if there are 2,000 people living in that community
we are going to get 2,000 points of view virtually on every
issue, just like there are 301 points of view in the House of
Commons on every issue that we debate.
Why does the government insist on seeing these people as
homogeneous groups who all think and act the same way and who all
want the same thing? Nothing could be further from the truth? I
say that it is insulting to see these people in that light. I
say that it is insulting not to see these people as individuals
with their own lives and desires, dreams and aspirations. They
are individuals, not collectivities.
That is the failure of this bill. It sees people as
collectivities and does nothing to address individual rights,
property rights.
1705
The minister further testified before the Senate committee,
saying that this bill deals with something much broader than land
management. It is about self-reliance. It is about economic
opportunity and accountability to members. It speaks to the new
relationship that we are building with aboriginal people, one
based on the principles of mutual respect, recognition,
responsibility and sharing.
Those are great words, but again she is saying self-reliance.
Without private property ownership they will never have
self-reliance. It cannot happen. The two are mutually
dependent. We have to have both of them together or neither one.
That is one of the main barriers that aboriginal people have to
self-reliance in Canada. There are no property rights. If they
have no property rights, how can they raise money? How can they
raise capital to start a business? If they do not have property
rights, how can they pass their property along to their children
when they pass along? If they do not have property rights, how
can they have any sense of security about where they are going to
live the rest of their lives and how they are going have personal
security?
I am sincere when I say that I am absolutely shocked that the
federal government and the minister of Indian affairs do not
understand that. I would ask her how she would like it if the
private property which she owns all of a sudden became communal
property. She would be living in her house at the pleasure of
the municipality. She would not have the ability to take a
mortgage on her property or to pass it along to her children.
How would the minister feel under those circumstances? How would
any of us feel? That is important.
The minister goes on to say:
Then Senator St. Germain states:
Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing and for covering most of
the issues which were controversial during our hearings.
I will not confuse the day but, being from the province of
British Columbia, I would be remiss if I did not bring up an
issue that has generated a lot of concern; that is the issue
concerning leaseholders and one particular band in my province.
It is not necessarily appropriate to discuss this here today
because it is a different issue, but Bill C-49 is viewed as
having a possible impact on the situation in some way, shape or
form.
As a member who represents that region, I wish to alert you that
we must find some type of resolution on behalf of our native
people and on behalf of the leaseholders and on behalf of every
person in British Columbia. Therefore, I will ask at a later
date for your assistance in resolving this unacceptable
situation.
The Senator of course is referring to the very unfortunate
Musqueam situation.
He goes on to say:
In regard to Bill C-49 and the land code, I have a technical
question. Do you have officials with you?
The minister states:
Then the senator states:
In the event of a vote on the establishment of a land code, how
would alleged voting irregularities or alleged denial of voting
rights, perhaps by off-reserve natives, be resolved? The
minister will be at arm's length from those 14 bands. What
method or tribunal would be used to resolve that dispute?
The minister answers:
Your earlier comments, Senator St. Germain, are noted. I
appreciate the significance to you of the issues raised in your
province. I continue to hope for a satisfactory resolution to
those issues.
In the process of ratification, certain steps involve a verifier
who is jointly selected between the federal government and the
First Nations. Indeed, once the process of verification has been
approved and once I have been party to signing an individual
agreement—and I must sign an individual agreement to bring a
First Nation into the process—the ratification process on the
First Nation occurs. The verifier continues to have the
responsibility to examine the ratification process and to ensure
that the appropriate electors participated. If there are
challenges to that process, the verifier will analyze the
disputes and allegations that may be brought forward and will
make a determination as to whether the process of ratification
has been followed acceptably. If it has not, then we do not have
an agreement.
1710
I want to give members the minister's comments against the
backdrop of what happened with the ratification of the Nisga'a
treaty because I think it is important that the House understand
this.
When the Nisga'a treaty was presented to the Nisga'a people for
ratification, and part of the ratification process was written
right into the agreement itself, it was the Nisga'a people who
were of voting age who were going to have the opportunity and the
right to vote in a referendum to accept or not to accept the
agreement.
This took place, I believe, in November of last year. The
Nisga'a people live not far from where I live. They are in the
riding which I represent. I was contacted by many of those
people, who expressed real concern over the voting process
because it was the Nisga'a Tribal Council that was the enumerator
of the voters. It was the Nisga'a Tribal Council that decided
whether or not people were on the voters' list. It was the
Nisga'a Tribal Council that put the voters' list together, that
put the polling stations together, that manned the polling
stations and that oversaw the vote, which took place over the
course of two days.
I ask members of the House how we would feel if we had an
election process in a province or in Canada where the sitting
federal government was the one that enumerated all the electors,
was the one that set the rules for the vote, was the one that
manned all the polling stations, was the one that scrutinized the
results and counted the ballots. Would we accept it if the Prime
Minister was the one setting up the process? That is the process
that was followed.
The minister is basically saying that there will be a verifier.
I want to tell members that in the case of the Nisga'a
ratification the federal government had one observer to cover
seven polls over a two-day period. There was one observer for
all of the polls, not one observer for each poll, which included
Vancouver, four stations in the Nass Valley, as well as Terrace
and Prince Rupert.
I am not suggesting that the Nisga'a Tribal Council did anything
underhanded; I am just saying that it was not a fair vote and a
vote that people felt confident in. One party oversaw it which
had a vested interest in the outcome of the vote. That is what
will happen under Bill C-49.
The minister is saying that there will be a verifier. What does
that mean? The government will have the same thing it had up in
the Nass Valley when the Nisga'a ratified their agreement. It
will have one person overseeing all of the polls, but it will
essentially be the band council that will put the voters' list
together, decide who can vote and who cannot, where the polling
stations will be, what time they will open and close and who will
staff them.
This is just unacceptable in a democracy. At great expense we
send people from our parliament all over the world to oversee
elections in other countries, such as South Africa and South
America, to make sure that a fair process is followed and then we
see this kind of process taking place in our own country, and our
own government thinks it is fine. It does not see anything wrong
with it. It feels that this is the right way to go about it.
I hear a lot of noise behind me—
An hon. member: The Bloc is supportive of what you are
saying.
Mr. Mike Scott: I am glad the Bloc is supportive. We
always appreciate support when we get it.
An hon. member: You are going to miss your flight, Mike.
Mr. Mike Scott: I am not concerned about my flight at the
present time.
The senator goes on to ask:
Are you comfortable enough with those amendments that we as a
committee can proceed to final ratification on them?
The minister states:
As I said in my opening comments, I fundamentally believe this is
a very good bill on all counts. In receiving testimony from the
14 First Nations, I know you feel that way as well.
She completely ignored the testimony of the Aboriginal Women's
Association of British Columbia, Maizy Baker, Wendy Lockhart
Lundberg and others. She just wanted to focus on the testimony
of chiefs and councils that appeared before the Senate committee.
The minister continues:
Having said that, there may be opportunities for us to clarify
the particular language used on expropriation.
1715
The minister was telling the senators that the only area where
she was prepared to entertain any amendments was expropriation.
There is nothing on the issue of aboriginal women's rights. There
is nothing on the issue of property rights. There is nothing on
the issue of consultation with neighbouring municipalities. The
only area where the minister was prepared to entertain any
amendments at all was on the expropriation powers.
The Senate dominated by Liberal senators is nothing but a puppet
for the government. Lo and behold we get amendments back from
the Senate. Do we have anything on aboriginal women's rights?
No. Do we have anything on consultation? No. We have a couple
of small baby steps on expropriation.
As a parliamentarian I am so frustrated with this process and
the fact that the Senate, which had an opportunity to address
these issues, would not do it. It is is essentially controlled
by the Prime Minister's Office as is everything else around here.
In reality, the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet members make
all decisions. The House of Commons is a necessary inconvenience
for them and they treat it with contempt. They know they have to
come in here. They come in here as a matter of ceremony more
than anything else. The way the Senate treated the bill is a
very clear indication of that.
If it were truly an effective elected Senate, a Senate that had
credibility and that was not a puppet of the PMO, I believe there
would have been amendments this party would have supported. The
bill would have been amended properly. It would have passed
through the House with all party consent and everybody would have
been happy.
We did not get that because the other place has no credibility.
It is only doing the handiwork of the PMO. It only dances to its
tune. The Senate committee continued:
Senator Chalifoux: Thank you, Minister...for appearing before us.
It is important to have many things clarified.
You state you are willing to develop a process to address the
issues of women, especially women living on reserve, and
including the consideration of the matrimonial property laws, et
cetera.
You have spoken to representatives of the NWAC and I understand
that you want them to participate. Do you have any funding to
assist that organization to participate? That is a big issue.
That organization does not have that kind of money. They really
need funds to participate properly. Have you addressed that
issue?
The minister said:
Senator, I thank you for your work in this particular regard. I
recognize that you have taken a keen interest and a keen
responsibility.
Matrimonial property is a huge issue for us.
Those were warm words. Is it a huge issue? There are no
changes to the bill. She continued:
I was approached first and foremost by the native women's
association in B.C. This involves not only the national
association; the British Columbia native women's association
really addressed this in the first instance. Clearly something
has to be done in the context of Bill C-49 to begin to deal with
this problem. The resolution in Bill C-49 is appropriate in my
opinion. It means that, community by community, women will be
participating in the creation of codes—
We see the minister is ducking the issue. She does not want
changes to the bill but she says that she will rely on the codes.
No one has written a code as yet. She will rely on the codes,
which no one can read, to deliver on these issues.
The people we are hearing from, Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, Maizy
Baker, the Aboriginal Women's Association of Canada and the
Aboriginal Women's Association of British Columbia are saying
there is no way they want that in the legislation. They want a
guarantee. They are asking us why they cannot have the same
rights as all other Canadian women. Why do they have to be
dependent on the good graces of a band council to come up with a
land code? Especially after I described the ratification process
on the Nisga' treaty, we can see how the results of referendums
and ratifications can be skewed.
Why do they have to rely on that process? Why could the
minister and the government not put that protection in the
legislation for them and make sure it was there now? It is a
flawed process. I suggest the reason it is not there is that the
minister and her government care more about the collectivities
than they do about individuals. They put collective rights ahead
of individual rights when it comes to aboriginal people.
I submit that has been the bane of aboriginal people from the
beginning of the country. It is time we ended that. It is time
we recognized that these are real people. They are individuals
and they deserve the same individual rights as all the rest of
us.
1720
She went on to say:
NWAC can play a broad role. I would note that their funding
comes primarily not from my department but from Canadian
Heritage.
Imagine that. Its funding comes from Heritage Canada.
Referring to the Minister of Canadian Heritage she said:
I will take the representations and relay them to my
colleague...Having said that, we do provide money to NWAC for
particular project work, not the least of which was included last
year and again this week—the symposia on the important issue of
Bill C-31. We have provided funds to NWAC so that they can begin
to have broad discussions. They have invited many chiefs and
individual members and other experts on this issue. We are
supporting them.
We can see what she was saying there. The senator asked if she
would provide funding for these women so that they could put
together a reasonable package or proposal that would address
important issues such as the issue of the matrimonial home in the
event of a marriage breakdown. The minister in effect said that
it was not her responsibility but the responsibility of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and that she would have a word with
her some time. That is exactly what the minister was saying.
Where is the concern on the part of the minister when that is how
she treats this very important question?
Then Senator Austin intervened:
Minister, you, of course, are welcomed by all members of this
committee and we thank you for your work in this important area.
He must be a Liberal senator. He continued:
I wish to begin by echoing comments of Senator St. Germain with
respect to the high level of interest that this legislation has
provoked in British Columbia.
We can see from the discussions that took place the high level
of concern expressed about British Columbia. It is not as if
this is a meaningless bill. It has been well covered in the
press in British Columbia and it has been such a subject of
debate because people are very concerned about it.
The senator went on to say:
I know you are quite familiar with what is happening in British
Columbia. The reason for the high level of interest is the
perceived link between the issue of the Musqueam leaseholders
under this bill and the Nisga'a treaty, and the link is not
always rational. People tend to link things because they appear
in a certain order, whether that is realistic or not.
This committee, in hearing its evidence, has heard a great deal
of concern with respect to two nuances of clause 28 of the bill,
relating to expropriation. As there is a good deal of concern
and because I think—and believe my colleagues agree—that it
would lessen the tensions that exist in the political system of
at least my province, I have developed, with the stakeholders,
some language that I am just having put before the members of the
committee here. The language has now been seen by both sides
and, I believe, by your officials. I should just like you to
consider that language, be aware of it, and be aware that I will
be proposing this amendment when they come to the
clause-by-clause consideration.
We can see that obviously the senator is a Liberal senator. He
quite rightly identified that the concern with Bill C-49 had been
linked to the Musqueam situation and the Nisga'a treaty. He then
pooh-poohed this by saying that people should not be concerned
because they are completely unrelated.
I suggest they are related in some fundamental ways. As I have
already identified, there was absolutely no consultation on the
part of the minister. They negotiate agreements in back rooms
that affect large numbers of people without even giving people
notice that they are doing it. That is exactly what happened
with the Nisga'a treaty. That is exactly what happened with Bill
C-49. That is exactly what happened with the Musqueam
leaseholders.
In 1965 the Musqueam leaseholders signed a lease with the
federal Government of Canada. In 1980 the minister of the day,
John Munro, assigned the government's authority in that lease
over to the band without notification, without consultation and
without an as you may please to the leaseholders who lived on
that land. Until 1993 they went under the assumption they had a
lease with the federal Government of Canada.
They found out 13 years after the fact that was not the case,
that the lease interest had been assigned over to the band.
1725
This is not to take anything away from the Musqueam Band, but
when a Canadian citizen or taxpayer signs a lease with the
Government of Canada, it is expected that the federal government
will honour the lease and treat the leaseholder fairly. Is it
treating someone fairly when a deal is made and the leaseholder
is not notified that the interest in the lease has been assigned
to somebody else? That is the common link between government
aboriginal policies in a whole range of areas.
The member from Essex Kent has it right. The minister and her
department's policy is to keep the dummies in the dark, in their
view we being the dummies. Anybody who is not in the PMO or in
the cabinet room, as far as they are concerned, do not need to
know. When legislation such as this comes into the House, we are
just a thorn in their side, somebody that they have to deal with.
As far as they are concerned, they think the Parliament of
Canada is irrelevant. They think that all government operations
should be run out of the PMO and the cabinet room. At some point
I think they would like to see the House of Commons completely
eliminated as a relevant institution altogether.
The senator went on to say:
The amendment essentially deals with subclause 28(1)...There was
a good deal of concern that the disjunctive “or” with “other
first nation purposes” was a broader power than that which was
reserved by the federal government for itself, in terms of the
items which could be made subject to expropriation. The
amendment would add the word “community”.
Is that not something? Now we have a real safeguard in the
legislation. The Liberals are patting themselves on the back and
saying “weren't we great?” They amended the expropriation
powers to recognize or reflect the concerns that were expressed.
How did they do it? They included community purposes. Other
than first nation purposes, they included first nation community
purposes.
An hon. member: A meaningless amendment.
Mr. Mike Scott: Exactly, a meaningless amendment.
The senator went on:
A number of intervenors who were concerned seemed to be
comfortable that adding that word would bring the wording within
the normal concept of expropriation.
The people to whom we have talked, the people who made
interventions to the Senate and to our committee, in no way
believe that is satisfactory or addresses the problem. He went
on to say:
The second amendment is to subclause 28(5). At lines 42 and 43,
the amendment would remove the phrase “shall take into account
the rules set out in the Expropriation Act” and would replace it
with “shall apply the rules set out in the Expropriation Act”.
We would agree that this amendment is strengthening the bill. It
is one small step. For my hon. colleagues who may not understand
what this means because they are not familiar with it—
An hon. member: You mean the Liberals do not understand
it.
Mr. Mike Scott: Exactly. This is for the benefits of the
Liberals. I know they are interested. I can see them over there
paying rapt attention to every word that comes out of my mouth.
This means that the first nation can expropriate for any
community purpose. If it wants to build a casino or put up a
multi-residential structure, it can expropriate people's
residences in the process because that could be deemed a
community purpose. This requires the first nation to abide by
the rules set out in the Expropriation Act.
On the one hand they have increased protection. On the other
hand they have not given any sense of increased protection at
all. This effectively means that the expropriation powers of the
14 bands covered under the agreement are much stronger and much
broader than expropriation powers anywhere else in Canada.
1730
The amendments that have been moved are not nearly sufficient to
level the playing field and make the expropriation powers similar
to other communities, other provinces or even the federal
government.
The minister responds and says:
There are a number of things I should like to say. First, there
has been a very direct focus on ensuring that third-party
interests are considered and managed appropriately as a result of
this bill. As honourable senators are aware, any kind of
third-party interest that exists now will continue to exist until
its expiration, even after the passage of this bill.
The other thing to note is that the 14 First Nations have gone
to considerable lengths to engage and consult third parties and
must, with final agreement of their individual agreements, ensure
that all third parties are aware of what is happening and what
the circumstances of the land codes as developed will be. The
focus on third parties is a real one.
We want to ensure that we pass good legislation.
Frankly, I find that a bit of a joke. I will continue with the
quote.
That is the priority for all of us, including First Nations who
will be among the beneficiaries. I believe it is a win-win-win
situation for all parties.
I have followed the debate and discussions you had around new
language that may add clarity while not changing the intent of
the bill. I want to reiterate that the intention of the bill as
presented is consistent with what now exists in the Indian Act
and with what will be available, and what is available, to other
expropriating bodies. However, if we can get a clearer product
and, from the point of view of the table, a better piece of
legislation by clarifying the language, we must consider it.
With regard to that issue, I just wish to say again that it is
vitally important that we get Bill C-49 completed and enacted
into law. We have communities within the 14 First Nations who are
stymied now, waiting for jobs and economic development. I am
thinking, for example, of the Scugog First Nation, who have other
lease arrangements that are in limbo because we are waiting for
this legislation.
The minister is going to the emotional appeal rather than
addressing herself to the technicalities of this bill. She, as
the minister, should understand those technicalities. She should
understand the importance and significance of them and she should
be able to speak to them. She was not prepared. She danced all
around the issue.
I have heard this minister speak many times. She is very good at
emotional appeal. She is very good at talking in generalities,
but she is not very good at talking about specifics. I believe
the reason she is not is that she fundamentally does not
understand this language herself. I believe that she is acting
at the behest of her own department and that her department is
the one that formulates the legislation. I also believe it is
the department that pushes the agenda and that the minister is
there as a mouthpiece for the department to do its bidding.
This minister has shown over and over again, whether we are
debating Bill C-49, the Nisga'a treaty or other issues, that she
does not have a fundamental understanding of what she is talking
about.
Here is another example of the minister not wanting to speak to
the specifics of this bill. She continues:
Getting this done must be a priority. I recognize that there are
issues. In that regard, making these clarifications may allow us
to move forward with a good product. I am hopeful that the table
will encourage swift passage through the Senate and state loudly
and clearly that they understand and appreciate how significantly
important it is for the 14 First Nations to get on with it and
for us to prove that, in fact, we can change the relationship and
recognize, with courtesy, respect and dignity, the capacity and
capability of First Nations to govern themselves.
There we have a clear, emotional appeal for courtesy, respect
and dignity. She is calling on us to have that, which we all
have and want to have, but that is not the point. It is not a
matter of discourtesy or disrespect or a lack of appreciation for
these 14 bands that leads us to this point. It is a concern for
the technicalities in this bill. The minister does not want to
address the issue so she dances all around it.
Senator Austin says:
We should like your assurance that the bill will be dealt with
expeditiously in the House of Commons when sent there.
The minister says:
To the extent that I have any kind of influence, believe me, it
will be made clear that this bill is a priority for me. I would
ask the senators, in their report and at third reading, to
clarify that it is an important undertaking for them as well.
1735
Senator Austin said:
Mr. Chairman, the minister tabled a letter. With the agreement
of colleagues, The letter should be appended to the report as
well as to the proceedings.
Senator Tkachuk said, “We have not seen the letter”. The
chairman said, “Well, it is being copied now”. Senator Austin
said, “We will need to come back to that”. Senator Ghitter
said “Minister, I congratulate you on this legislation”. Who
is Mr. Ghitter? Would Mr. Ghitter be a Liberal Senator?
An hon. member: He is a Tory hack, that is what he is.
Mr. Mike Scott: Oh, he is a Tory? Apparently the Tories
like this legislation as well.
Here is what Senator Ghitter had to say:
I am also very respectful of the comments you have made with
respect to Senator Austin's comments and the need for more
clarity on expropriation.
We support the amendments that Senator Austin has proposed. We
also feel that there is a lack of clarity within the
expropriation provisions.
It appears that Senator Ghitter is playing the minister's tune
as well. He is not prepared to take her on, on the aboriginal
women's issue. He is dancing to her tune. He is not prepared to
take her on, on the issue of consultation. He is having a very
nice conversation with the minister saying that they really
appreciated her being there, that they really liked her words and
that they agreed with the need for some clarity in the
legislation. He was not prepared to deal with the hard issues.
We can see that this very mutual adoration society, I suppose,
continues ad nauseam through this entire process.
For the benefit of my colleagues, because I do not want to put
them through much more of this kind of painful experience, I will
go on to talk a little bit more about the presentations that were
actually made by the presenters as opposed to the senators. I
think members might hear a slightly different tone and a slightly
different set of concerns. I can assure members that it was not a
mutual admiration society when these people were presenting.
I will start with Mrs. Marilyn Buffalo, who is president of the
Native Women's Association of Canada. She attended an evening
session of the Senate standing committee on April 27 and presented
the position of her association very clearly. She said:
I wish to thank you for providing the native women of Canada
with the opportunity to give you a presentation here this
evening. As a non-profit organization incorporated in 1974—25
years ago—the Native Women's Association of Canada is an
aggregate of native women's organizations and is an association
that is formed like a grandmother's sacred lodge. In this
grandmother's lodge, we, as aunties, mothers, sisters, brothers,
relatives, collectively recognize, respect, promote, defend and
enhance our native ancestral laws, spiritual beliefs, language
and tradition given to us by our creator.
The Native Women's Association of Canada is founded on the
collective goal of enhancing, promoting and fostering the social,
economic, cultural and political well-being of First Nations and
Metis women with First Nations and Canadian societies.
The principles or objectives of our organization, as stated in
our constitution, are as follows: to be the national voice for
native women; to address issues in a manner that reflects the
changing needs of native women in Canada; to assist and promote
common goals towards self-determination and self-sufficiency for
native peoples in our roles as mothers and leaders; to promote
equal opportunities for native women in programs and activities;
to serve as a resource among our constituency in the native
communities; to cultivate and teach the characteristics that are
the unique aspects of our cultural and historic traditions; to
assist native women's organizations, as well as community
initiatives, in the development of their local projects; to
enhance and advance issues and concerns of native women; and to
link with other native organizations with common goals.
The Native Women's Association of Canada is not opposed to Bill
C-49. We are well aware of the time, diligence and hard work
that the signatory chiefs, their supporting staff and their
lawyers have put into the realization of this legislation and we
have great appreciation and respect for this fact.
1740
This is the same thing as the Reform Party of Canada has said.
We are not opposed to the legislation. We recognize the amount
of work that has gone on here. We recognize the good aspects in
this bill.
She then goes on to say:
This bill will give the signatory band the authority to manage
its own reserve lands and resources without having to obtain
approval from the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development. We will celebrate this level of
autonomy if the membership of the First Nations concerned enjoys
and provides their informed consent.
Under the Indian Act, there are no provisions offering
protection of matrimonial property for native women in cases of
divorce from Indian men. Native women, unlike other Canadian
women, cannot obtain orders for possession or for partition and
sale of reserve land under provincial legislation, according to
the Supreme Court of Canada case Derrickson v. Derrickson.
According to the B.C. Native Women's Society, typically, a
native woman lives on her husband's reserve. This is likely due
to the fact that previously the woman was legally bound to live
on her husband's reserve. If the marriage ends, the woman and her
children have no place to live because the husband usually keeps
his house.
This was Marilyn Buffalo, president of Native Women's
Association of Canada, who was stating this. It was not some
Reform MP. Why does the woman not understand this? Often the
woman cannot return to her old reserve unless she is divorced and
she does not usually get support from her husband's reserve. This
creates a desperate situation for the woman and her children.
Ms. Buffalo continues to say:
Although the federal government has been aware of the
deficiencies in the Indian Act, it has failed to provide a
remedy. Considering the serious implications for native women,
and the failure of the federal government to take action on their
behalf, the B.C. Native Women's Association launched a court case
against Canada. In that action, the B.C. Native Women's
Association seeks two declarations: first, that the federal
government has a constitutional responsibility under section 15
of the Constitution Act to correct the inequality that exists in
the Indian Act regarding matrimonial property; and, second, that
the federal government cannot pass its fiduciary responsibility
to correct the inequality deficiency on to the First Nations.
In other words, they are saying that the federal government has
the responsibility. They cannot delegate that. That is what we
are saying of the Nisga'a, they cannot delegate. These are
constitutional obligations that belong to the federal government.
They cannot be delegated.
Ms. Buffalo goes on to say:
The federal government answered the action by applying to the
court to strike out those parts of the B.C. Native Women's
Association statement of claim that relate to the framework
agreement. On December 15, 1998, the signatory First Nations
obtained intervener status in the case. On December 22, 1998, the
judge announced that he would reserve his decision on the federal
government's application. As of this date, the judge has not
returned his decision.
We can see what has happened. The Native Women's Association
has launched a suit against the federal government and the 14
first nations that are signatory to Bill C-49, and are to be
covered under it, have applied for intervener status. They are
trying to stop these women from achieving their goals. It
appears that the minister is taking the side of the leaders in
these 14 bands rather than looking at this in a fair and unbiased
manner.
She continues to say:
The Native Women's Association of Canada certainly cannot blame
the signatory chiefs for the fact that the Indian Act ignores the
human equality and property rights of native women. It is the
federal government that must answer for this particular breach of
its fiduciary responsibility. It is the Native Women of Canada's
responsibility to bring forward the concerns of native women
regarding this bill. That is why we are here.
NWAC, as it is sometimes referred to, has already expressed very
strenuously its great concern about this legislation to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to the
Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and to the
chiefs who support this bill, including the national chief
himself. There has been no meaningful response to our efforts.
Despite NWAC's discussion with the departments of Justice and
Indian Affairs, there has been no serious commitment by the
federal government to act on this matter.
1745
This was the presentation that was made in April of this year.
No meaningful response to our efforts. On June 9 at the National
Native Women's Association annual general assembly the minister
of Indian affairs announced her commitment to act on the concerns
expressed by native women in regard to their equality and
matrimonial property rights in cases of divorce.
The minister announced that she would establish an independent
fact finding process to examine native women's rights to
matrimonial property when a marriage breaks down. It would
appear that this was meant to be just a smokescreen. As the
minister introduced Bill C-49 just two days later into the House
of Commons she was well aware of the concerns that native women
have with this legislation. Almost a year later there has been
very little action taken by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development regarding the fact finding process.
It is our great hope that this bill will not become law before
the serious and obvious gaps are filled. A provision was added
to Bill C-49 that is supposed to address the issues that concern
native women. This provision is clause 17 which states:
A first nation shall, in accordance with the framework agreement
and following the community consultation process provided for in
its land code, establish general rules and procedures in cases of
breakdown of marriage, respecting the use, occupation and
possession of first nation land and the division of interests in
first nation land;
The first nation shall, within 12 months after its land code
comes into force, incorporate the general rules and procedures
into its land code or enact a first nation law containing the
general rules and procedures.
The minister described the third provision which is:
The first nation or the minister may refer any dispute relating
to the establishment of the general rules and procedures to an
arbitrator in accordance with the framework agreement.
The minister went on to say “However, this provision does not
adequately address the concerns of native women. In its current
form the bill presents the following issues of concern. First,
there is no indication of how cases of divorce and division of
matrimonial property are to be dealt with within the 12 months
following the community ratification of the land code. As each
first nation is to predevelop its own land code, in the absence
of any clear underlying principles, native women will not have
any access to any consistent application of law concerning
protection of their property rights as all other Canadian women
have and all other native women have”.
The bill states that the first nation or the minister may refer
any dispute to an arbitrator but native women who may be victims
of inequitable practices have not been given standing in the
dispute resolution processes. Moreover, who will pay for the
native women's involvement in this process particularly when it
is clear that native women are the poorest of the poor?
Under clause 12 of Bill C-49, signatory first nations can obtain
community approval for the adoption of their land code and an
individual agreement by any process agreed upon by the first
nation and the minister with a minimum approval of 25% plus one
eligible voter. This threshold is so low that it provides no
assurance that the will of the community will be behind the new
regime.
Imagine instituting a land code with 25% plus one of the
eligible voters in support of it. Besides the lack of protection
of native women's equality and property rights, another issued
raised by Wendy Lockhart Lundberg causes great concern to native
women. This has to do with the extraordinary expropriation powers
given to the chief and council under clause 28 of the bill.
I want to remind the House this is a native woman on behalf of
the Native Women's Association of Canada appearing before a
Senate standing committee saying that the expropriation powers,
which I talked about, are far too powerful and far too broad for
the band council. They do not need that kind of expropriation
power. She is also intimating that it is not only bad for
non-native leaseholders, but it is also bad for native people and
she goes on to explain why. I will cover that in just a minute.
Wendy Lockhart Lundberg uses the example of her own mother to
illustrate her concern about these extensive powers of
expropriation. Her mother's status was reinstated in 1985.
However she has not been welcomed back to the Squamish nation
although she is a member.
As a status Indian she receives only health benefits.
1750
Ms. Lockhart Lundberg's grandfather had a certificate of
possession for two lots which he bequeathed to his daughter, Ms.
Lockhart Lundberg's mother, in his will which was properly
executed in accordance with the Indian Act. These lots are still
in his name but are occupied by other people and have not been
referred to Ms. Lockhart Lundberg's mother.
I ask is that fair? Is that what we in Canada want to see
happen? The band could easily expropriate those lots with
minimal compensation because compensation need only be fair,
whatever that means. The first nation need only take into
account the provisions of the Expropriation Act.
Ms. Lockhart Lundberg is quick to point out that the
expropriation powers can be used against all band members. She
was quoted in a House of Commons debate as saying that the
Squamish first nation chief and council is rumoured to have plans
to commercially develop valuable waterfront reserve lands in
north Vancouver. These plans could mean the displacement of band
members to reserve lands further up the coast.
Ms. Lockhart Lundberg is saying that the band could in fact
expropriate band members who are sitting on valuable waterfront
property where their homes are. They could be expropriated
further up the coast to much less desirable land so that the band
could build some kind of resort or multi-residential condominiums
and so on for lease or for rent on the basis of where it thinks
it will get the biggest revenue stream for band activities.
Another of Ms. Lockhart Lundberg's complaints is that the
Squamish first nation's chief and council did not have a
community mandate to sign the framework agreement. Clause 45 of
the act stipulates that any band may sign on to the framework
agreement on behalf of the band if it has been duly authorized to
do so. Ms. Lockhart Lundberg believes this means duly authorized
by the community following consultation and a referendum.
A likely response from the signatory chiefs would be that duly
authorized means the authorization comes with being elected by
the community and that they are not only authorized as elected
chiefs to act on behalf of the band, but they are obligated to do
so. It sounds a lot like the Prime Minister who says “I was
elected with 38% of the popular vote two and a half years ago
which means I can do virtually anything I want for the next five
years”.
We would have to say that some of the band leaders who think
this way have come by it honestly because they have had a lot of
contact with prime ministers and governments who think precisely
that way. That is one of the reasons we have a real problem with
accountability. If there is a problem with accountability on
reserves today, and there certainly is on many reserves, there is
a real problem with accountability as we have seen in the last
few weeks in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister is not
willing to be accountable for his actions. These bands come by it
honestly.
In an effort to create awareness in the community, Ms. Lockhart
Lundberg has a core of about 10 women who have started a petition
in opposition to Bill C-49. The petition and the signatures were
sent to Ted White, Reform Party member of parliament for North
Vancouver. As of April 6, some 262 signatures have been
received.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I need to admonish
the hon. member for Skeena not to use the surnames of any members
presently sitting.
Mr. Mike Scott: My deepest and humblest apologies, Mr.
Speaker. I know that you admonished me once before. It was an
error, I can assure you. I will try not to do it again.
The national Native Women's Association of Canada supports Ms.
Lockhart Lundberg in her outstanding efforts. In keeping with
the commitment of the Native Women's Association of Canada to
advance issues and concerns of native women and in a spirit of
co-operation and compromise, the association submits the
following proposals to amend Bill C-49.
Here we have people who are testifying before the Senate
committee, because the Senate has not been able to come up with
any worthwhile proposals for amendments, making their own
suggestions for amendments. They are hopeful the Senate is going
to adopt them.
The first proposal is that into clause 6(3) there should be
inserted a provision related to the division of matrimonial
property which meets minimum recognized standards to serve until
affected first nations implement a land code that includes
division of matrimonial property on divorce provisions.
1755
The second proposal concerns clause 12. It is that an approval
rate of a minimum of 51% of eligible voters for land codes and
individual agreements should be required.
The third proposal regards clause 17, incorporated by reference
into clauses 21(2) and 22(2), to add a minimum standard to
guarantee that native women's rights to matrimonial property in
divorce are no less than the rights of other women and to ensure
consistency, equality and natural justice.
What could be more fundamental in a democracy than equality,
consistency and natural justice? What member in the House would
dare stand up and speak against those principles? What member in
this House would dare suggest that these women are not entitled
to these?
An hon. member: Sit down and give me a chance.
Mr. Mike Scott: Why are the members who are making all
the noise over there opposed to amending the bill to reflect
those qualities, to give these women what they are looking for?
The fourth proposal regards clause 20, to add a provision
specifying that the lawmaking powers would include the use,
occupation and possession of the first nation land and a division
of the interest in the first nation land in case of a marital
breakdown.
The fifth proposal is to add a provision specifying what happens
regarding matrimonial property when a first nation law passed
pursuant to Bill C-49 is inconsistent with provincial laws of
general application.
That is interesting. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are very
familiar with the Nisga'a treaty. You have probably read it
several times by now. In the Nisga'a treaty when it comes to
land management, this is the direction the federal government is
going in.
In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a Nisga'a
law and any federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law will
prevail. That is the direction the minister and the government
are going in, not in the direction the aboriginal women's
association of Canada is asking for. I use the Nisga'a as an
example because I think it does point to the underlying
philosophy and attitude of the Government of Canada under the
Liberal administration.
The seventh proposal recommends that clause 28 be amended to
limit the powers of the expropriation provisions by adding a
requirement for a community approval process calling for no less
than a 51% approval rate of eligible voters. Add a provision
requiring that an appeal process be available to first nation
members. Add a requirement for all proposed expropriation orders
and a subsequent community consultation process to be verified by
an independent verifier jointly appointed by the first nation and
the department of Indian affairs, and amend clause 28(5) to
ensure that first nations must apply the rules for determining
fair and full compensation as set out in the Expropriation Act.
This is the one area where the Senate made some concessions. It
has put the band under the Expropriation Act. It has not gone to
the extent of saying that the powers of the expropriation be
limited by requiring a 51% approval rate in the community. It
has not required that an appeal process be available to first
nation members, but it has required by the amendments that we
have before us, and we do agree that these amendments are a small
step in the right direction, that the Expropriation Act
provisions apply.
The eighth proposal regards clause 45. It recommends that
“duly authorized” be defined as meaning supported by at least
51% of the community as indicated in the community referendum.
She went on to say that it would appear that the two greatest
weaknesses of Bill C-49 are its lack of provisions protecting
native women's aboriginal equality and property rights, and the
extraordinary powers of expropriation accorded to signatory first
nations.
NWAC is concerned mainly with the provisions and issues
affecting native women and consideration for making the
legislation more acceptable to them.
In her opinion the amendments presented are reasonable. Some of
the chiefs of the signatory first nations have sent letters to
NWAC members giving them assurances that the concerns of native
women can and will be adequately addressed in the individual land
codes.
It is my strong belief that if it is the chiefs' intention to
adequately address the concerns of native women anyway, then the
chiefs should have no objection to the proposed amendments.
1800
That seems to be pretty simple to me: do not wait for the land
quotes, put it in legislation. If the chiefs are being upfront
and genuine in saying that they want to see the issue addressed
as well, then it should be in everybody's interest to incorporate
it into the legislation and our concerns on this side of the
House would be largely alleviated.
She went on to say that she wanted it clearly understood that
NWAC does not imply that the signatory chiefs have any intention
of perpetrating discrimination against native women in their
communities. This submission is merely intended to point out
potential problems with this legislation. The fact is that any
and all first nations will be able to sign the framework
agreement, perhaps with the sole intention of abusing the
substantial power contained within the legislation.
We can see that Marilyn Buffalo was saying the same thing that I
have said. We are not accusing the chiefs of trying to make a
power grab so that they can take advantage of people; we are
saying that words mean what they mean. The reason we have laws,
the reason we have constitutions, the reason we have these
protections called the charter of rights and freedoms is not
because we necessarily expect that somebody will take them away
from us, but we want to guarantee that nobody ever can. We want
to make sure that we are protected. These women are fighting for
that same assurance. They want to make sure that their rights
are protected in the legislation.
She continued by saying that members of the aboriginal community
had asked not only at this committee but at previous committees
whether or not NWAC had a mandate to address this issue. The
fact that they have been around for 25 years is an indication
that there needs to be a voice, an independent voice, one that
is not dominated by males and male dominated organizations. That
is the reason this organization was founded, not by them, but by
their aunts and their grandmothers.
For the purposes of the record, as she said before, NWAC is only
one of the five national organizations that own real estate in
Ottawa. They are completely mortgage free and they do not spend
money unless they have it. They do all the work on a pro bono
basis.
They are contributing their time. It is not like some of the
other organizations that there are around here, in a wide variety
of areas, where people are being paid big salaries. These people
are doing it out of a sense of commitment, not for the sake of a
paycheque.
She said that they have many friends and are prepared to go to
the full extent of the law to be involved and to assist in any
way they can. She also said that the backgrounder that was
developed and sent to every member of parliament and senator was
done in-house by volunteers.
Senator St. Germain then went on to thank Miss Buffalo for her
presentation. He said that he had a question which zeroed in on
one particular incident in regard to Ms. Lockhart and the
Squamish Band. He asked if there were any other incidents in
other parts of the country. He indicated that perhaps she would
not not want to explain why they zeroed in on this particular
case. However, he said that they were dealing with huge numbers
of these situations and he wanted to know if they were isolated.
Miss Buffalo said that her answer was twofold. First, neither
NWAC nor any other women's group was informed as to what was
going on here in Ottawa. Many of their women did not know about
this legislation.
Senator St. Germain said “That happens to many of us”.
Miss Buffalo said that should not be an excuse. That is not
acceptable. Because they are poor they do not read the Globe
and Mail. It does not hit their reserve. Nor does the
National Post. By the time they receive information it is
by luck or through the native newspapers and many of them do not
cover this issue. By the time native women read this it is ready
to become law. That is the unfortunate reality. She said that
this was also not being debated in open public forums.
Senator St. Germain asked: “How are you funded? Are you
funded by the government?”
1805
She responded by saying that they receive funds of $300,000 a
year from Heritage Canada. That is their core funding from the
national office, which they run through.
The senator asked if there were several incidents which she
could enumerate. She said that there were, which is why at one
point they were excited about the task force that was going
across Canada, the proposed fact finder. They were excited by
the announcement that the minister made at their annual meeting.
Unfortunately, she had made an—
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It being
6.06 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to
concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-55.
Call in the members.
1845
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 47
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Milliken
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 180
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Barnes
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Debien
| Gagnon
| Goodale
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Mahoney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Normand
| Proud
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1855
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Wappel
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Marceau
| Mark
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 99
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Barnes
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Debien
| Gagnon
| Goodale
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Mahoney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Normand
| Proud
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. government
House leader.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
NOTICE OF CLOSURE MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that when
the House next considers the motion for consideration of the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-49, an act providing for
the ratification and bringing into effect of the framework
agreement on first nations land management, a minister of the
crown shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that
the debate be not further adjourned.
The Speaker: It being 6.56 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1900
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved that
Bill C-502, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment), be now read a second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, which
I introduced in the House in order to raise an issue that has
been around too long and is harmful to the growth of an
essential sector of Canadian and Quebec industry, namely auto
mechanics.
I introduce this bill on behalf of all the women and men who
work as auto mechanics and have been calling for this bill for
some years now.
Mr. Speaker, you are a democratically elected member of
parliament, as I and every one of the 301 members of this House
are. We all know that when we are campaigning and visit various
car dealerships and garages, the mechanics frequently raise the
issue of having a tax deduction for the cost of
purchasing tools.
I am calling for the co-operation of the House for I believe
that there is nothing partisan about this legislation in the
least. The bill is presented with no malice and no ulterior
motive, and I trust that my colleagues of all parties will
subscribe to it.
I take care to point out that it concerns mechanics and not the
broader issue of the automobile, because I would need a number
of hours more in order to explain the negative effects Quebec
has felt since the implementation of the auto pact.
In this regard, I will simply say that since its
implementation a number of years ago, this trade agreement with
United States has benefited Ontario only. Given that 97% of
automobile assembly takes place in Ontario, clearly the auto
pact benefited Ontario. It explains in large measure the
difference in the rates of unemployment between Quebec and
Ontario.
We are not talking here about automobile mechanics in the true
and literal sense of the word. Instead, we are talking about men
and women who, day in day out, slog under automobile hoods in
often difficult working conditions.
There is winter when they have to work under cars with salt,
snow or slop literally running down their faces. These men and
women slog, their hands covered in grease, in an effort to
repair what many people—often the poor—consider one of their most
valuable possessions. For many people, their only possession—when
it is not borrowed from the bank—is a car. These men and women
must be encouraged, and this is the intent of this bill.
I say cars represent one of the most valuable possessions
because of the major financial investment that their purchase or
lease represents for Canadian and Quebec households.
We want to be able to make use of this investment, which we pay
back at the end of each month to the bank, for a long time.
This is why everyone wants cars to be well maintained and the
necessary repairs made, hence the absolute necessity of being
able to count on trained, competent and motivated mechanics to
work on their cars and trucks.
1905
As things now stand, it is difficult for these mechanics to be
able to work under ideal conditions because of the high cost of
buying the tools they need.
Since my time is running out, I will conclude by saying that I
am counting on all members of the House to support this bill.
These men and women are asking the government to allow them to
deduct from their income the cost of buying their tool set,
which can run from $5,000 to $40,000.
Ultimately, what we want is for all of society to benefit.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I recognize the hon.
government House leader on debate.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that the
completion of Bill C-49 is an urgent matter because it has been
delayed some five months longer than hoped by dozens of groups of
Canadians, both natives and others, who must await its passage
before completing long overdue arrangements.
Therefore, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 53, that in
relation to Bill C-49—
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are debating now a private member's bill on mechanics'
tools. I just cannot understand the relevance of the House
leader for the governing party talking about Bill C-49 during
this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I appreciate the
intervention of the hon. member for Lakeland. The government
House leader rose on debate, was recognized and was making his
point.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I have
just said, I want to say that in relation to the said bill, Bill
C-49, the requirement for notice of motion—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Order.
Mr. Mark Muise: Order.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing
Order 53:
That, in relation to Bill C-49, the House continue to sit until
the adjournment is proposed by a Minister of the Crown; and
That, in relation to the said bill, the requirement for notice
of a motion pursuant to the standing order be suspended.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is a debate on mechanics' tools. This individual is totally
out of order. He cannot do this by the standing orders.
He is trying to sneak in a statement here which he cannot do any
other way. It is just downright dirty and I ask you to rule, Mr.
Speaker, that what he is trying to do is out of order. Let us
get on with the debate on Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Perhaps we can lower
the temperature here a bit if we read the relevant standing
order. It is Standing Order 53(1). If members will give me a
second, I will consult with the Clerk to make sure that what we
are doing here is absolutely kosher.
The relevant standing order is found at page 30 of the standing
orders dated February 1, 1999. Standing Order 53(1) states:
In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of
an urgent nature, a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when
the Speaker is in the Chair—
1910
And the Speaker is any of the chair occupants:
It goes on, but the government House leader is entirely within
the purview of the standing orders of the House of Commons.
A motion has been proposed on a matter of urgent nature by the
government House leader pursuant to Standing Order 53(1). If we
go further into the standing orders, and if members would bear
with me I would appreciate it because this is the first time this
has happened to me as well, the Speaker has the option to provide
for up to one hour of debate.
The time provided to debate the motion will be up to one hour.
It is the purview of the Speaker to determine how it will be
done. It would seem to be appropriate that it would be done by
party at 10 minutes each.
Unless someone else can give me a reason that we do it some
other way that would be better, that is what we will do.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order.
This is not according to the rules of the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ken Epp: I do not know Beauchesne's totally by heart.
An hon. member: The Speaker ruled.
Mr. Ken Epp: I am not talking about the ruling. I am
talking about Beauchesne's, which I have not yet completely
memorized, but I know that there is a citation in it which says
that a member may not rise on debate as a guise for making a
motion. He cannot do that. It is against the rules.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The standing order
very clearly states that “a Minister of the Crown may, at any
time when the Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion”.
The member was recognized on debate and moved it on debate. It
is before the House. We will now have one hour of debate. On
debate the hon. member for Elk Island for 10 minutes.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion has
nothing to say. That is why he is not getting up to debate the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It has been pointed
out to me that the mover of the motion should be the first
speaker on debate. The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need the
full 10 minutes to say what most of us in the House think at this
point.
Most members in the House would concur right now that having
delayed a bill for months and months and months, a bill dealing
with Canada's—
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member who is speaking, the House leader of the
governing party, rose on debate. He made his motion—
1915
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, this is not a
point of order.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member rose on debate. Once he said his piece, he
moved his motion, which is fine—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government House
leader moved the motion. The Speaker then had to read the motion
into the record, present it to the House. From that point on
debate on the motion started. There had been no debate on that
motion until it was read to the House.
The hon. government House leader on debate.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I do not
think I need much time to convey what most members think about
this issue and about what has been occurring.
Let us stick mainly to the issue. The issue is that the
aboriginal community and indeed several other Canadians involved
with the issue of land claims have been urging us for months and
months and months to pass Bill C-49, which we did. The Senate
considered it and made an amendment which most of us concur in.
Many of us have had members of Canada's first nations communities
urge us to pass this legislation.
The conclusion to all of that is that we need this bill
urgently. I do believe that most of us think in our hearts that
we have already said that is precisely what we would do and that
is precisely what I am urging the House to do now.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Standing Order 53(2) very clearly states:
After the Minister has stated reasons for the urgency of such a
motion, the Speaker shall propose the question to the House.
The minister never stated the purpose of this motion and the
urgency of it. Therefore the motion is out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When the hon. member
for Elk Island stood the first time, as I recall and we can check
the blues, the hon. government House leader made the point of why
it was an urgent matter and then went into it. We can check
blues. I know the hon. member for Elk Island is a student of
House procedure. We recognize that.
It is the opinion of the clerk that this is being done strictly
according to the standing orders of the House of Commons.
Therefore the Chair accepts it and recognizes the member for Elk
Island on debate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, often in
this House when we speak we say we are so pleased to stand here.
I often think of it still. This is a place of honour. I am
called the hon. member for Elk Island, as all members here are
called honourable. I wish that I could on this occasion also
stand to say that I am really happy to speak to this motion. I
am not.
The motion the government House leader has brought forward is
that we should suspend Private Member's Business. That is the
motion, that we should now talk about Bill C-49, for which the
time for debate ended earlier today.
I think it is unconscionable. For years and years and years the
government front bench, whether it is the Conservatives or the
Liberals, has controlled Private Members' Business. Here we are
into Private Members' Business speaking about a very important
bill, that of double taxation for mechanics who have to buy tools
in order to make their living. This motion is now pre-empting
that very important bill.
Bill C-502 is important to Canadians. The bill has been brought
forward by a private member, a bill that should properly be dealt
with in Private Members' Business. The government over there
says “Private Members' Business nothing. Democracy, who cares
about it?” All the Liberals are about is getting their own way
and pushing their way around like schoolyard bullies. That is
not acceptable. It is wrong.
1920
There are a couple of ways of getting Bill C-49 passed. The
government ran twice on its red book platform of making
government more accountable, making government more democratic,
doing things that are right according to the rules of the House
and everything. This is the same government which is now
invoking closure on a bill which is incomplete. That is why we
are opposing it.
We are not pulling a shenanigan today. We are simply exercising
a parliamentary process. We are exercising a duty in order to
ensure that the flaws in Bill C-49 are corrected. The government
wants to invoke closure and just ram it through because the
Liberals want to go on their golfing vacations. They want to go
away. They do not want to be here.
We are in deep trouble if members of parliament replace the
urgency and the need for running the government on behalf of the
people of Canada with the urgency to get out of Ottawa. I am
willing to stay here until the end of September if I have to in
order to correct the flaws in the bill. It is shameful that the
government just snubs its nose at the democratic process, at
debate, invokes closure and brings in these bills.
This is not a new thing. It happens every June. It happens
every December. The government waits until then for the things
it knows are not popular and not right and it hopes that the
opposition will tire. The Liberals hope that we will not care
enough and that we too will want to join them on the golf course.
Well, we do not. We are here to represent the people.
This is not the time to debate Bill C-49. There are some very
important flaws in that bill which must be corrected. It is our
job as the official opposition, indeed it is our job as members
of parliament and it should have been the job of the senators, to
fix the errors in that bill which make it unacceptable.
The bill is unacceptable to women. Aboriginal women are being
cut off from the rights that every other Canadian has. They are
being cut off by the bill.
We proposed an amendment to it. Of course the government.
invoked closure. It invoked its “Let us get our MPs to stand
and vote when we pull their strings”. The Liberal members got
up and passed it without the amendment. As a result, aboriginal
women will not have the rights that are rightfully theirs because
of the lack of the amendment.
I can think of other things, such as the right to confiscate
land, to foreclose on land and all sorts of different things. We
are dealing with people whose right of lease is being transferred
and they have no rights.
It is incredible that the government is not willing to go
through the democratic process. As I said, there is a very
simple way to get this bill passed and that is to correct its
several little flaws. That is all we are asking.
Often when we use words they have a tendency to reflect on
ourselves so I want to be very careful when I use the word, but
an element of arrogance is involved in a person who says “I have
it absolutely right and you do not know a thing”. That is what
they are saying over there. The Liberals are saying that the
members of the opposition do not know that there are some flaws
in this bill.
As we heard today, the hon. member for Skeena has had many
representations from people in the native community, from women
and others. He has had representations from people who live on
lands adjoining the native reserves. Those people have brought
forward some very important concerns which ought to be corrected.
What is the point of ramming this bill through and getting it
wrong?
One of my former bosses had a little placard on the bulletin
board in his office which read “If you don't have time to do it
right, when will you find time to do it again?”
It is fine when we are working in an office somewhere to say that
we have to take the time to do it right, otherwise we will have
to find more time to do it again. When we are dealing with issues
like this, doing it again is not a tenable option. Once a bill
is passed into law, it is usually very difficult to backtrack and
to correct the errors and flaws in it.
1925
All we are asking is that the government simply do what it
promised to do and which it is failing to do. Exercise a true,
democratic process here and not the bullying tactics. Do not
play the schoolyard bullies by saying “It is our way or no way.
We are bigger than you. We have 156 members and you do not have
that many so we are just going to march forward and you poor
guys, you are worthless, you are useless”. That is what the
government is saying and it is absolutely untenable.
I am here to represent the people of Elk Island but I am also
here to represent Canadians from coast to coast. I am here to
make decisions that are good for Canada in the long run, not just
for tomorrow. I am here for more than just making sure that
members of parliament can start their vacation two and a half
weeks before it was scheduled to start because the lazy bums over
there do not want to do their work. That is not acceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am giving the hon.
member for Elk Island the two minute warning. Since I am giving
him the two minute warning, I am also going to give him another
warning. We are not going to refer to each other as lazy bums.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, did I use those words? My
apologies. I must have gotten carried away. That type of
language is not usually even in my thinking. I am genuinely
sorry.
All of us must do our job. We must never permit our eagerness
to get out of here to supersede the urgency and importance of
doing our job and doing it right. I am embarrassed to be part of
a parliament that is so eager to get out of this place and go
back to the ridings, as important as that is. Do those members
have holidays planned? What do they have planned? I do not
know.
I do not have anything planned. My plans are to come back here
on Sunday night and to be here Monday to Friday. I am going to
be here in any event because I have it booked. I have work to do
here. I am here to represent the people.
It is absolutely shameful that the members over there are so
eager to get out of here that they will not work on a bill for a
little longer and perhaps accept some amendments from the
opposition that will fix the flaws. Then at the end of the day
we could stand up proudly before our children and our
grandchildren, before Canadians from coast to coast and say that
we did a good job when we were in Ottawa.
Instead the Liberals are going to be hanging their heads in
shame and saying “We should not have done that. We should have
listened to other heads, but instead ours were totally clouded.
They were on the other side and we assumed that they did not know
what they were talking about”.
Those Liberals over there have a lot of wisdom, but there is
also some wisdom on this side. If we worked together we would
get much better legislation on behalf of the Canadian people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
Some hon. members: Debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The ruling was 10
minutes per party.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. According to Standing Order 53(3)(c) it is not 10 minutes
per party, it is 10 minutes per member. I see more members who
want to speak. I believe they should be given a chance to speak
pursuant to the standing order.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I respectfully submit that you have ruled on this matter, and I
suggest that you put the question to the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is no question
that when I explained how this was going to work I said we have a
maximum of one hour of debate. That means if we split it we are
going to have 10 minutes per party.
If the other parties do not choose to use their time, that is
their business. It is 10 minutes per party. That is it. I am
putting the question now.
1930
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, according to Standing
Order 53(1)(c), which was quoted by the government House leader,
no member may speak more than once, nor longer than 10 minutes.
It is not per party, Mr. Speaker. It is written here very clearly
that no member may speak more than once, nor longer than 10
minutes.
One member has spoken for 10 minutes. Now it is time for the
next member to utilize the time allocated by the standing orders,
which is 10 minutes. I would ask that you kindly look at the
standing orders and have the House work accordingly.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This has certainly
been an educational evening for many of us, because most of us
have never gone through anything like this before.
Under this standing order the Speaker is vested with the
discretion. The discretion the Speaker is vested with is the
form of the debate. At the start of the debate I, as the
Speaker, said “This is the way we are going to conduct this
debate. It will be 10 minutes per party”. That is what I said.
That is the way it is going to be.
I will put the question now. I will not recognize any points of
order on the same subject.
The question is on the motion. Will those members who object to
the motion please rise in their place?
And 10 or more members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is deemed
to have been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will now
resume consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on
today's order paper.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, for my information, I wonder
if you could advise me where we are in Private Members' Business.
How many minutes are left in the debate, please?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 53 minutes
left in debate on Private Members' Business.
After Private Members' Business the House will go to the
Adjournment Proceedings. After the Adjournment Proceedings the
House will adjourn, as it would ordinarily have done.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-502,
an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of expenses
incurred by a mechanic for tools required in employment), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I must
say that I am actually embarrassed to be a member of the House
today because of what has just happened. It is completely
unacceptable for the government House leader and those opposite
to pull these kinds of shenanigans and interrupt Private Members'
Business, which is important business.
This bill would allow a tax deduction for mechanics' tools for
the 90,000 mechanics across this country who want to be treated
fairly under our tax laws. When this issue was debated last year
it was under my bill, Bill C-366. The bill which we are debating
tonight is exactly the same bill, except that one number has
changed, the value of the tools. When it was debated, every
party in the House, except the governing party, supported that
bill.
1935
I even received letters and confirmation from many members of
the governing party who supported the bill. Tonight, what do we
have? We have the government House leader trying to interrupt a
debate on this important bill so the government can bring forward
a bill which it has had months and months to deal with.
Actually, it is years. I apologize for my underestimation.
Why now is it so willing, without thought it seems, to interrupt
this important private member's bill? I do not know, but it is
wrong and I am embarrassed to be in the same House as these
members who would try to pull that stunt. It is shocking and
completely unacceptable.
Bill C-502, as I have said, is identical to Bill C-366 which was
debated last year. This bill is asking for a tax deduction for
mechanics' tools where it is a requirement of employment that
they purchase their own tools.
Currently, mechanics, who are generally low wage earners, most
of whom earn $20,000 to $25,000, and there are 90,000 of them
across the country, are forced to pay thousands of dollars for
tools with after tax dollars. It is double taxation.
When people in small businesses buy tools, for example farmers,
they are allowed to deduct the full purchase price of any tools
under $200. The value of tools over $200 can be written off and
claimed under the capital cost allowance. They can write them
off very quickly.
This bill would put mechanics on the same footing as small
business people, musicians and several other groups which can
claim and deduct, for the purposes of taxation, the cost of their
tools. There are several groups who are already allowed to do
that.
Why is the government speaking out against this piece of
legislation? It is really hard to understand. It seems that
whenever the Liberal Party or the finance minister talk about tax
fairness it really means one thing. The government is very
willing to look at tax fairness and implement what it calls tax
fairness when it means more tax. However, in this case, if this
bill were to pass, it would mean that less taxes would be taken
out of the pockets of mechanics.
The House leader was willing to throw all of that aside, to
interrupt the debate and to kill the debate. We will not get
another chance to debate this bill before the House breaks for
the summer. He was willing to just throw these 90,000 mechanics
aside and say to heck with them, they are not important. It does
not matter to the government if mechanics have to spend $15,000
on tools, out of their own pockets, when they cannot write off
the expense. It does not seem to matter at all.
It matters to the other parties. The other parties have come
out as being clearly in favour of this bill. They did when it
was my bill, Bill C-366, and they have tonight. The finance
committee, on at least two occasions since 1993, has clearly been
in favour of this change, which would make the tax system far
more fair. It would allow a deduction for mechanics who purchase
tools when it is a requirement of employment that they own their
own tools.
This issue came before the House last year. It came in the form
of a very broad motion once or twice before. It is time we dealt
with this because it is important to those 90,000 mechanics, and
it is important to me. I believe that everyone should be treated
fairly. Clearly, fairness in this case means that mechanics and
others in similar situations should be allowed to claim this
deduction.
It will amount to something like $60 million a year which the
the government will not be able to grab from these people. That
is why it is not supporting it, because it will lose $60 million
a year in tax revenue. We know that it just cannot get enough.
There have been dozens and dozens of tax increases since the
government came to power in 1993. We know very well that it has
increased the tax take by over $30 billion a year since 1993. It
is completely unacceptable that it would try to throw this all
aside and snub mechanics once again as it has done several times
in the House and as it has done twice in the last year.
1940
When I brought this bill forward the last time, I received 7,000
letters from mechanics across Canada in two months. Copies were
sent to the finance minister. He knows that these letters have
been received.
What kind of sincerity does the government show in debating this
bill? Under access to information I received a copy of the
speech that the parliamentary secretary gave when he spoke to my
bill. That access to information request showed that he did not
even write the speech. He did not even show the courtesy to
mechanics to write his speech. The access to information request
showed that a departmental official from inside the finance
department wrote his speech, and he delivered the speech. He
delivered it just like a good little boy should. That is the
lack of respect that the parliamentary secretary has for those
mechanics, who are only asking for what is fair. Government
members do not even have the courtesy to write their own
speeches. They get departmental officials to do that. It is
disgusting.
It is time this bill passed. I am going to support this bill.
We are going to support this bill. The Bloc is going to support
this bill. I believe the Conservatives will. They did the last
time. The NDP will support it. NDP members have received
letters. There should be a lot of Liberal MPs who support this
bill as well. If they do not, I can guarantee that they are
going to get letters from their constituents. They will have to
explain to their constituents that they would not even support
this issue, which is a clear issue of tax fairness. That is all
it is.
I recently came back from Prince Edward Island. I was amazed by
the number of times I heard those people say that this House is
no longer a democratic institution. They have seen their members
vote on issues which they know they do not support. They have
seen them vote in favour because their whip has told them that
they are going to support the bill. They pointed to several
bills, one being the old Bill C-68, the gun registration bill.
They are still upset about that. They are going to continue to
be upset about that until we get into power and throw that
legislation out.
They are upset for several reasons. They are upset with the
legislation, but they are also upset with the process. The
process is no better tonight. We see tonight, again, government
members opposite showing a total lack of caring, a lack of
respect. The Liberals are showing arrogance, arrogance which we
know comes before the fall. We are seeing a level of arrogance
on that side of the House that I have never seen in this place
before. I believe it will not be too far down the road when that
fall comes. The Liberals have come to think that they have all
the answers. They have come to think that the people they are
supposed to be governing for do not matter any more.
In this case, they have sent the message very clearly to 90,000
mechanics who only want what is fair. The House of Commons
finance committee has said it is fair on two occasions. Just to
point out to government members, as if they do not know it, the
House of Commons finance committee is controlled by a majority of
government members.
It was a committee controlled by a majority of government
members which said, “Yes, let's do this. Let's give these
mechanics their tax deduction”. Now is the time to do it. Let
us just do it, with no more stalling. Let us do it now.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I share
the concern of the hon. member about the way the government
continues to utilize the House as a tool for its own short term
purposes.
It refuses to treat the House of Commons with the respect that it
clearly deserves and treat Canadians with the respect that they
clearly deserve.
1945
I will speak on Bill C-502, an act to amend the Tax Act. I will
then discuss some of the types of tax reforms in a more holistic
since that I believe is necessary in Canada.
We are supportive of this private member's bill, which deals
with an amendment to the Income Tax Act, to allow the deduction
of expenses for mechanic tools required in employment. This is
not the first time this important issue has been raised in the
House. It is not the first time that the government has not
dealt with this issue, despite the fact that the finance
committee has recommended that there be changes to the Income Tax
Act to reflect the intent of the legislation. Beyond the fact
that there is widespread support for this issue, there is
multi-partisan support, including the Reform Party, the New
Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc
Quebecois.
The bill, if implemented, will have a positive impact on one of
the most important industries in Canada, the automobile industry.
There are over 115,000 mechanics working and paying taxes in
Canada. Mechanics have a very significant initial cost to enter
the trade. Effectively, some initially invest an average of
$15,000 in tools. Some initially invest as much as $40,000 in
tools. They will have to replace this worn out equipment and buy
newer equipment every year. It is like members of parliament. We
have a very short shelf life. Sometimes we only last four years.
Our depreciation rate is very rapid. However, these expenses are
very difficult to justify when we consider that the average
income for a mechanic is about $29,000 per year.
This is a very important piece of legislation. It is difficult
for mechanics and people in this industry.
I hear the phone going off. It is probably the results of the
vote. It reminds me of the song by Johnny Cash and June Carter
Cash “We got married in a fever hotter than a pepper sprout”
and we have been looking for Preston ever since the fire went
out. That is another story.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If I heard right, the hon. member used an hon. member's
name in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): How could that
happen? If it did, would the hon. member for Kings—Hants do
what is necessary to correct it.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I may have
been mistaken. I believe they may have thought I said Preston,
but I in fact said that we need to press on. If we are going to
provide a national alternative to this government, we need to
press on and work co-operatively to ensure that happens.
Back to private member's Bill C-502, which is of course the
important piece of legislation that we are discussing at this
time. It is very important that we encourage those people who
are inclined to study and educate themselves to become mechanics
and pursue this line of work. We have a shortage of skilled
mechanics right now across Canada. From a labour market
flexibility perspective, there are not enough people doing this
work at this time which creates significant problems for the
Canadian automobile industry.
As I mentioned earlier, the finance committee has been
consistent in recommending in both the 1996 and 1997 prebudget
reports that we allow the tax deductibility of tools and amend
the Income Tax Act to facilitate that. The finance committee
makes a lot of recommendations, some of which the government
takes seriously and some of which it does not.
It treats recommendations from the finance committee or from any
other agency or committee like a buffet. It chooses from the
buffet and consumes, in terms of public policy, what it deems to
be politically palatable and leaves the rest. The unfortunate
thing is that Canadians are not getting the issues dealt with in
the serious visionary way they need.
1950
When I first looked at the legislation, my initial concern was
that it would further complicate the tax code. I am really
concerned that the Canadian tax code is far too complicated and
too complex. It encourages one type of behaviour and discourages
another. I call it a Pavlovian tax code. There is a bit of
Pavlovian psychology in trying to encourage Canadians to do some
things and the government trying to discourage other types of
behaviours.
Governments are very poor at picking winners and losers in terms
of tax policy and incentives. I am typically very much adverse
to an amendment that would further complicate the tax code. I
then thought about it and asked myself what the chances were that
we would get any serious tax reform out of the government
opposite or any significant broad based tax relief. I thought
that the chances were probably fairly low.
If we could get some type of tax relief for hard-working
mechanics across Canada, even if it would further complicate the
tax code—and that is not something we want to see—and even if
it only came in bit by bit, that would be a positive step.
What we would really like to see is the Canadian government
actually dealing with the tax issue and the systemic flaws in the
tax code in a more holistic manner. The most important purpose
of taxation is obviously to raise revenue. Another purpose, to a
certain extent, is the redistribution of income. However, our
tax code is trying to do too many things within the Canadian
structure. We need to adapt our tax structure and our transfer
structure. We need to take a serious look at changing and
updating our equalization system.
There has recently been a trend among provinces to adopt a
predatory tax policy to reduce taxes in order to attract
businesses and people to the provinces. I think that is actually
very sound. It has been done in Alberta with Premier Klein and
in Ontario with Premier Harris. We have seen it more recently in
New Brunswick with the new Premier Bernard Lord. Tax reduction
and significant tax cuts resonate significantly with Canadians as
do messages from governments that keep their word. Mike Harris
and Ralph Klein have remained consistent in keeping their word
and providing meaningful tax relief to Canadians.
With provinces pursuing predatory tax policy, the perverse
impact would ultimately be that the provinces that can least
afford to have an aggressive tax policy, the provinces that need
economic growth the most, like in Atlantic Canada, will actually
have the highest tax rates because their fiscal situations do not
allow them to reduce taxes.
I would suggest that one of the issues the Canadian government
should be looking at is a change to the equalization system and
to the tax and transfer system such that over a 10 year period
governments, like the one of Bernard Lord in New Brunswick or the
future government of John Hamm, the future Progressive
Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, could see, over a period of
time, incentives to the equalization system to reduce their
provincial taxes. Over a period of time, the equalization system
would be phased into a system that would actually encourage
provinces to reduce taxes. Currently the opposite is the case.
This is just one of the issues that needs to be dealt with.
There are literally hundreds of issues within the tax system that
need to be addressed. Canadians need a significant overhaul of
the tax code in Canada. We have not had serious tax reform since
the early 1990s, some in the late 1980s, both of which were under
the previous Progressive Conservative government of Brian
Mulroney, which had the vision to do what was right but not
always what was popular. Prior to that, the last serious tax
code reform was back in 1971 with the Carter commission.
1955
The fact is that now more than ever, with a globally competitive
environment, we need to move forward and address the single
biggest impediment to growth, jobs and prosperity in Canada: a
Canadian taxation system and tax code that is archaic and is not
working. We want to get Canadians working.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again we have heckling coming
from the Reform Party. I must apologize to you for having to sit
through that speech with all the rhetoric.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: It hurts, does it not?
Mr. Tony Valeri: The hon. member says it hurts. If the
hon. member had any sense at all, he would perhaps deal with some
of the facts rather than deal with this kind of back and forth
taunting that he is so accustomed to. It
is too bad he had to bring it to the House as well. I
unfortunately cannot apologize to his constituents. Hopefully
when he goes back he will do that himself.
What I would like to do is basically deal with this particular
matter. As members have indicated in the House, this issue has
come before the House and members have commented on this. The
finance committee has looked at it, has listened to witnesses and
has included this particular measure in its report as part of a
prebudget consultation.
I just want to go back to some of the comments made by the
Reform Party member earlier and restate the state of confusion
that he is in. He seems to be confused about the types of
employment that people are involved in. He confuses
self-employment with working for an employer. He talked about
the ability of farmers to deduct versus the ability of
individuals who are employees of a particular corporation to not
be able to deduct certain expenses.
There is no question that work related employees' expense
deductions are not available because employers normally provide
items required for employees to perform their duties. It is true
in large part, but the hon. member across the way, the mover of
this particular motion, is also correct that in some occupations
it is not true. In fact, automobile mechanics do incur
substantial expenses as a condition of employment.
We also know from the hon. members who spoke on this issue
earlier, that it is also a complex issue. I would therefore like
to frame the issue with respect to a number of tax policy
principles. I think all members would agree that any change in
tax policy needs to be fair and that the changes would also need
to be relatively simple to administer and easy to comply with for
the taxpayers. They should also be consistent with respect to
the government's overall fiscal situation.
The task of finding appropriate tax treatment for mechanics'
tools is difficult. I often welcome this type of debate because
it gives members on both sides of the House the opportunity to
put forward their perspectives on certain issues. I do want to
highlight some of the challenges that we would face as a
government with respect to this particular issue.
I meet with mechanics in my riding and I often look forward
to that opportunity. We do engage in an exchange that is usually
a healthy exchange, unlike the exchange that takes place between
the Reform Party and ourselves.
Given that mechanics are not the only occupation in which
employees incur substantial expenses as a requirement of
employment, it would difficult to justify providing tax relief
solely to mechanics to the exclusion of all others, which is in
fact what this private member's bill proposes.
Tax relief has been requested for work related expenses and it
has been sought to include individual personal computers
purchased by employees, reading materials or professional
journals, other general costs associated with skills upgrading,
as well as tools for employee tradespersons, which is essentially
another very important aspect to look at.
In extending tax relief to many equally deserving taxpayers, or
as the hon. members across the way would say, just extend it to
everyone, it is also important to recognize that it would
certainly incur substantial expenses. We would need to look at
it.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants talks about looking at this
issue and says that we are not really in agreement with it
because it would complicate the tax system even further. I am in
agreement with that. We need to provide some greater reduction
in taxes and to ensure that tax reduction simplifies the tax
system and does not in any way complicate it.
2000
We need to ensure that when any tax relief is provided it is
only for items required as a condition of employment and not
for personal use. I mentioned earlier in my speech that
there are other areas for which people have requested tax relief
which would involve personal use.
It is fair to say that the provisions we need to address with
respect to these issues would inevitably be complex since they
would need to account for a large variety of items for which tax
recognition may be claimed.
I point to one and how difficult it often is to audit this
type of expense. Let us consider the extensive provisions needed
just to ensure the equitable recognition of automobile expenses.
This type of tax relief would complicate the tax system even
further and involve a whole bunch of regulatory burden and other
measures which would not in any way simplify the system but
rather complicate it.
In light of what I have mentioned, I think hon. members would
agree that the bill does not properly take into account issues
which need to be considered before tax recognition could be
provided for employee expenses, and in particular mechanics'
tools.
The complexities associated with the proposed measure and the
small size of the fiscal surplus lead us to a point where we feel
that tax relief—and I know all members are in agreement with tax
relief—should be directed toward broad tax relief to all
Canadians. We have a challenge with our personal income tax
system. We recognize that it is the highest in terms of the G-7
countries. We recognize that. We have begun to reduce personal
income taxes. Obviously members opposite do not think it is
enough. They do not mind going back into a deficit position.
Most Canadians insist that governments maintain balanced books
and demand that governments provide priority spending, provide
tax relief and ensure that the debt continues to be paid down.
That is the program we have embarked upon and one that we will
continue to put forward.
When we talk about tax relief, certainly I would not be an
advocate of tax relief which would complicate the tax system even
further. I would advocate tax relief for Canadians at all levels
of income.
This is why we started to provide tax relief by increasing the
basic exemption, ensuring that all Canadians would benefit from
it. We have eliminated the 3% surtax for those Canadians who
were paying it, because that surtax was directed specifically to
paying down the deficit. Since we have eliminated the deficit
the 3% surtax has now been eliminated.
We need to go further. We also have to look at employment
insurance. Most members opposite complain that employment
insurance premiums are too high, but they very rarely mention
that employment insurance premiums have been reduced by billions
of dollars since we have come to office and will continue to be
reduced. I find it quite ironic that often members opposite—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Obviously members opposite are now
listening for the first time. I find it ironic that they
continue to advocate tax relief and at the same time come forward
on a specific measure which would complicate the tax system.
The same mechanics who are paying taxes which members opposite
feel are too high would be robbed of any further broad based tax
relief. As all Canadians realize, there is not a big black hole
full of Canadian taxpayer dollars. We have to make choices and
the choice of the government is to continue to provide broad
based tax relief to ensure that we can stay in balance, to ensure
that there is priority spending in health care and education, and
to ensure that we continue to pay down the national debt.
Every Canadian now realizes that we pay some $40-odd billion in
interest on the national debt. They are not about to sit by and
tell us to give it to certain measures which might be the pet
projects of members opposite and rob us of the tax relief we are
looking for.
This is not something that I will support. I say to my
constituents back home that we will continue to support broad
based tax relief. We will continue to support a broad based
program which meets the needs and priorities of Canadians.
I understand, appreciate and empathize with the positions of
members opposite that a deduction with respect to mechanics'
tools is something that governments need to take into account. It
is not just mechanics' tools, as I mentioned. There are a number
of other occupations where the relationship is not one of
self-employed or contract but of employees that are required to
make substantial investments.
2005
We realize that it is a challenge, but when the trade-offs are
put on the table I would submit most Canadians would agree that
what is required is to continue to provide the greatest
simplicity in the tax system, to continue to ensure that we pay
down the debt, and to continue to ensure that we provide broad
based tax relief, even if members opposite would disagree.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
today to Bill C-502, the purpose of which is to permit mechanics
to deduct from their taxable income the cost of tools they are
required to buy to practice their trade.
In visiting my constituents in the riding of Lotbinière, I often
hear from mechanics and employees in car dealerships about how
it is unfair that they are not entitled to this deduction.
Earlier, the hon. member opposite told us that the Standing
Committee on Finance had looked at this matter and immediately
acknowledged the problem. This is what the committee had to
say:
The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be
allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory
employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act
already apply to artists, chainsaw operators and musicians.
To deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the
automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an
impediment to employment, especially for the young who might
choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of
such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the
present tax rules.
This was the December 1997 prebudget tour report, which the
Liberals contributed to. However, they have a lot of ideas and
consider many subjects. They analyze, but action must wait.
I would like to give some statistics on the automotive industry.
Independent business alone employs over 150,000 professionals to
maintain and repair automobiles, including some 25% in Quebec,
representing some 40,000 individuals, who are affected by this
problem.
The media often debate important issues involving automotive
manufacturers but short shrift is given vehicle maintenance and
repair professionals who, unfortunately, are forced as a
condition of employment to buy their own tools and to maintain
them in perfect working order, and to pay insurance costs on top
of the cost of buying and maintaining them.
This is a heavy financial burden because, in addition to normal
wear on tools, technological advances require these technicians
to constantly invest in new equipment.
Here are few statistics. An apprentice automobile mechanic must
spend between $2,000 and $5,000 to buy the tools necessary to
his trade. This same mechanic, who cannot work without a set of
functional and modern tools, will have to spend in the first 5
to 10 years over $15,000 on tools.
If he specializes, he will have to spend between $30,000 and
$40,000. This is a far from negligible expenditure, justifying
in our opinion the request we are making today that this be tax
deductible.
Let us look at this a little more closely. Mechanics in Quebec
and Canada live in an unfair situation and it is high time that
the parliamentarians in this House do something about it.
The bill being debated this evening is intended to enable people
employed as mechanics to deduct the cost of the tools they
provide if they have to do so as part of the conditions of
their employment.
More precisely, the deduction could cover the cost of renting
these tools; costs related to their maintenance; related
insurance; the full purchase price of tools under $250; and,
subject to regulatory adjustment of this amount reflecting
inflation and the capital allowance cost, tools of more than
$250.
2010
I am convinced that this measure would make tax equity possible
for these people, who richly deserve it.
Another problem raised, which we should also look at in relation
to this highly unfair situation, is the matter of the next
generation of mechanics. This is food for thought for our
Minister of Finance and our Minister of Revenue. Here we have a
sector of employment not to be overlooked as an opportunity for
young workers, particularly when there is so much youth
unemployment.
The government has a duty therefore to look seriously at this
matter. It must not use the excuse that if it allows this
deduction for mechanics other trade groups will be calling for
something similar.
That is the usual evasive tactic used by the Liberals across the
way.
They hide. They are frightened. They sidestep out of fear of
creating a precedent but precedent has been set long ago with
this government. We need only think of the Employment Insurance
Act and, more recently, the legislation that is going to allow
the government to get its hands on $30 billion from the pension
funds of public servants, RCMP employees and Canadian Armed
Forces personnel.
Getting back to the mechanics' demands, as I have demonstrated,
the cost of their tools is astronomical. I would remind hon.
members that a tool of the trade is a tool of the trade, whether
it is the virtuoso's violin, the logger's chainsaw, or the
various tools used by a mechanic.
I will review the precise objectives of this bill.
First, the bill's purpose is to ensure that mechanics receive
equitable tax treatment that is identical to that received by
farmers and commensurate with that received by chain saw
operators, artists and musicians.
Second, the bill is intended to alleviate the financial burden
imposed on mechanics, whose terms of employment require them to
buy their own tools.
Third, the bill would offer a solution to the serious shortage
of manpower in the automotive trades. Enrolment in apprentice
programs would go up and more mechanics would be able to
continue in this line of work.
Fourth, the bill seeks to create jobs for young unemployed
Canadians and Quebecers, because talented young people are
beginning to realize that a career in the automotive industry is
increasingly within their reach.
Fifth, the bill would permit mechanics to continue providing the
public with the customary level and quality of vehicle repair
and maintenance services, which will be to the benefit of all
car owners.
For all these reasons, I feel that the bill would be good for
the economy and job creation. The Bloc Quebecois and I are in
favour of the measures I have just outlined.
It seems that the majority of members on this side of the House
are aware of this completely unfair situation, which is
penalizing people who do a lot for our society. Is there anyone
nowadays that does not need a mechanic? People pay a lot for a
car and want good service for it. This takes skilled people who
do a good job, but these people need help with their tax load.
In my view, a tax break for those working in this sector is
essential. It is something parliament should address. It is a
situation that is hard to understand because other sectors have
already been given a tax break.
In fact, it is typical of this government to have a double
standard. It is always difficult to clarify matters.
The member opposite said earlier that what we are asking for
will complicate the system, but I say that it will clarify it.
It will give hard-working, honourable people the deductions that
will allow them to do a better job, provide better service and
be happier in their work.
That is what I wish for them.
2015
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
this evening's shenanigans or Shawinigans, whatever it is, both
words are synonymous, pulled by this arrogant, weak, lazy Liberal
government with no vision, I rise on behalf of the people of
Surrey Central to speak to Private Members' Bill C-502.
Bill C-502 seeks to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of tools
from their income tax. It will allow them to write off the costs
of a set of tools which they need to work.
This bill is virtually the same bill as one previously submitted
by a Reform Party member, the hon. member for Lakeland, in the
previous session. The hon. member for Elk Island spoke to that
bill. Unfortunately that bill was deemed non-votable despite
receiving the broad support of all opposition parties, but not
the support of the arrogant, weak, lazy Liberal government with
no vision.
Many mechanics, perhaps around 100,000 in Canada, are expected
by their employers to provide their own tools. In fact mechanics,
including auto body mechanics, cannot even apply for certain jobs
unless they have their own tools. If their tools are not good
tools, it may affect them in terms of their job performance. It
may affect them in terms of being able to keep their job. If
they do not have good tools, they may not be working under safe
conditions. If their tools are not good enough or are limited in
quantity, they try not to let anyone find out about it because
they are afraid of losing their job.
Mr. Richard Denniston, a constituent of mine in Surrey Central,
told me that auto technicians have to spend at least $20,000 on
tools and upgrading their tools.
Mechanics are not like many other workers who simply show up for
work with the appropriate clothing. Mechanics are special. They
need to show up for work with the tools they can use and trust.
The purpose of Bill C-502 is to offer an incentive for mechanics
that will encourage growth and job creation in this sector of our
economy. “Give us the tools so we can do the job” is all the
mechanics are saying. The bill will treat mechanics in a similar
fashion, in a fair manner, as other professionals and
tradespeople.
Many self-employed people are allowed to claim as deductions the
items they require to provide a particular service. Doctors,
dentists, lawyers, real estate agents and small business people
can write off the tools of their trades, whatever they may be.
They are deductible. If doctors hire additional staff, they can
deduct it from their taxes. If dentists buy new equipment, they
can deduct it from their taxes. It is only mechanics who cannot.
Mechanics have to use their tools to keep their jobs. Others
can claim these expenses on their income tax returns, but
mechanics cannot. Why would we deny mechanics the ability to
obtain the proper tools, the tools they say they need to earn a
living?
This is consistent with the Reform Party's tax relief policy for
individuals, families and businesses. This bill would give tax
relief to young people entering the job market or those making a
career change for securing potential employment. The Reform
Party has always supported measures that lower the tax burden of
Canadians. This includes virtually any measure anytime that
would force this arrogant lazy Liberal government to lower taxes
instead of raising them.
Taxes have been raised by the government 37 times, to the tune
of about a $42 billion increase in revenue since 1993. That
comes to $2,020 per taxpayer or $1,123 per Canadian. It is a
huge amount of money to those people who are working harder and
harder to pay taxes to the government.
The government raised the CPP premium, the largest tax increase
in Canadian history.
2020
We also know the effect of bracket creep. It is sending tax
dollars to the government's coffers when Canadians are paying
taxes. High taxes kill jobs. The government balanced the budget
on the backs of the taxpayers.
The government is so pleased to give subsidies to businesses.
Now it is going to give subsidies to American businesses through
Bill C-55 which was voted on.
I will not take much time of the House because outside the House
something very important is happening. Democracy is speaking.
Grassroots reformers are speaking out. They will show Canadians
what grassroots democracy means. No other party in the House
practises democracy.
The Reform Party supports this important noble idea as a
temporary measure until the entire Income Tax Act can be reformed
into a flattened and lower tax regime without exemptions.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
begin by congratulating the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans on Bill
C-502. I would, however, respectfully submit that this bill does
not provide all that is needed.
[English]
I know the member opposite when he proposed this bill was
concerned about the working people. I would offer the suggestion
that if he has the interests of the workers at heart, he should
be looking for more broadly based policies that would accomplish
the same objectives.
One of these that I am pleased to point out is in the finance
committee report that was tabled yesterday or the day before. It
talks about the need for tax provisions such as employee stock
option plans that enhance productivity by encouraging employees
to share in the risks and profits of firms.
If we moved in that direction we would provide workers,
employees, with a greater stake in the work they do. They would
have a greater sense of participation and job satisfaction. At
the same time the productivity of firms would be increased. This
has been shown by studies in the United States and Canada.
Productivity would be increased 20% to 32%. We would have an
environment where a source of retirement income would be made
available to employees because they had built up an equity in the
firm.
While I respect what the member has proposed in a sense, I think
what we need is a broader strategy, more broadly based answers
and solutions to these sorts of problems. Deductions for tools
for mechanics is not really ambitious enough. While I do respect
the member for proposing it, we need much more broadly based
solutions to deal with the questions of productivity, incentives,
employee participation and employee job satisfaction.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-502.
I will make it clear that the subject here is automobile
mechanics and not the far broader matter of automobiles in
general. Otherwise I would have needed several hours to address
the harmful effects Quebec has experienced since the
inauguration of the auto pact.
No, here we are dealing with mechanics, the men and women who
toil away day after day under the hoods of our cars, their hands
covered in grease and grime, repairing what we consider a very
precious possession.
These are possessions we are still making monthly bank loan
payments on and we want to keep them running as long as
possible.
At the present time it is very difficult for mechanics to work
under ideal conditions because of the high cost of the tools
they need to do their jobs.
In fact mechanics usually have to provide many, if not all, of
the tools required for their work. In addition to being very
expensive, some of these represent more than a one-time expense.
2025
Technological change quickly puts some tools out of date, new
ones have to be bought.
In short, it costs a mechanic several thousand dollars in order
to be able to perform his job because there are exceptions as
my colleague for Lotbinière has just mentioned.
Mechanics in Quebec and Canada are in an unfair situation.
It is high time that parliament remedy this. This is why the
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
introduced this bill, which is intended to help these thousands
of workers who make our life easier and who are at a huge
disadvantage compared to other workers.
I am sure that this measure will permit fair taxation for our
fellow citizens who deserve it amply.
There is an injustice. And we know what corrective action must
be taken. I ask my colleagues opposite to be tricked into
inaction until a global solution is found to the problem of
federal taxes in Canada. After all, if anyone deserves a review
of current federal taxes in their favour, it is the Canadian and
Quebec middle class.
This bill is therefore vital because it allows us to correct an
unfair situation that affects many young people who lack money
as they come out to school. Without these—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I apologize for
interrupting the hon. member.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty to lay
upon the table the report of the United Nations human rights
committee concerning Robert W. Gauthier.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes to raise an issue
that I presented to the House on April 22. It concerns a very
critical health care issue, that of organ donations and
transplantation.
One thing I am sure we in the House all agree on is that we have
a serious problem in terms of the number of organ donors in
Canada. There is no question that Canada has one of the worst
rates of organ donors anywhere in the western world. That is a
critical situation which all of us need to work at addressing.
The health committee spent a good period of time hearing from
witnesses, receiving evidence, getting advice and presenting a
report about how to address this very serious matter. I regret
though that on a couple of very important issues in my opinion
the committee's recommendations were weak and less than helpful.
I want to raise two specific points and ask the government to
give serious consideration to these recommendations.
The first has to do with respect to a national donor registry
system. The government has refused to commit to a registry that
would encourage Canadians to think seriously about demonstrating
their commitment to donate an organ if they should be faced with
death. I want the government to look at a model that has been
tried in other jurisdictions.
The Government of British Columbia has a donor registry system
that allows every individual to look at the situation. They can
make the serious decision that yes they want to donate, or no
they do not want to donate, or that they are undecided.
2030
We think that would have been a very important system to
encourage Canadians to make commitments around organ donations.
The government and the health committee of parliament have
refused to make that specific recommendation.
Second, I want to raise the issue of safety and the whole area
of health protection when it comes to organ donations. In our
view, organs are no different than blood. We know we should have
learned from our sorry history on the question of blood and taken
very seriously the recommendations of Justice Krever when he said
that this government must pursue a proactive regulatory approach
when it comes to blood. I would suggest he would also say that
applies to organs, to tissues and to everything that is important
in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians.
On this particular issue the government continues to reject the
recommendations of Justice Krever and is bent on pursuing what it
would call a risk management approach, which is basically a hands
off, buyer beware kind of mentality, and that is not at all
appropriate to the kind of issues we are dealing with.
Time and time again, whether we talk about blood, medical
devices, food, genetically modified products, children's toys,
breast implants or drugs, this government continues to reject
its responsibility around absolute safety for Canadians. I urge
the government to take seriously the need to protect all
Canadians when it comes to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to respond to the hon. member.
Let me state that in November 1998 the Minister of Health asked
the Standing Committee on Health to consult broadly, analyze and
provide advice regarding the state of organ donations in Canada.
He also asked that during the course of their deliberations
committee members consider the appropriate federal government
role in the development of the national safety, outcome and
process standards to improve Canada's organ donation situation
and save lives.
The committee consulted broadly with Canadians and has released
a report suggesting a Canadian approach that will improve
donation rates. This initiative is viewed as a strong regulatory
approach and may well be used by other countries in developing
their own risk management framework.
Organ and tissue donation is a critical and ongoing issue. We
have heard witness after witness before the Standing Committee on
Health state that what is needed for transplantation is not
another committee report with a list of recommendations, but
action.
Health Canada is committed to providing the leadership that is
required and delivering to Canadians the action that is desired.
Health Canada has demonstrated a leadership role in addressing
the many issues surrounding transplantation and will continue to
do so in its response to the standing committee's
recommendations.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
on a question that comes from question period about 10 days ago.
At that time I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development about a situation with respect to the Nisga'a
agreement.
Essentially, there are several questions that we think need to
be addressed in advance of Nisga'a ratification legislation. One
of the very serious issues that needs to be addressed is the
whole issue of overlap.
As the parliamentary secretary is aware, the Gitanyow and the
Gitksan bands—the Gitanyow is actually a part of the
Gitksan—are claiming that about 84% of the land that the Nisga'a
will control after the ratification of the Nisga'a agreement is
actually their traditional land.
They have written a book about it. They advance a very strong
case. As to whether it is accurate or not is a matter of some
debate, but the fact remains that they have advanced a very
strong case.
Subsequent to that and subsequent to me asking the minister,
they travelled to Ottawa to meet with various members of
parliament from different parties to talk about their concerns.
Essentially, they are saying that they do not want the
ratification of this agreement to proceed until such time as this
overlap issue is dealt with.
2035
I cannot understand for the life of me why the minister
responded to my question by saying that negotiations are ongoing
and they are confident that they are going to have an agreement
when the Gitanyow and the Gitksan people are telling us that
nothing could be further from the truth. They are not even
talking at this point in time. There are no negotiations going
on. There is nobody listening to their side of the story. They
feel very much like the minister and the department are taking
one side on this issue, and they feel that is very unfair.
They have intimated to us that if ratification proceeds in
advance of this very serious question being addressed, then the
result likely will be a great deal of uncertainty and chaos in
the future because they will be proceeding with a court case,
challenging the Nisga'a agreement and challenging the federal
government in its breach of fiduciary obligation if in fact this
agreement is ratified. If they are successful in their court
challenge, who knows what the landscape might look like down the
road.
I again ask the parliamentary secretary to explain, not only to
this side of the House, but also to the Gitksan and the Gitanyow
people, who are watching this on their televisions at home, why
it is that the federal government appears to be taking a side in
this dispute and why it is prepared to proceed with ratification
of this very precedent setting, groundbreaking treaty in British
Columbia without first resolving these disputes. I might add
that it is not a matter of a small overlap because 84% of the
land that the Nisga'a will end up controlling after the agreement
is ratified is claimed by the Gitksan.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary could answer those questions
for the people in my riding who are very concerned about this
issue and who would like to have the answer.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the member, I wish that I had two hours today to respond
to his question because I would love to take it.
Let me say that the hon. member is absolutely wrong again on his
premise, as he has been wrong so many times throughout the year
in his questions relating to this important file.
To begin with, I met last night for two hours over a working
dinner with the Nisga'a, their lawyers and their negotiators.
Again this afternoon, for an hour in my office, I met with the
Gitanyow nation's representative, Bob Epstein, whom I have known
for almost 10 years. We have talked about a mediation process
and I am pleased to announce to the House that the process is
moving along quite well. I believe that over the summer, while
this legal argument is in abeyance, we will have an opportunity
to debate that with him.
I would ask the hon. member a simple question and point out in
my one minute and 11 seconds now remaining that it strikes me as
passing strange that a member would take sides with some of his
constituents against others. This is unusual, indeed. I do not
think that anyone in the House has ever seen that kind of
practice before. There have been a number of practices used, I
believe, by the member, including the issue today on Bill C-49,
to break the deal.
We had a deal on Bill C-49 with all of the House leaders this
morning which was broken, much to the dismay of the people
involved, which involved of course the member standing here for
two hours, saying many things that are so inaccurate I want to
spend the rest of the summer going over them to come back here in
the fall and talk to him about them.
I have many friends in British Columbia. I have travelled there
many times over the past 10 years. I would like to say to the
good people of British Columbia, because I think it is worth
repeating in these final hours before we break for the summer,
that the member voted for Bill C-49 almost in its current form at
second reading in the committee and then came back to the House
and changed his mind. I hope we have a different member from
Skeena when we return in October.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 3 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration two
questions about Canada's lax immigration policies. At that time
congressional meetings were being held in Washington to study the
security of the American and Canadian border.
I asked the minister if she was proud of the fact that under her
tenure Canada had become known as a launching pad for terrorism
and drug trafficking. I also asked her when she was going to
wake up, stop talking and implement concrete measures to fix the
broken system, which has become known as an easy mark to drug
traffickers and terrorists.
Let me expand on these thoughts. The witnesses that appeared
before the committee on the judiciary subcommittee on immigration
in Washington said many things which this Liberal government and
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the
parliamentary secretary, should take note of.
Dale Brandland, sheriff for Whatcom County in Bellingham,
Washington, stated before the committee:
Our friends to the north, the Canadians, are good neighbours but
I must tell you that I am troubled by their liberal immigration
policies. Anyone that has a passport can enter Canada and there
is very little to stop them from entering the United States once
they get there.
2040
He went on further to cite an example:
Mr. Abu Mezer is a prime example. Local Border Control personnel
in Whatcom County had apprehended Mr. Abu Mezer on three separate
occasions, after attempting to enter the country illegally. He
was finally held, pending formal deportation...Approximately 7
months later he was shot by the New York City Police Department
just prior to planting a bomb that would have blown up the subway
system.
This was an individual who was in Canada three times under this
lax immigration policy, rather than being deported under some
criminal charges that he was facing in Canada after serving his
time.
Eugene Davis, deputy chief of the U.S. border patrol in Blaine,
Washington, said:
Over the past several years Canada has adopted a non-visa
requirement policy with many countries that the United States
continues to require visas from. This has resulted in many
smugglers being able to easily bring third country nationals into
Canada and then smuggle them across the border into the U.S.
He went on to say:
The Canadian government has stated that virtually every known
terrorist group in the world has offices in Canada.
The Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael
Bromwich, stated:
The border in western Washington is experiencing a marked
increase in the smuggling of BC Bud, an especially potent strain
of marijuana.
He also stated:
The INS and other intelligence reports indicate that terrorist
groups locate in Canada in part because of Canada's liberal visa
and asylum (refugee) laws—
It is quite clear that the immigration system is broken. I hope
we get some answers from the parliamentary secretary rather than
empty rhetoric talking about what other parties stand for when it
is his party that has not taken action to correct these wrongs
and to fix the broken system.
We saw an example of that in committee today when members of the
Liberal government, rather than taking concrete action to remedy
a situation on the head tax for refugees, voted against it and
defeated it.
They could have taken action to fix a broken part of the system,
to remedy an injustice. They could have taken time to fix the
system and deal with these individuals who are abusing it. Their
own department officials, and I quote from an access to
information document, stated:
The blatant misuse of the refugee process (in same series, a
Honduran refugee claimant was openly honest about the fact that
he had no understanding of what a “refugee” actually was, that
he was just doing what he had been counselled to say upon arrival
in Canada, and the reason that he was in Canada was to earn some
money for his family back in Honduras). This portrayal was
extremely damaging to the integrity of the program and
department.
Certainly it was. This is the kind of thing that is happening.
This is the immigration CICs own internal documents stating that
there are problems with the system. Yet the minister fails to
take action to address these serious problems.
I would like some answers from the parliamentary secretary to
these questions.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me start
by telling the member opposite that there is no head tax in the
country. For him to stand in his place and try to trivialize a
tragic time in the country's history is despicable. I think the
member should be ashamed of himself.
I will get back to the other issues he was speaking about. I
will enlighten him by pointing out that both governments are
working to protect the borders because movement occurs in both
directions. This is not a one way street. I will also take this
opportunity to mention a handful of collaborative initiatives
between Canada and the U.S.
First, both governments have taken concrete steps to
systematically and regularly share information on known or
suspected terrorists to ensure their early detection. Second, a
new information sharing tool to support daily immigration
enforcement efforts is near completion. Third, exchanges of
information on visa issuance resulting in illegal immigration are
now formalized and systematic.
Last but not least, let me remind the member opposite in the
Reform Party that it is this government which announced the
shared border accord with the United States in 1995. It is this
government that took that accord one step further and solidified
its commitment on the immigration front by establishing several
joint working groups in order to build a comprehensive
Canada-U.S. strategy for the future. This initiative is called
Border Vision. The concrete examples I described earlier are a
direct product of this initiative.
Suffice it to say, we have more vision that my Reform colleague
who obviously is not aware of the testimony of all witnesses who
appeared before the U.S. judiciary committee's immigration and
claims subcommittee. If the member were, he would know that the
vast majority of witnesses spoke of the close co-operation
between the U.S. and Canada to combat the trafficking of drugs
and illegal immigration.
Let me conclude by saying that members of the Reform Party talk
about immigration and refugee policies. They cannot get past
their noses. They keep talking about criminality, criminality,
criminality. The member is wrong, wrong, wrong.
2045
KYOTO
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two
years ago the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development recommended the elimination of subsidies to fossil
fuel industries.
Two days ago I asked the Minister of Finance if he agreed that
these subsidies were counterproductive in light of Canada's
international commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and should
therefore be eliminated.
Unfortunately we have federal tax incentives which encourage
increased production of greenhouse gases and make it much more
difficult for us to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are not new. In
the 1993 election we committed to cut by 20%. Yet the Department
of Finance is blissfully continuing with policies which compound
rather than resolve the problem.
In addition, in 1996 the government introduced a special tax
concession for the oil sands industry. Oil sands extraction
produces several times the amount of greenhouse gas produced from
conventional oil extraction. This tax concession makes the task
of reducing emissions much more difficult.
In addition, it may cost Canadians up to $600 million in forgone
revenue. We found that out in 1997 from estimates provided by
the Department of Finance. How then can we achieve the Kyoto
goals with these perverse tax incentives in place, approved by
the Department of Finance?
In a report commissioned by the highly respected Earth Council
entitled “Subsidizing the Unsustainable Development: Undermining
the Earth with Public Funds” we find a statement which applies
to Canada as well as to other OECD countries:
Judging by their public pronouncements, governments around the
world realize they should be following policies that encourage a
transition to greater energy efficiency and lower energy use. Yet
many official policies instead encourage energy profligacy and
waste. Worse still, they usually favour the dirtier energy
sources.
The report also includes a table showing subsidies provided by
OECD countries. The table shows Canada contributing some $6
billion in budgetary subsidies in the form of tax expenditures.
The authors go on to say:
The more environmentally damaging a fuel, the bigger the subsidy.
The subsidy ranking is a pollution rogues' gallery—coal far in
the forefront, followed by oil, then nuclear power and finally
natural gas. Strikingly small is the proportion of total funding
devoted to sources of renewable energy, the most environmentally
friendly sources.
The Kyoto commitment is urgent and serious. We must remove
counterproductive tax concessions and promote the production of a
renewable energy and the shift to natural gas, of which we have
plenty.
For all these reasons I ask the parliamentary secretary when the
government will remove the tax subsidies to oil sands
developments.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the question put forward by the hon. member for
Davenport who is very knowledgeable in this area and has chaired
the environment committee for quite some time. He certainly has
provided much information that needs to be reviewed and digested.
It is also fair to say that in the past many direct government
subsidies have been eliminated. In 1995 the government ended the
direct financial support for energy megaprojects. At the same
time the Government of Canada increased spending on energy
efficiency and alternative energy programs despite the fiscal
pressures with which it was faced.
It is also true that spending on R and D and market development
programs in renewable energy and energy efficiency at NRCan now
exceeds spending on the fossil fuel industry. In addition, the
1998 budget provided $150 million over three years to begin to
address the climate change challenge.
The hon. member for Davenport made reference to renewables
versus non-renewables. It was the 1998 budget in which the
government moved to narrow the gap between renewables and
non-renewables by extending the benefits and the $150 million.
2050
We have a process in place today where we need to balance the
creation of a strong economy and jobs with protecting the
environment. There is certainly a consultative process in place
now which ensures that all Canadians, particularly the member for
Davenport, will have the opportunity to take part in the
development of that strategy. We certainly look forward to the
very valuable input that he will provide in that strategy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure that hon.
members remaining in the Chamber would join with me in wishing
one of our assistant head pages good luck in her future
endeavours. This will be her last day assisting us in the
Chamber. She is going on to law school and we wish her well.
Isabelle Roy, thank you.
A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)
(The House adjourned at 8.51 p.m.)