36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 161
CONTENTS
Friday, November 27, 1998
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-52. Motion for concurrence in Senate amendment
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1005
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1010
1015
| Mr. David Price |
1020
1025
| INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill S-16. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1030
1035
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1040
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ABORTIONS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| HELICOPTERS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1100
| UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN HISTORY
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| DRUG AWARENESS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1105
| SEMAINE QUÉBÉCOISE DES 4-H
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| FÉDÉRATION DES AGRICULTRICES DU QUÉBEC
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1110
| ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1115
| CANADA-CHINA LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1120
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1125
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PORK PRODUCERS
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. David Price |
1130
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1135
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMISSIONER
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1140
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| JUSTICE
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1145
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1150
| WORK STOPPAGES
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1155
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FRESH WATER
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1200
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1205
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-457. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
|
| Bill C-458. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Rights of Grandparents
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1210
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Tainted Blood
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1215
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill S-16. Report stage
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1235
1240
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1245
1250
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INDIAN ACT
|
| Bill C-402. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. David Iftody |
1310
1315
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1320
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1325
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1330
1335
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1340
1345
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 161
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 27, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendment
made by the Senate to Bill C-52, an act to implement the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that
Bill C-52 has now passed through the other place, unanimously,
with an amendment.
The Senate amendment is a modification of the amendment of this
House which inserted article 27.1(2), which reads:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report
to be laid before the House of Commons on any of the first
fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the minister
receives the report.
The Senate has amended the text of this amendment as follows:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report
to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first
fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the minister
receives the report.
1005
We fully support the Senate amendment. We consider it important
that pursuant to Canadian parliamentary tradition the annual
report of the CTBT national authority should be presented to both
houses of parliament.
Let me remind the House that for the past 50 years Canadians
have worked hard to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons through the construction of an effective international
non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament regime.
The passage of Bill C-52 will allow Canada to implement one of
the cornerstones of such a regime. I am proud to be associated
with the legislation before us today. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this amendment and ensure its rapid
adoption by this parliament.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the great people of Surrey Central and all
Canadians, and as the deputy critic for foreign affairs for the
official opposition I am delighted to speak to the Senate
amendment of Bill C-52.
The Senate has passed Bill C-52, an act to implement the
comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, with the following
amendment to clause 27.1. The senators want us to replace lines
6 to 10 with the following:
(2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the
report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the
first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the
Minister receives the report.
The House will actually be voting on the following motion:
That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-52, an act to
implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, be now read
a second time and concurred in.
We, the official opposition, offer our general support to the
amendment. The chief critic for foreign affairs, my hon.
colleague from Red Deer, addressed this bill at length when we
were debating it in the House. Liberal members and in fact the
whole House can learn a great deal from the hon. member's vast
experience in foreign affairs.
I was also privileged to attend the numerous meetings of the
foreign affairs and international trade committee where we
discussed at great length the nuclear issue.
This seems like a reasonable amendment on a very critical issue.
It is a step in the right direction and a step forward. But we
remind the Government of Canada that it, along with its NATO
allies, must remain on guard against rogue states and the
terrorists that may threaten Canadians and the people on this
planet with weapons of mass destruction.
The official opposition agrees with the amendment and hopes that
as a result of this bill Canadians will become more interested in
international affairs and the security of our great nation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased today to rise in the House to indicate my support and
that of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues for Bill C-52, specifically
the Senate amendment moving that lines 6 to 10, paragraph 27.1,
on page 13 of the bill be replaced by the following:
Tabling of report
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report
to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first
fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister
receives the report.
I am particularly proud that this amendment was the result of a
Bloc Quebecois initiative.
The Bloc Quebecois has always taken a keen interest in
transparency and correspondingly in increasing the involvement
of members of this House in the implementation of a treaty such
as the one before us today, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty.
1010
Furthermore, the Australian parliament has already approved a
provision very similar to that in the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act. Thus, the report the person
designated as the national authority has prepared and submitted
to the minister will be tabled in that parliament.
Although this is another step in the direction of more
democratic practices in our parliament, it would be a very good
idea in future for this practice to become more widespread here
in the House in Ottawa. Parliament should approve treaties
before the government signs and ratifies them.
My colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is also the foreign
affairs critic, has called upon the minister to submit this
matter to the foreign affairs committee, in order to bring our
treaty process in line with that of other Commonwealth
countries, where a far more democratic process is in place.
The minister said he was open to examining this matter and the
Bloc Quebecois will keep after him until he responds.
Now, returning to the contents of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois
supports it for the values of peace and international security
which it puts forward.
It is an essential tool for attaining complete nuclear
disarmament. For us in the Bloc Quebecois and for all parties
here in this House it is important to promote, without a
moment's hesitation, any legislative measure focused on those
values of peace and security.
By implementing the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, Canada
will now be able to contribute to the ultimate objective of the
total eradication of nuclear arms. In this way we shall be
helping to solve a problem caused by using energy contrary to
the interests of humanity itself, abusing of a resource the
peaceful applications of which have contributed, and will
continue to contribute, to the greater well-being of humankind.
The enactment relates to the implementation of Canada's
obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The
parties signing the treaty undertake not to carry out any
nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, to
prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place
under their jurisdiction or control and to refrain from causing,
encouraging or participating in the carrying out of any nuclear
weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
Another important feature is the international monitoring system
put in place under the treaty. The purpose of this system is to
detect, locate and classify nuclear explosions. In addition,
on-site inspections may be carried out under the treaty to
clarify the situation following a nuclear incident.
Already the treaty has reaped positive results. A number of
nuclear nations like France and the United Kingdom have made it
clear that, in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty,
they agreed to discontinue nuclear testing. Other nuclear
weapons states, such as China, the United States and Russia,
have suggested that they too would discontinue nuclear testing.
That said, we cannot claim victory yet. The nuclear threat still
hangs over us. We need only look at India and Pakistan, which
recently conducted nuclear tests, and at some other nations with
nuclear capabilities, including Israel and South Korea, two
countries whose intentions are still cause for concern. These
nations have yet to confirm their willingness to stop conducting
nuclear tests and to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty.
The Bloc Quebecois, the other political parties represented in
this House, as well as the people of Quebec and Canada agree
that it is essential that we rid the world once and for all of
all nuclear weapons and nuclear tests. It is a matter of getting
our priorities in order.
As the critic for international co-operation, I see shocking
statistics on human misery every day. More than 1.3 billion
people are living in abject poverty, living on less than a
dollar a day. Every day, 34,000 children die from malnutrition
and disease.
Every year, 17 million people die of infectious and parasitic
diseases.
1015
The priorities of the world and of our governments must focus on
basic human needs.
Everybody on this planet has the right to proper food, shelter,
care and education. Yet, since 1945, it is estimated that the
world has spent a whopping $8 trillion on nuclear weapons.
Members should try to imagine what could have been done with all
that money in poor countries. Even now, the gap between the rich
and the poor is constantly growing wider. The time has come to
put a stop to this waste and to invest where it really matters.
As a medium size military power with no nuclear weapons, how can
Canada help further and promote in a tangible way the
comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty? Canada, through its
Department of Foreign Affairs, has displayed great leadership in
its crusade to ban land mines. The Bloc Quebecois wants to
acknowledge the work done by the minister on this issue.
Even if Canada does not have nuclear weapons, and even if it is
officially opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, can
it claim that it has done nothing wrong?
We can think of China, to which Canada sold Candu nuclear
reactors. There is also the fact that our country allows nuclear
bombers to enter its airspace and use its low level flight
ranges for pilot training.
Canada is on the right track, and we are very aware of the fact,
but we are also aware of the fact that it could do even more.
We in the Bloc Quebecois want Canada to go even further. Does
this government have the real political will to be innovative in
nuclear disarmament?
This challenge concerns the international community as a whole,
and Canada has a duty to take concrete action and especially not
to accept the status quo. On the contrary, it must be proactive
and thus help the heads of nuclear countries translate the will
of the people into decisive action.
At the dawn of the 21st century, the middle powers must make
these heads of state take this opportunity in the name of
humanity and the planet.
The Bloc Quebecois is acutely aware of the challenge nuclear
disarmament represents.
We will continue in our desire to build an international
community where nuclear weapons exist only in history books, so
that future generations may realize the dangers of nuclear arms.
I can tell you that a sovereign Quebec will not hesitate as a
new country to sign the comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty and
to ensure its implementation both nationally and
internationally.
With the approach of the new millennium, it is time to put an
end to the scourge of nuclear weapons. This is our duty to
future generations. Let us do so, to give all children on the
planet the opportunity to enjoy life without the threat of
nuclear arms.
[English]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this treaty has been an arms control and disarmament objective of
successive Canadian governments since the 1960s. The Right Hon.
Joe Clark made this issue a high priority when he was foreign
minister.
The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was open for signature
at a special session of the United Nations general assembly in
New York on September 24, 1996 and has now been signed by over
150 countries.
Canada played an important role in the treaty's negotiation, in
particular in relation to the verification regime. Approximately
15 Canadian monitoring stations will be part of the international
monitoring system as well as one radionuclide laboratory.
Canada has also worked with other countries such as Australia to
find a way to open the treaty for signature and ratification.
Twenty-one countries have now ratified the treaty, including two
nuclear weapons states, the United Kingdom and France, and eight
of the thirty-nine non-nuclear states designated under the treaty
as having nuclear energy or research programs.
1020
They therefore, along with the nuclear weapons states, must also
ratify the treaty before it can come into force. Canada, one of
the world leaders in nuclear technology for solely peaceful
purposes, is a designated state. It is therefore most
appropriate and important that Canada be one of the first group
countries to ratify the treaty.
I do not underestimate the importance and complexity of this
seemingly straightforward legislation. Bill C-52 criminalizes
the carrying out of or aiding and abetting in the carrying out of
nuclear explosions. It establishes a national authority to serve
as a focal point for a liaison between Canada and the CTBTO in
Vienna, with other states party to the treaty, and obligates
Canadian industry to report large scale chemical explosions which
might be confused with nuclear tests. Once passed, this
legislation will allow Canada to ratify the treaty.
I want to take a minute to talk about Canada's record. This
government made a very weak statement about France's testing in
the Pacific. It was clearly a race to a large nuclear capacity
for France before ratification. It is also disgraceful that
Canada has not pursued more vigorously its assistance to Russia
and the former Soviet Union states in demobilizing their nuclear
capability.
The Conservative government started with a small fund in the
early 1990s to help scholars so that they might remain within
Russia and the Soviet Union and not sell their knowledge and
dangerous expertise to other countries.
Equally disturbing is this government's lack of response to the
troubled Arctic waters. Time and time again, both in Russia and
elsewhere, concerns have been raised in relation to the nuclear
waste that is embedded on the floor of the Arctic Ocean and, in
the words of many, contaminating our waters around the world.
This government has paid only lip service to this problem. If
this government wishes to be consistent with this new treaty it
must again raise these issues as we did in the early 1990s.
In the wake of the 1974 nuclear explosion test by India, using
Canadian technology transferred in good faith solely for peaceful
purposes, we learned a hard lesson. Under the leadership of my
party Canada went on to become one of the first nuclear exporters
to require International Atomic Energy Agency full scope
safeguards on all our exports of nuclear material to non-nuclear
weapons states. We also put in place arrangements to ensure that
any transfers for peaceful purposes to a nuclear weapons state
would not be diverted for military purposes. These are
longstanding Canadian policies which were groundbreaking in their
time.
Regrettably, however, against that backdrop of exceedingly high
standards and practices must be set the seemingly casual way this
government went about signing a nuclear co-operation agreement
with China, a nuclear weapons state which still does not require
full scope safeguards for its nuclear exports and whose record of
proliferation of significant transfers has been dangerous. I
want to know how this government can square the ease with which
we entered into nuclear co-operation with a communist country
with brutal non-proliferation credentials with a very high
priority which this government purports to give to preventing the
spread of nuclear weapons.
If Canada is to continue to play a leadership role in preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting their successive
reduction, we must attend to all aspects of our nuclear policy
with equal vigour and credibility. But the government never
learns. Why? For money. From the events of last year's APEC
summit we know the government cares more about money than human
rights. We also know the government cares more about money than
it does about world security. We should not so easily forget the
lessons of India in the 1970s and the question being raised about
our nuclear installations and uses in Canada.
The standing committee on foreign affairs and international
trade in the other place has just finished a review of Canada's
non-proliferation arms control and disarmament policy. The
minister asked that we have full House support for the committee
report. My party will be forthright. Nuclear weapons are not
land mines. My party supported the minister's efforts in the
land mine treaty and congratulate him on his success. We are in
favour of stopping proliferation. We are in favour of arms
control. The world has been, is currently and will be a
dangerous place. Ridding our security system and calling for the
U.S. to rid itself of its weapons in Europe is gutting our
security system and will make the globe more dangerous, not
safer.
1025
This minister talks about 50 years ago. Maybe he should talk
about 50 years from now.
Nuclear weapons have been the steadfast cornerstone of western
security policy since the creation of NATO in 1949. Unless this
minister can outline in the House with detail all the security
risks the globe will encounter in the next 50 years my party
cannot support the idea of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
While it is certainly an idealistic view, it is not based on
reality. The reality is the Russian parliament will not implement
START II any time soon. To delude ourselves that it will is very
dangerous. The reality is the Chinese are developing more
nuclear weapons, not fewer. To delude ourselves that they are not
is also very dangerous.
My party is in favour of making the world safer, not making it
more dangerous.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and
concurred in)
* * *
[Translation]
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill S-16, an act to
implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of
Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this
opportunity today at third reading of Bill S-16.
The purpose of the bill is to implement income tax conventions
that Canada has signed with Chile, Croatia and Vietnam. Currently
Canada has tax treaties in force with 64 countries. We have been
building and updating this network of tax conventions for almost
three decades.
Bill S-16 is part of the ongoing maintenance of Canada's system
of tax treaties but that does not mean it is merely a routine
housekeeping bill of no importance to Canadians.
In today's environment tax treaties are more relevant than ever
to Canada's competitiveness and overall economic performance.
Foreign economies are opening up, individuals are becoming more
mobile and as the pace of international trade and investment
quickens tax treaties are becoming increasingly important to
investors and entrepreneurs tapping into these opportunities.
1030
Like all of the other tax conventions that Canada and its
trading partners have implemented over the years, Bill S-16 has
two overriding objectives. One is to avoid double taxation and
the other is to prevent income tax evasion.
The potential for double taxation arises when a taxpayer who is
a resident of one country earns income in another. In the
absence of a tax convention, both the country of residence and
the country that is the source of income would be justified in
claiming tax on that income.
Tax treaties address the problem of double taxation in one of
two ways. The treaty allocates exclusive taxing rights either to
the taxpayer's country of residence or to the country that is the
source of the income. Or, if the income would be taxable in both
countries, the treaty requires the country of residence to give
credit for the tax paid to the source country.
Measures that reduce double taxation also serve the purpose of
preventing tax evasion. Laws that limit the potential for double
taxation normally include provisions that encourage the exchange
of information between the participating countries. It is that
sharing of information that helps these countries' revenue
authorities to identify cases of tax evasion and in fact act on
them.
Another benefit of this legislation is the certainty for
taxpayers, certainty that a rate of tax limited under any of
these agreements cannot be increased without substantial advance
notice of any changes.
In addition there will be a reduced compliance burden for
Canadian taxpayers who have investments or business interests in
Chile, Croatia or Vietnam.
A key part of any tax treaty bill is the withholding tax rate
reductions. In this regard Bill S-16 is no exception. Canada
and other countries generally impose withholding taxes on various
types of income paid to non-residents. In the absence of a
bilateral tax treaty or a unilateral exemption from withholding
tax, Canada's statutory non-resident withholding tax is 25%.
Under our network of tax treaties however, there are several
rate reductions in effect, and these reductions apply on a
reciprocal basis. Where such a tax treaty is in effect, the
country in which the taxpayer resides can withhold tax.
Without going into a country by country explanation of the
various withholding tax rates proposed, I would like to point out
that the rate is generally limited to 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends
in branch profits. In addition the withholding tax on interest
and royalties is generally limited to 10%.
The exception is the agreement with Chile, which provides for a
15% rate. In some cases royalties on copyright, computer
software, patents and know-how are exempt at source.
Another feature of Bill S-16 is that it respects Canada's right
to tax pension and annuities paid to non-residents. The
agreements with Vietnam and Croatia provide for pension payments
to be taxed in both countries with the source country collecting
no more than 15% of the total payment. In both Vietnam and
Croatia, social security benefits will be taxable in the source
country with no limitation. Under the Canada-Chile income tax
convention, pension and social security benefits will be taxed by
the country from which the payments are made.
Another issue that is addressed by Bill S-16 is the treatment of
capital gains realized by non-residents. In these cases the
source country would retain its right to tax capital gains on the
sale of real property, business assets and shares in real estate
companies or interests in real estate partnerships or trusts.
The provisions of Bill S-16 are in fact tailored to the
realities of international commerce. Reduced withholding taxes
and the other benefits of this legislation are reciprocal in
nature. This tax convention entails no revenue loss whatsoever,
not for Canada and not for any of the other signatories.
When Bill S-16 received second reading in the House of Commons,
it received support from members of all parties. Earlier in the
week the bill passed through the finance committee without
amendments. It is well understood among hon. members that this
is legislation that will prevent double taxation and facilitate
trade.
1035
As a nation, we all know that almost 40% of our wealth depends
on exports, foreign commerce and direct foreign investment. Tax
treaties help to ensure that Canada's tax policies are applied
consistently in transactions that reach beyond our borders. They
also contribute to an environment of stability and certainty for
investors and traders.
Bill S-16 will therefore increase our ability to compete and to
harness the opportunities of a vibrant and modern economy. For
the reasons I have indicated, I urge hon. members to support this
bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak to Bill C-16.
I do not know whether everybody here knows the full implications
of the bill. It is certainly a good housekeeping bill. As has
been indicated, it went through committee and there were no
amendments because the bill as it stands presumably is fairly
good. It solidifies and gives legislative approval to some very
necessary provisions. It provides that we should have agreements
with countries with which we have a flow of capital, in which
people are investing and where there is money earned. It is
reciprocal.
The bill is an act to implement agreements between Vietnam and
Canada, between Croatia and Canada, and between Chile and Canada.
Whether some of their people invest in our country or vice
versa, this bill has some tax provisions to avoid double
taxation.
Before I discuss the bill's provisions I will talk about the
S in Bill S-16. This is very relevant to the bill. A bill
that begins with a C originates in the House of Commons,
the House to which people are elected and whose members are
obligated to represent their constituents. On the government
side in particular there are numerous examples of situations in
which MPs are not permitted to represent their ridings and the
people who elected them. On command they stand up and vote the
way they are told.
At least every four or five years, or three and a half years if
the government gets scared as it did the last time, voters have
the opportunity to put an x on a ballot and give either
their approval or disapproval for what a particular member stands
for and to indicate whether they believe that member did a good
job in representing the riding.
It is significant that in the last election the number of
Liberals elected went down quite a bit. The Liberals went from
having a very healthy majority which allowed them to go off and
do whatever they wanted without having to worry about having
enough people in the House, to what is now a very marginal
majority.
The Liberals have very few members to spare. As a result, there
were two occasions in this parliament in which there were no
Liberals in the House at all. This allowed us to pass things
that are good for the people. The latest example is the changes
made to the Private Members' Business procedure. The changes give
members some freedom to represent their constituents despite the
draconian control of the party over its members. Private
Members' Business is a very important part of representational
democracy.
The C at the beginning of a bill number indicates the bill
comes from the House of Commons, which represents the common
people. That is where bills like Bill S-16 should come from.
On the other hand are the S bills which originate in the
Senate.
1040
I forgot to mention that while the number of Liberal members
went down in the last election, the Reform membership went up by
20%. It is an absolute indication that Canadian people are ready
for a higher degree of democracy. They are ready to have people
in this House who will represent them.
Let me get back to the S bills, which originate in the
Senate. Who are the senators? Some look at them as being hockey
players. The only problem is they do not really have to answer
to anybody. If the coach says to go and play somewhere, well
they can or they cannot. It depends on who the coach is. If it
is the Prime Minister who appointed them, then they will jump to
attention. But it is the people they represent who pay for their
salaries, pensions, travel, offices, and for their Mexican—but I
should not say that as it is over. They do not have to listen to
people in their ridings. And there are actually Liberals in the
House who continue to defend this.
Last night we debated a private member's bill that said that
senators should be elected. What can possibly be wrong with
that?
Ask any Canadian what he or she would rather have. We all
acknowledge that the Senate is part of parliament. Would
Canadians rather have a person in parliament who is elected by
the accumulation of more votes than the other candidates in the
area that he or she represents, or would they rather have someone
else pick them? I do not think we would find one Canadian in a
thousand who would say “I think it is important that they be
picked because we are not smart enough. We do not want
democracy. We do not want to have a say in that”.
It is absolutely absurd. Yet this government continues time
after time, year after year to break election promises on it and
to do nothing about it. The Prime Minister said “We will have an
elected Senate”. He said during the 1993 election campaign that
within two years of a Liberal government being elected that we
would have an elected Senate. Then he went on to say that as the
Prime Minister he could make that happen.
I guess that was as good a vote getter as promising to kill the
GST and it went the same way. After the Liberals came to power
they did not kill the GST. They increased it by about 100%. That
is what happened with the harmonization.
And what has happened on the promise with making the Senate
elected, something the Prime Minister could do just by simply
saying that he would do it? All he would have had to do instead
of giving a great big insult to every Albertan in the country was
to say “Yes, people, if you want to choose your own senators, I
will be honourable enough and will appoint that one because that
is the way it is right now. I will appoint the one that you
select. You give me the list and I will choose from that list
instead of from my own list of Liberal hacks”.
Sure, every once in a while he picks somebody who does not have
Liberal credentials. Every Canadian can see through that ruse.
That is a way of trying to legitimize it. Yesterday in the
debate one of the members opposite said that Mr. Manning was an
appointed senator. That is Mr. Manning, the father of our leader
so I am not breaking any House rules. He was appointed. Well of
course.
There are people appointed to the Senate who do not have tight
Liberal connections. Every once in a while there is one. Why?
Because it only takes a little bit of salt to affect the taste of
the whole bowl of soup. Put in a few of these little grains of
salt, really honourable people who have credentials beyond just
being Liberal Party supporters and participators and that gives
some air of respectability to the process. But it is a phony
process and it needs to be stopped. It is time on behalf of
Canadians to stop this charade of appointing people. Democracy is
not served by it.
The purpose of the Senate should be to balance powers. Power
only works properly in a democracy if there is a proper balance.
Checks and balances we call them.
We need in the Senate a balance against the dictatorial power of
a single person in the House who can control majority members in
the government and then can turn around and control majority
members in the Senate.
1045
Since the bill is about taxes, I should talk about the GST.
During the GST debate several parliaments ago the majority of
Canadians said nyet. I should speak English or French; they
said no or non. They said they did not want the GST. In my
riding 85% of the people were reputed to say that the GST as
proposed was bad. They did not want it, but the prime minister
of the day sat in his seat and told his members they would vote
for it whether or not they wanted it.
The MP for Elk Island voted for the GST. It was one of the
things I heard more often than any other during the campaign.
People said they would not vote for him again because he did not
vote for them on the GST. He voted against them.
I said the Reform policy is that I will represent them. If
there is a clear indication from my riding that my constituents
have a certain wish on a bill, I will represent that. I am so
proud to be a part of a party where that is not only permitted
but required. I would be in trouble with my party if I failed to
do it. In the other parties, whether it is Liberal,
Conservative, NDP, or even Bloc, I suppose, if members do not
vote the party they get punished. It is just the opposite in my
party. It is time we had a truly democratic Reform government.
What did the prime minister of the day do when the GST bill went
to the Senate? In that chamber of sober second thought there was
a majority of Liberal senators at that time and the present
Liberal government was on the opposition side of the House. They
said no to the GST. The present Prime Minister who was then the
leader of the opposition said that if they got in they would kill
it.
That is what happened at that time, but the prime minister of
the day wanted the GST. He had all his Conservative MPs rise
when their strings were pulled. Then it went to the Senate where
bad bills are supposed to be stopped. Indeed the Senate stopped
it because a majority senators, either for the sake of discipline
to the Liberal Party of the day or for Canadians as a whole, said
no to it.
What was the response of the then prime minister? He pulled out
of the hat some obscure rule and was able to load the Senate up
with extra members. He stacked the Senate with members whose
only qualification was that they had enough energy to stand up
when asked to vote whether they were in favour of the GST. He
found eight such members, put them in the Senate and the bill was
jammed through. That is not democracy.
That is why we need an elected Senate. That is why we need a
Senate that truly represents the people from the provinces in
which senators originate. That is long overdue. What is so
totally disgusting and annoying is that the Prime Minister, who
promised he would do it and could do it if he had the will,
refuses to do it. That is what is disgusting. He could have
simply said when the opening came up in Alberta that he would let
democracy rule.
Under the current legislation he does not have the right to
appoint senators. Strictly speaking that is to be done by the
Governor General, but of course the Governor General is also a
favourite appointee of the Prime Minister. They work together in
this regard.
The Prime Minister could simply say whomever the people select
is the person who will be there. I am proud to say that this
coming week these elected senators will be in Ottawa. Maybe they
will be observed. They will be around. We hope they will be
able to get some media interviews and perhaps breathe a breath of
democracy into this place that is so much in need of it.
1050
I am going to take a little pause and have a drink of water
before I get to stage two of my speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for Elk Island
at stage two will want to talk about the tax consequences of the
bill.
Mr. Ken Epp: I am very happy now to speak about taxation
because that is what the bill is about. The other part of my
speech was very appropriate because it is Bill S-16. As I said
before it cannot be ruled irrelevant. It is very relevant.
I applaud the principle of the bill to make sure that people pay
taxes which they should be paying in a fair manner. It does two
things. It helps to prevent people from avoiding paying the
taxes they should and it prevents people from paying twice the
taxes they should.
When people make money in a country sometimes the country
charges them tax on it. When they bring their money home they
have to pay taxes on it again. That is called double taxation.
Very frankly it is not good for the economy of a country.
This is a fine bill. It is regrettable that it was not brought
in, in the House of Commons. It would have had the same support
from us that it has from us now in principle. Instead it was
brought in from the other place.
Speaking about double taxation, it occurred to me not very long
ago that we have too much double and even triple taxation. Let
us talk about gasoline. I used to teach mathematics. I did a
few calculations. I do not remember the exact numbers so I will
have to do the calculations all over again on the run. I think I
can do that.
Let us say I earn $2.77. At my marginal rate of taxation and at
the rate of most middle class Canadians, I have to pay about 40%
of my earnings marginally to income tax. Those are federal and
provincial income taxes.
If I take 40% away from the $2.77, that leaves me with $1.66.
Having earned $2.77 I have only $1.66 left. Then, if I go to the
gas station to buy some gasoline with the $1.66 in my pocket, I
notice that the pump says 40% of the price is taxes. I end up
with another 40% taken off. Finally I buy $1 worth of gasoline.
For $1 worth of gasoline $1.77 went into taxes and $1 went for
the gasoline. Now $1.77 in taxes on a $1 purchase is a 177% tax.
That is double taxation.
The government in taxing us for gasoline. It even taxes the
taxes. Part of the price of a litre of gasoline is the federal
tax which is 10 cents or 11 cents. That is added to the price.
Then what happens? The GST is computed on that amount including
the tax.
The government says that it has not increased taxes. I will
never forget that in its first budget the government increased
the tax on gasoline by 1.5 cents per litre. At least that is
what it said at the time. It was inaccurate. When the GST is
added to the 1.5 cents, it is 1.605 cents. In other words, the
government said it was taking 1.5 cents more but what it really
got was 1.6 cents because of the insidious GST which was brought
in by lack of MP representation in the House and by the lack of
an elected Senate in the other place.
It all ties together. We have double and triple taxation in
Canada, taxes being put on taxes.
1055
Let me give another example. I will confess about all the big
money I earned before coming to the House of Commons. Actually
my salary is about the same or a little higher than it was when I
was an instructor at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
where I earned $4,000.
What did I do? I paid my income tax on that $4,000 of
approximately 40%. What did I have left? I had $2,400 left.
What did I do with that $2,400? I took out my chequebook and
wrote a cheque for my municipal taxes which that year were around
$2,400. I do not have it with me; I could not use it anyway,
neither a flag nor a chequebook.
My $4,000 earnings were taxed and then with the money I had left
I paid my taxes. When the municipality said that I had to pay
$2,400 in taxes, how could I reconcile that with the fact that I
had to earn $4,000 to pay my taxes? It is double taxation.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice how relevant I am. I applaud the
principle of Bill S-16 which says that we should avoid double
taxation. It is not good for entrepreneurs. It is not good for
investors. It is only good for the governments that suck us dry.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have to contain
himself and carry on his remarks after question period when he
will have 18.5 minutes to complete his remarks. I know all hon.
members will look forward to that.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ABORTIONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1948 the World Medical Association adopted a Hippocratic oath to
guide the ethical practice of medical doctors. It reads in part:
In the early 1970s medical schools stopped requiring new doctors
to take the oath and the Canadian Medical Association code of
ethics no longer requires any reference to abortion. The medical
profession has abandoned its responsibility for the unborn child
and now it is up to Canadians to assume that responsibility.
Last year there were over 110,000 abortions in Canada with a
cost to our health care system of over $10 million. That is over
300 abortions each and every day. It says that each year 110,000
mistakes are made at the expense of all Canadians by those who
fail to act responsibly.
Is it too much to ask Canadians just to be responsible for their
actions? We do have a choice and that choice should be made
before we act, not after we have failed to act responsibly.
* * *
CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's merchant navy veterans have suffered imposed poverty
since World War II. The minister says no to retroactivity for
merchant navy war veterans but ex gratia lump sum payments have
been made in the past. Stonewalling on terminology is
disgraceful. Merchant navy veterans are not seeking great
wealth, just equality.
The merchant navy concerns are to be recognized as war veterans,
to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for
years of inequality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial
days.
A motion in committee asked the minister to address these four
concerns. Not one, two or three of them but all four. The
motion has support from all opposition parties. Will the
government not finally add its support and end this sordid
affair?
* * *
HELICOPTERS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to congratulate one of the
many vibrant high tech companies in my riding of
Nepean—Carleton, which will have an impact on helicopter safety
around the globe.
DRS Flight Safety and Communications was awarded five contracts
earlier this month totalling $10.2 million for the supply of
emergency avionics systems for Agusta and GKN Westland
Helicopters joint Cormorant helicopter program.
The helicopter industry's version of the black box, the first 15
DRS devices, will be a vital feature of the new Cormorant search
and rescue helicopters the federal government is buying to
replace the Labradors.
1100
The state of the art technology which allows rescue crews to
locate downed helicopters by tracing satellite signals will also
be used in more than 80 other helicopters for the British navy
and air force, the Italian armed forces and Tokyo's metropolitan
police force.
DRS' launch into the market is a prime example of a government
investment success story. Over the past decade the company has
spent approximately $10 million, including federal research
money, to streamline and make the technology the most advanced on
the globe. That is what I call an investment in our future.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1989
Canada co-chaired and signed the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
Article one of the convention states: “For the purpose of the
present convention, a child means every human being below the age
of 18 years, unless, under the law applicable to the child,
majority is attained earlier”. While most of our commitments
have been fulfilled, this article has not.
Today, however, I have great news. The Minister of Transport
has committed to introducing new legislation regarding the Canada
Shipping Act which will ensure that the definitions of child and
infant are interpreted consistently with the definition of child
proposed in article one of the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
This new act will accomplish the objectives of my private
member's bill, Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Shipping
Act.
I would like to congratulate and thank the Minister of Transport
for his outstanding initiative, foresight and leadership and for
his commitment to the children of Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN HISTORY
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian author, historian and museum director Jack Granatstein
has asked the question: “Who killed Canadian history?”
Although the answer is not necessarily easy, simple or to our
liking, I am pleased to note that the Department of Canadian
Heritage and Parks Canada are taking interest in the final
resting places of our 13 deceased former prime ministers.
We are, to my knowledge, the only country which fails to
acknowledge and preserve as national historic sites the burial
places of those who have led our country.
To know our future we must know our past. That maxim is being
realized by actions being undertaken by Parks Canada to preserve
and mark the burial sites of former prime ministers.
* * *
DRUG AWARENESS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week was Drug Awareness Week.
I hope this asleep at the wheel government took the opportunity
to learn something about the drug problem in our country. I hope
it has learned something.
This weak Liberal government is allowing the drug cartels and
organized crime to abuse our immigration system. The Liberal
dominated immigration committee has refused to even study the
abuse in the future business of the committee.
The bogus refugees sell drugs to our children. The problem is
at an epidemic level in British Columbia. We need help now. We
should tighten the borders and toughen the penalties to keep out
the dealers and their drugs.
The RCMP is losing the war against drugs. They have no funds.
Our RCMP needs help. Stop making Canada a haven for drug
dealers. Clean up the drug problem. Just say no to drug
cartels. Protect our youth from drugs.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
violence against women is unacceptable any way, anytime and
anywhere. In Canada one woman is killed every six and one half
days by a gun. Four out of every five victims of spousal
homicide are women.
These statistics confirm a fundamental abuse of power, an
abhorrent violation of human rights. All too often violence
against women goes unpunished. All too often it is tolerated in
silence by its victims.
This government has sent a powerful message through gun control
legislation, anti-stalking amendments, rape shield laws and other
amendments to the Criminal Code. This is not enough. Canadians
as a community must become motivated to break this cycle of
violence.
I urge members of this House and Canadians everywhere to break
the silence and eradicate violence against women now.
Canada must be a safer place for our wives, mothers, daughters
and sisters; for women everywhere.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak on the crisis currently unfolding in Canada's
agricultural industries.
1998 has been a difficult fiscal year for our primary producers.
Commodity prices have plummeted and financial forecasts call for
ominous storm clouds to form on the horizon.
This nation was founded upon the institution of the family farm.
Sadly, it is that very symbol which now faces almost certain
disaster if we fail to intercede. Over the course of the last
several weeks my colleagues and I have examined this matter with
numerous interested parties. I recall one farmer who summarized
this debate effectively when he said “I work on my farm to feed
my country but I must work off my farm to feed my family”. It
is a very sad reality.
Unfortunately, the choices available are limited. Farmers must
either get out of the business now or face the very real prospect
of future financial ruin.
1105
I cannot stress enough the urgency of this matter. I would
encourage all of my colleagues to support the efforts of the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in this matter. If we fail
to act we run the risk of closing the proverbial gate long after
the cattle have run off.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE QUÉBÉCOISE DES 4-H
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of 4-H week in Quebec, last Friday marked the
inauguration of the exhibition entitled “Nature in all its
forms”, at the Laval Récréathèque.
Every weekend until next April, this interactive laboratory will
teach young people about protecting and improving the quality of
the environment. There will be teaching workshops for groups of
students.
In keeping with their motto of “honour, honesty, handiness and
humanity”, the Quebec 4-H clubs have been operating since 1942 to
protect the forest and the environment.
Through science-oriented recreational activities, they develop a
respect for others, a sense of responsibility, a spirit of
initiative and creativity in young people.
I would like to draw attention to the remarkable work done by
the 4-H clubs in Quebec, especially those in Laval, which are
working to develop good consumer practices in keeping with the
principles of sustainable development.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
September American farmers and politicians shut down the borders.
They accused the Canadian Wheat Board of illegally dumping
Canadian grain. They accused Canadian farmers of being
subsidized by the Canadian Wheat Board. What did the responsible
minister say? Don't worry, be happy; it is nothing but an
election stunt.
It is time to worry. The Americans were dead serious then and
they are dead serious now. On December 6 American farmers and
ranchers from Minnesota to Washington state are planning another
blockade. They are demanding an audit of the Canadian Wheat
Board to prove that it is illegally dumping Canadian grain. They
are demanding country of origin labelling on our agriculture
products. They are demanding a moratorium on all grain and
livestock imports.
These are not election stunts. These border closings are making
a bad, critical situation worse for our Canadian farmers. How
many more border closures will we see before this government gets
serious about helping our farmers in Canada and at the
international trading tables?
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Monday
is a decisive moment for the future of Quebec and of Canada, the
day of the Quebec election.
Quebeckers will have an opportunity to choose between economic
growth and separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
I myself will be voting Liberal, because I believe in a better
future within a united Canada for myself and my children. I
will be voting for a party which has the true interests of
Quebec at heart, the Quebec Liberal Party.
This coming November 30, it is Quebeckers' chance to speak up.
I am confident that they will choose Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian banks have a golden opportunity. They can prove their
commitment to the Canadian people by helping farmers in Canada.
Grain and hog farmers in Canada are trying to survive the most
serious crisis since the great depression of the 1930s. After
years of record profits, bank closures and a multitude of service
charges, the banks have been spending millions on a lobbying
campaign to force the acceptance of mergers. Canadians have be
vigilant in their opposition to the mergers and have clearly said
no.
The banks were in the farming and mining communities in the good
times and now they must stand by them through the bad. They must
reconcile their profitability with the responsibility which comes
with their charters.
They can begin rebuilding their reputation with Canadians right
now. It is imperative that Canada's chartered banks put those
merger campaign dollars into productive use and invest in the
farming and mining communities of Canada.
I urge the banks to halt foreclosures on any family farms during
this crisis.
* * *
[Translation]
FÉDÉRATION DES AGRICULTRICES DU QUÉBEC
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
recently, the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec announced
the recipients of its 1998 regional awards.
The women who received these awards were: Abitibi-Témiscamingue,
dairy and cattle operation, Lise Gélinas; Bas-Saint-Laurent,
greenhouse operation; Yvette Trépanier; Beauce, dairy operation,
Fabienne Roy; central Quebec, dairy operation, Lucie Talbot;
South Shore, sheep operation, Gisèle Nadeau; Estrie, beekeeping
operation, Carole Huppé; Lanaudière, goat operation, Carole
Johnson; Mauricie, cereal and market gardening operations,
Françoise Béland; Montérégie, cereal operation, Monique Lecours;
Montérégie, seed operation, Marie-Anne Marcoux;
Outaouais-Laurentides, cereal operation, Nathalie Malo; Québec,
ornamental horticulture, Lorraine Bélanger;
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, dairy operation, Suzanne Larouche.
Our sincere congratulations to all these women for their
initiative and their competency.
* * *
1110
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday,
November 30, Quebeckers will be choosing a new government. I
encourage the population to exercise its right to vote, as this
is the very cornerstone of democracy.
People need to keep in mind that, ever since the Quiet
Revolution, the Quebec Liberal Party has safeguarded the best
interests of Quebec. When making their selection, they must
keep in mind that the Quebec Liberal Party has always worked to
maintain harmony and social justice within a country serving the
best interests of the people of Quebec
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
the last budget the Minister of Finance put more money into
federal transfers for health and education. In the case of
Newfoundland, that only slowed the rate of decrease in our
transfers. This year Newfoundland received $274 million in these
transfers. By the year 2002 the amount will have dropped to $245
million.
As of November there have been 429 cardiac surgeries done in
Newfoundland. When asked recently in question period about the
220 cardiac patients on the waiting list at the Health Sciences
Centre in St. John's, the Newfoundland Minister of Health said
“Unfortunately we have to live within our fiscal means”.
When those means keep decreasing it is possible that some people
may not live. I call upon the Minister of Finance to increase
transfers for health in his upcoming budget. For some people on
the waiting list it will be a matter of life and death.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today in Halifax the Minister of Health, together with Nova
Scotia Health Minister Jim Smith, announced some important
initiatives for the future of health care in Nova Scotia and all
of Canada.
Funded under the health transition fund, these four projects
will be testing ways to improve primary health care to enhance
the health of children and youth in Nova Scotia, to pilot
palliative home care in rural areas and to develop a new model
for primary care in the Eskasoni First Nations community. Total
funding for these projects will be $4.8 million.
The common thread through all of these projects is that they put
the patient first by organizing health services around the needs
of people instead of the needs of the system.
In the spirit of co-operation that is guiding our efforts, these
projects will be managed in partnership with the Nova Scotia
ministries of health, education, community services and justice,
the Prince Edward Island department of health and social
services, Health Canada, Dalhousie University and the Eskasoni
First Nation reserve.
These projects will generate evidence based information to help
provide the right care, at the right time, in the right place.
* * *
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the government showed enormous contempt for the
Canadian taxpayer.
It has been the tradition in the House that the minister be
called before the appropriate committee to be questioned on the
money allocated for the respective departments.
In the fall ministers appear to answer questions on the
supplementary estimates, which are additions to their budgets
late in the fiscal year.
In the case of the Ministry of the Environment this additional
expenditure amounts to $46 million. When opposition members
called for the environment minister to appear before the
environment committee, the government used its majority to vote
down this motion.
What happened to accountability? What happened to tradition in
the House? By refusing to allow the minister to appear the
government showed not only contempt for the Canadian taxpayer and
for the principles of an open, responsible democracy, it
renounced one of the traditions of the House.
It raises a question. What is the government trying to hide in
this $46 million expenditure?
* * *
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of my constituents recently joined together
with other Canadians to wear white ribbons against pornography.
In particular, several local chapters of the Catholic Women's
League in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough sent me
hundreds of white ribbons to express their opposition to the
destructive and harmful effects of pornography.
In an era where the CRTC grants broadcast licences to the
playboy channel but denies similar privileges to single faith
Christian broadcasts, we as parliamentarians need to be vigilant
against the spread of obscene material, especially with respect
to children.
I urge all members of the House to join with me in commending
the white ribbon against pornography campaign. Let us hope that
the depictions of human relations in the ever expanding mass
media are ones of morality, decency and respect and not personal
gratification, degradation and objectification.
* * *
1115
CANADA-CHINA LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I had the honour of travelling to China with several of my
colleagues from the House and Senate to participate in the first
meeting of the Canada-China Legislative Association.
This new association was created under the sponsorship of
Speaker Parent, Speaker Molgat and that of the chair of the
Chinese National People's Congress, Mr. Li Peng.
Our counterparts from the standing committee of the National
People's Congress were Jiang Xin Xiong, Zheng Yi, Zeng Jianhui,
Lu Congmin, Liu Zheng, Tao Xiping, Wang Shuming, Jamyang Losang
Jigme Tubain Qoigyi Nyima, and Yang Zhenhuai.
Together we covered a wide range of topics of importance to
legislators from the functioning of our respective governments to
many of the more difficult issues we all face: respect for the
rights of minorities, the rule of law, the development of a civil
society, human rights, protection of the environment and much
more.
Together we began a process which I believe will deepen the
already positive relationships that exist between our two
countries.
The Deputy Speaker: I must caution hon. members from
using the names of other hon. members in speeches or in
statements. I believe I heard two today but I was reluctant to
interrupt.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government does not seem to understand that to a prairie farm
family losing the family farm is a disaster. They lose the land
that in many cases has been in the family for years. They lose
their home, their income and their hope.
Instead of inventing excuses for doing nothing, why does this
government not treat this like the disaster it is?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are treating it like the disaster it
is. It is imperative, however, that we make sure that producers
are able to use the risk management tools that are already there.
If and when a program is put in place we must recognize that it
needs to go to the individual producers who are most in need and
that it is as equitable as possible across the country.
I agree with the member very sincerely. We need to do it and we
will do whatever we are able to do as quickly as we possibly can.
We must be diligent in making sure it helps those most affected.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
just not good enough. When there is a disaster in any part of
the country the government correctly leaps to the aid of the
people who are affected.
This is a disaster in western Canada, the provinces where
agriculture is the very lifeblood of survival, and this is taking
altogether too long.
Farmers have been brought to their knees by this government.
They are pleading and begging the ministers of finance and
agriculture to do something. Will they announce disaster relief
for these farmers today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is very refreshing. The member's
party just a few months ago was adamant about farmers not having
support, not having subsidies and that we should cut back the
minister of agriculture's budget.
On behalf of the farmers of Canada, I thank opposition members
for their new found support and understanding of agriculture.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
because of this government and the lack of getting agreement with
other countries that are unfairly subsidizing that these farmers
are in trouble. It is the government's fault.
Will the minister finally wake up and smell the coffee and
realize he has to respond to the long term needs of farmers, cut
taxes and get a trade agreement that works for everybody?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no government that has
done a better job and worked harder than this government in
working with the provinces and the industry in putting safety net
programs in place and listening to them.
We started many months ago after the federal-provincial
agriculture ministers meeting in reviewing the whole safety net
program. The safety net advisory committee has been giving us
advice. It gave us some very critical and important advice last
week. We are working on that and will continue to do so as
quickly as we can.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this fall South Dakota stopped Canadian agriculture
exports. South Dakota gave a two week warning and the trade
minister did nothing until the trucks were stopped.
Now North Dakota farmers have warned us that they will blockade
the border on December 6. Why is the trade minister doing nothing
to keep the border open on December 6?
1120
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we resolved the issue between the United
States and Canada that was triggered by governors who clearly
woke up one morning and did something that was completely
illegal. The trucks are moving. Our officials are discussing
these issues. Next week is the next round for discussions. We
have already brought to their attention that once is enough. We
call on the Government of the United States to take up its
responsibility to cease and desist actions coming from its states
that are clearly illegal.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I just met with Roger Bergrand and John Germs, hog producers from
Saskatchewan who were in tears. Both farmers will be bankrupt by
March. They cannot afford to feed their baby pigs, and talk
among hog farmers is not about the weather this winter but about
whether diesel or gasoline fumes are the cheapest way to kill
their pigs. It is clearly a desperate situation. John and Roger
are right there in the gallery—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows it is quite out
of order to refer to the presence of persons in the gallery. The
Speaker alone is permitted to do that. I would ask the hon.
member to put his question forthwith.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, will Roger, John and
thousands of other farmers get the emergency aid they need
immediately?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have met with Mr.
Germs a few minutes ago but I had the occasion to meet Mr. Germs
earlier. It was not organized to be so but we did so because we
were both having interviews on national television. I told him
we were working as hard as we possibly can. I had every
indication from Mr. Germs and his colleague that they appreciated
the efforts we are taking at this time.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government boasts about introducing the concept of a
partnership with the provinces on social union. But at a time
when all the provinces are unanimously in favour of asking that
it wrap up this issue before Christmas, the federal government
is the one putting on the brakes.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify the
fact that his government is the one rejecting the idea of
holding a first ministers conference to resolve the social union
issue before Christmas?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premiers launched this initiative in December 1997.
The provinces submitted their proposals in June 1998. The
federal government responded with a counter-proposal in July
1998. Since then, work has been progressing well.
The PQ government stayed away from these negotiations until the
very end. Yesterday, Mr. Parizeau explained why the PQ is in
now: they hope to make the negotiations fail so as to create
winning conditions. Winning conditions for Lucien Bouchard are
losing conditions for Quebeckers.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
September, commenting on the Saskatoon agreement, the Prime
Minister stated that the provinces wanted to take the place of
the federal government. More recently, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs accused everyone of acting in bad
faith.
Is the reason the government refuses to resolve the social union
issue surrounding federal spending powers that, in its next
budget, it plans to interfere in health, as it did last year in
education with the millennium scholarships?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the deepest respect for the Constitution. The
Government of Canada has always provided assistance to students,
but does so without any direct involvement in education. We help
ensure Canadians have access to education.
I might remind the hon. member that, in the United States, 75%
of public funding for students is provided by the federal
government. In Germany, it is 65%. That is how federalism should
work, except in the minds of some separatist leaders, who never
understood what the Canadian federation was all about.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of
an election, it is understandable that the minister wants people
to think that Lucien Bouchard is guilty of bad faith on the
social union issue. The trouble is that the minister has no
credibility, because the 10 premiers are all of one mind. They
all signed the same agreement in Saskatoon.
Does the minister think that the 10 premiers are all acting in
bad faith, or are we to understand that, if anyone is guilty of
bad faith, it is the foot-dragging federal government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should listen to the answers before he asks
his questions. I have said who was holding things up in the
past: the Parti Quebecois government. Its reasons for doing so
are fairly obvious. Its reasons for getting involved now are
also fairly obvious because the number one item on its agenda,
unlike the agenda of the other premiers, is the destruction of
the country.
1125
It is very difficult to work credibly at improving a country one
wishes to tear apart. There is a fundamental contradiction
because the member does not even appear to know what social
union means. It means Canadians helping Canadians, coming to
each other's assistance more often, something this country is
very good at.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs is known in university circles as
an ideologist with a Liberal, centralizing vision of Canada in
which the federal government gives orders and the provinces take
them.
Is this why the minister is going to do everything he can to
avoid allowing the provinces to withdraw with full compensation
before the next budget, even though all 10 provinces are
unanimous that this is what they want and are telling him it is
urgent?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the member got his information.
I will say, though, that I find his questions increasingly
personal and uninteresting.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while
farm families are in desperate straits this government sits idly
by.
It reviews endlessly. It hints at emergency plans, but you
cannot feed pigs on promises. You cannot grow grain on uncertain
ground.
When will the government end the delays and bring forward
specific measures to provide the relief Canadian farmers so
desperately need?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have told the House over and over
again, although some hon. members have not heard yet, that we are
working diligently with the provinces and with the industry to
put together as quickly as possible resources in order to do
that. I have explained the necessity and the urgency of that to
my cabinet colleagues.
We want to be able to put a program in place to assist with the
provinces, one that is coherent, clear and a national strategy to
provide producers with security. If those words sound familiar
to the leader of the New Democratic Party they are words from the
NDP framework for Canada's future. That is what we are trying to
do.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, farmers
cannot wait. They cannot wait until Christmas and they
certainly cannot wait until the new year.
They need help and they need help now. Many more farmers will
be forced into bankruptcy before the government announces a
relief package.
To prevent still more bankruptcies, will the government move
swiftly to secure from the banks a moratorium on farm
foreclosures?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that along with
all the other work we are doing right now, all we possibly can as
quickly as we possibly can, I have been having discussions with
the banks encouraging them to be as understanding, as supportive
and as compassionate as they can possibly be with the producers
in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
PORK PRODUCERS
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
problems relating to pig slurry merit the government's
attention.
The present government has, in fact, invested millions into the
Lennoxville Research Station in my riding for research on pig
slurry, particularly on ways to suppress the odour and waste
generated. Yet the government is unwilling to do anything in
spite of these studies. Not a day goes by without the
government talking about this crisis, and not a day goes by
without another farm bankruptcy.
How many pork producers need to go bankrupt before it decides to
intervene?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the pork industry and environmental
concerns are certainly high priorities in our research program in
Canada.
On the hog environmental management strategy, for example, the
Canadian government has put $2 million in that program along with
$1 million from the industry itself to assist the industry to
find ways the nutrients from hog operations in Canada can be best
managed in the rural areas.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): The present government
has invested millions in the Lennoxville Research Station in my
riding for research on pig slurry.
I acknowledge that such studies are essential, but they are
useless if pork producers continue to go bankrupt. There will
simply be none of them left to make use of this technology.
How many pork producers need to go bankrupt before this
government realizes that its policy on pig slurry is just pig
manure?
1130
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, if I hear the hon.
member's question correctly, he is saying that we should not be
continuing research even though there is a situation of low
prices in the hog industry in Canada now. It is another reason
we need to.
The research is being done by the federal and provincial
governments and the industry. That is another reason why our
producers are very efficient. It is also another reason why all
of us want to do all we possibly can in order to help these
producers get through this crisis and downturn in the cycle right
now, so they can and will continue in the future to be producers
of some of the finest pork in the world.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, there is evidence of a breach of government security
with regard to confidential secret government documents that were
supposed to be shredded by a company in British Columbia.
Today we have confirmed that classified secret documents had
been shipped unshredded to China, Korea and the United States.
Last Wednesday in the House the minister of public works said
that “no important documents were in the hands of anyone
important”. His assistant deputy minister, Mr. Williams, is
quoted as saying there were. Can the minister confirm that what
he said on Wednesday was not accurate?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been saying
for a few days now that this is an important matter. We are
taking it seriously.
At the beginning of July of this year as soon as we learned
about it, we stopped the work and suspended the company. We
suspended its security clearance and we called in the RCMP.
According to the synopsis of the RCMP report, I quote Sergeant
John Ward of the RCMP national security intelligence service:
“We are quite sure that no national security issues were
compromised”.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, other countries have spies to get their secret
information. Today we learned that Canada gift-wraps its secret
NATO documents and other information and sends it to foreign
countries.
It has been confirmed by the RCMP and the minister's staff that
secret NATO documents went to British Columbia from Ottawa.
Secret PMO documents went from Ottawa to British Columbia to be
shredded by a company that had been in bankruptcy at one time.
Can the minister assure the House today that none of those
secret PMO documents that went to British Columbia to be
destroyed have anything to do with the APEC situation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
stretching his imagination a little bit.
Again, we learned from the RCMP investigation that no national
security issues were compromised. How much clearer can I be?
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Immigration.
We learned in the papers that a Northern Ireland
parliamentarian, Alex Maskey, was refused a visa to enter
Canada.
Does the minister not consider that this decision sends an
extremely negative message to the supporters of democracy, a
message that discredits the peace process in Ireland, which
Canada officially supports?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve knows very well that I cannot comment
publicly on any individual case.
That said, allow me to say that, first of all, the people of
Ireland do not need visas to enter Canada.
Second, for anyone deemed ineligible for entry into Canada for
whatever reason, the law contains provisions covering such a
possibility. Of course, the individual in question must apply in
the first place.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think the minister spoke to her officials this morning.
How can the government justify refusing this visa to an Irish
democrat, a man who has chosen peace, and whose leader, Gerry
Adams, was welcomed here a few weeks ago, when the government
went out of its way to welcome the Prime Minister's dictator
friend, President Suharto, last year?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, there was no refusal,
because there was no application.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, confidential documents from the Privy
Council Office were discovered unshredded in a Burnaby warehouse,
as were restricted NATO documents.
1135
The minister has known about this for months, yet he ordered his
department to cover up this massive security breach to avoid
media attention. He went so far as to keep this information from
the privacy commissioner.
Just how serious was this breach of security that the minister
was afraid to inform the privacy commissioner?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been saying
since Wednesday that the moment we learned about this incident we
acted right away. We took all necessary security procedures. We
removed the material that was in the warehouse. We called the
RCMP. Since then, the RCMP has been investigating. This has been
open. I did not order anybody to hide anything.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite
the minister's denial on Wednesday, Canadians now know that
sensitive documents were shipped to Korea, China and the United
States instead of being burned and shredded.
Will the minister tell us just who in these foreign countries
has received our secrets? Their military or industrial concerns?
Who in China is reading our confidential NATO documents?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the
other side does not listen to the answers. I said that as soon
as we learned of this, we called the RCMP to investigate. They
are investigating. We received a preliminary report of the
investigation. I want to make sure they get it right. Sergeant
John Ward said “We are quite sure that no national security
issues were compromised”.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMISSIONER
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today we read in the National Post that the government is
getting ready to appoint a new official languages commissioner.
Although the government promised to appoint a successor to Dr.
Goldbloom before Christmas, the Bloc Quebecois has not yet been
consulted on the matter.
Does the government intend to respect the precedent it recently
set for the position of access to information commissioner and
allow the House to debate the matter?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question, which is a very important one. I must inform her that
the allegations in today's papers are completely false.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would still like the minister to elaborate.
According to the article in the National Post, two people are on
the short list: Jean-Jacques Blais and Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
Since Mr. Kingsley indicated in the same report that he has
never been contacted in this regard, is the government not
getting ready to reward another friend of the regime and hand
out a patronage appointment to Mr. Blais?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the member has just
confirmed what I told her. I told her that the allegations were
false. One of the two persons apparently mentioned in the
article has also said it is false, so false it is. And now
there is even a witness.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
Post is about to force postal franchises out of business across
this country by imposing a restructuring of commissions on stamp
sales. Atlantic Canada will be especially hard hit. In fact none
of the postal outlets in Atlantic Canada say they will be viable
after this imposition.
The minister knows that allowing Canada Post to close businesses
is a hardship on these people. Why is he allowing Canada Post to
force these people out of business, killing jobs and disrupting
the postal service in Canada?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been informed
by Canada Post that it has been working with the franchisees to
make sure that in the new system of commissions for the new
projects they have, those outlets with a counter in their store
will not lose any money.
I ordered a moratorium for two months which expires December 1,
next Tuesday. I am sure that next Tuesday Canada Post will make
the right decision and the right announcement. The member should
wait for that announcement.
1140
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
very interesting. Does the minister admit by that statement that
Canada Post will announce on Tuesday that there will indeed be a
moratorium on the imposition of the new commission structure?
The minister knows he can change this and keep these people in
business if he imposes a moratorium thereby protecting small
business and the postal services in Canada.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, December 1 is next
Tuesday. I hope the member will wait until Tuesday before
drawing any conclusions.
Canada Post wants its franchises, its postal outlets to continue
giving service to Canadians and they will do so. We will make
sure that they continue giving good service. Whatever decision
Canada Post makes, those franchises will not lose any money.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hog
industry is going through the worst price crisis it has ever
experienced.
In order to help farmers, the Canadian Pork Council is
suggesting that Canada consider the food aid program and send
10,000 tonnes of pork to Russia for humanitarian purposes.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Is
he prepared to take that course of action?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has always actively
participated in food aid programs and in international support.
I have certainly had a number of comments from the pork industry
and other agriculture and agri-food industries to the effect that
this government should take this into consideration as it always
has. We will take that consideration and will discuss it among
our cabinet colleagues as a government.
* * *
JUSTICE
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
A month ago the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
tabled the report “Victims Rights: A voice, not a veto”. What
has the minister done with these recommendations?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to congratulate all the members of the justice
committee, and my colleagues who held town hall meetings to give
victims an opportunity to have a real voice within the Canadian
justice system.
The minister brought forth these recommendations at the last
meeting of the provincial and territorial ministers. She will be
responding very soon in order to ensure there will be a real
voice for victims in our system.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
another helicopter mishap and the minister has not even been able
to get the helicopters off the ground. I do not think the
minister is treating this issue with the importance it should
have.
It will be another two years before a new Cormorant helicopter
comes into service. The defence department has said that
operating the Labradors beyond 1998 is a significant risk.
Will the defence minister look at leasing new helicopters as a
stopgap measure?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a small electrical fire in the
anti-icing system of one of our Labradors. It was put out. No
one was injured. Damage to the aircraft was minimal.
As I have said many times, we only put our aircraft in the air
when they are safe to fly. Regarding the life of the Labradors,
the Labradors will be able to function with a high maintenance
level and the overhaul level applied in their maintenance until
we get the new Cormorants.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence is the only Canadian who has
confidence in the Labrador helicopter, a helicopter that is 35
years old and now apparently has developed a spontaneous
combustion problem.
Two incidents have taken place since the October 2 tragic
incident that saw six of our air crew killed. When will the
minister do the right thing and lease new helicopters? Are human
lives worth less to this government than leasing new helicopters?
1145
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have more confidence in these
helicopters and more confidence in the people who operate and
maintain them than certainly the hon. member and the leader of
his party have.
We definitely keep a very high level of maintenance. If we need
additional resources in the operation of our search and rescue
mission, even the leasing of aircraft, we are quite prepared to
entertain that.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
chronic poverty is Canada's worst human rights problem and this
week we got an earful about it from the United Nations. The UN
asked Canada some very tough questions.
It asked why in such a rich country we tolerate escalating rates
of child poverty and poverty among women. It asked why we were
fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed.
These are questions we in the NDP have been asking for years.
Will the government heed the warnings from our colleagues at the
UN and use the next federal budget to fight the real deficit in
the country, the social deficit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reassure the opposition
that our government has had very good answers to provide to the
people in Geneva at the United Nations, of which we are a very
proud member.
These answers will include the commitment we have made as a
government to fight child poverty by investing $1.7 billion more
in the national child benefit. That is a great deal of money and
is on top of the $5 billion we already put toward children in the
country.
We will be very pleased to speak about last year's budget which
included the Canadian opportunities strategy that helps with
access to education which provides better jobs for Canadians. We
will be speaking about—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
all the rhetoric it would seem that the government's social and
economic policy is not only hurting Canadians. It is becoming an
international embarrassment, and the world is telling us so.
Some of the UN's observations were very specific. The Minister
of Human Resources would be interested in this one at least. It
asked the government to use the EI surplus to expand coverage and
criticized the end of the Canada assistance plan and the gutting
of transfers through the CHST.
If the government will not listen to us in these matters, will
it listen to the world? Will it expand coverage to EI so more
people are covered? Will it broaden the social transfer through
the CHST?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the opposition says
this is becoming an embarrassment around the world, I would like
it to say that the United Nations has recognized Canada for the
fifth year in a row as the number one country in terms of human
development. That is an extraordinary achievement.
We will continue to improve the situation of as many Canadians
as we can. We are quite proud that there are 1.4 million more
Canadians working now than there were five years ago. The best
way to fight poverty is to improve their lot.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, when Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil was convicted
of influence peddling based on information received from one of
the Treasury Board president's own employees, the government's
response was “The file is closed”.
Yet slippery staffer Jacques Roy kept his job with the Treasury
Board president and the government provided no assurances that
the confidential information would be kept out of the hands of
the Liberal Party of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to those applicants for
government funding how their names can be protected from Liberal
kickback artists?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in this matter it was the government that asked the RCMP to
intervene. The RCMP has intervened and has made a full inquiry.
The government made available to the RCMP all the information we
had. After it made a full inquiry it went to court and a
judgment was rendered.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. An
internal HRDC report was prepared regarding numerous complaints
received from transitional job fund applicants that they were
getting phone calls from Liberal Party workers.
The report then concluded that “It is possible to fear that all
projects approved or recommended so far have been subject to such
calls”. If the Corbeil tollgating scandal was an isolated
incident, why were Liberal Party workers harassing transitional
job fund applicants during the months leading up to the 1997
election?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing
new here. I asked for the investigation on behalf of the
government.
My department provided all the information about these
allegations to the RCMP. The RCMP conducted a full and thorough
investigation into the matter. One person was charged and
convicted. As far as I know the matter has been dealt with.
* * *
1150
[Translation]
WORK STOPPAGES
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been a number of strikes recently, including the Air
Canada and Canada Post strikes. These have caused Canadians
much inconvenience and many problems.
What is the Minister of Labour doing to help employees settle
their differences and minimize work stoppages?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the strikes by Air Canada and Canada Post received a
lot of media attention.
[English]
However, during the past year 95% of all Canada Labour Code
bargaining disputes were settled without work stoppage.
[Translation]
The conciliation officers from the Department of Labour are very
professional and we should be proud of them.
[English]
Also the union and business communities should be complimented
for bargaining these labour disputes in good faith.
* * *
CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs compared Canada's merchant navy war veterans to convicted
kidnappers Lamont and Spencer. Other comments were made such as
undemocratic, blackmailers and un-Canadian.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs please explain this
outrageous slander of Canada's proud war veterans and apologize
now for the hurt that these comments have caused?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say in response to the hon. member that the
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs said no
such thing. In fact he said the opposite.
This very delicate situation of a hunger strike, I am delighted
to report to the House, is now over because of the hard work of
my department, the staff, other members of this party and this
government, and the work of the committee and all members.
I thank my parliamentary secretary for the excellent job he has
done in this regard.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the past two years, we already knew by this time what the
employment insurance contribution rate would be for the coming
year.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
When is the minister going to announce the contribution decrease
for 1999?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
thanking the hon. member for his vote of confidence in our
government, as evidenced by his expectation of a drop in the
contribution rate.
As a government, we have constantly succeeded in lowering
employment insurance contribution rates. I thank him for his
confidence in expecting a decrease.
In the past six years we made the announcement in late November
three times, and in early December three other times. When the
commission has made its recommendation to me, I will go to see
the Minister of Finance and we shall announce the decision as
soon as it has been made. That will be soon.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to allocation of the fisheries resource
the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has admitted that
past governments have favoured large corporations over small
inshore fishermen in their coastal communities which have
devastated thousands of Canadians and their families.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. When will the
government change this disastrous policy and enter into regional
and community based management agreements for this precious
resource?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member
for Sackville—Eastern Shores is an active member of the
fisheries committee and works diligently with members on the
government side in terms of overcoming some of the problems in
the fishery.
He will know that departmental officials met with the fisheries
committee last week and the minister this week. They have
indicated that they are finding new ways of consulting with the
fishing community and fishermen.
Premier Tobin last week at the fisheries council meeting
admitted that the reason Newfoundland's economy will be number
one this year is because of the fishery. It is not just a
disaster. There are good examples, and it is as a result of the
leadership of the minister.
1155
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, there is
another problem with the fishery. The lobster fishery is set to
open in southwestern Nova Scotia. Thousands of fishers will
begin the risky business of another season in the lobster
industry.
It is incomprehensible that the government would choose at this
time to take the coast guard vessel Mary Hichens out of
service. This is a time when we need more search and rescue
capability, not less. What is the minister doing to prevent
another disaster at sea and to ensure the safety of these
fishers?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should
know full well that the minister has answered this question many
times.
In terms of the coast guard, safety is our number one priority.
He mentioned a particular vessel but the vessels are now being
used for multi-arrangements and the safety of fishermen will not
be compromised.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent study shows that both the rate of cancer and of
survival from cancer differ dramatically across Canada. For
example, in Ontario deaths from breast cancer are 18% higher than
in British Columbia.
I would like to know how Health Canada could use a report like
this one to give all Canadians a better chance of avoiding and
surviving cancer?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report is a very important
one. All provinces will be interested in its details because
they actually provide services to people in the provinces.
We have heard the Minister of Health speak about a report card.
The Prime Minister has spoken about it as well. This is one
example of how greater accountability and report cards can raise
important questions that must be answered for people across the
country to have access to the very best care available. We can
learn from each other to improve the rates of treatments and
outcomes.
* * *
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
National Parole Board is out of control. Since the Prime
Minister took office it has handed out thousands and thousands of
pardons to convicted criminals.
Through access to information the solicitor general's department
shows that 700 sex offenders who were pardoned later had their
pardons revoked because they had committed new sex crimes. More
victims.
What possible excuse could the solicitor general have for
pardoning so many sex offenders who go on to abuse, rape and
molest our children and families again?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first concern of the parole board is
public safety. When it reviews each case that is the primary
concern. There has been a very small number of—
Some hon. members: Seven hundred?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Public safety is the major issue.
It is an arm's length body of government that acts within itself.
* * *
[Translation]
FRESH WATER
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of the Environment plans to expand the mandate of the
international joint commission to all waterways and groundwater
on both sides of the Canada-US border.
Since she did not answer my question the day before yesterday, I
will ask again: does the minister realize that her project could
constitute a new instance of federal government interference in
an area that has always belonged to the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in a response, the issue of
fresh water is of concern to all Canadians. As the federal
Minister of the Environment I have been working with my
provincial and territorial counterparts to address this very
serious issue.
The International Joint Commission is a body that is under the
authority of both the United States and Canada. We work together
in setting out the parameters of its work. We have requested it
to conduct some reviews of fresh water issues.
As I said, I speak to the International Joint Commission along
with my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We do so in
collaboration with our American counterparts and the provinces
and territories.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the government has to provide leadership in our time of crisis.
1200
The government's impotent efforts to protect our farmers from
the trade wars are a national shame.
The misguided suggestion by the Reform Party and its advisers
for tax relief but no new expenditures is a crying shame.
Farmers need help now. The federal government must take
responsibility.
When will the minister accept advice from farmers who are asking
for an immediate and long term national disaster relief program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in this Chamber today,
I have had a very good, clear and concise report from the safety
net advisory committee. We are considering that at the present
time. I have shared some of that, or the main gist of it, with
my cabinet colleagues.
As I said yesterday and continue to say, my cabinet colleagues
and I realize the severity of this situation and we will do all
we possibly can as soon as we possibly can.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services made reference
to a document during question period and read from the document.
I would ask him if he would be willing to table the document that
he quoted from today.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the document
referred to in fact constitutes the minister's own briefing notes
from the department, and as we know those documents are not
tabled in response to a question. Otherwise, we might as well
table the briefing books of the entire cabinet.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the same
point of order, the standing orders clearly say that it is a
requirement that if a minister is willing to quote from a
document then he is obligated to table it. So his choice is
either that he quote from it and table it, or that he not quote
from it. The minister must be consistent.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I was quoting
was from the Vancouver Sun newspaper of November 25.
The Deputy Speaker: I think we can deal with this matter.
The minister has indicated that he was quoting from a newspaper.
He has given the source of the quote. If it was a state document
that he was quoting from he would normally be required to table
the document in accordance with the rules of the House. But
since the Vancouver Sun is not a state document, and since
it appears that it is a public document, I do not think there is
a necessity for the minister to table the document. Therefore, I
think the matter is closed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 29,
1998, your committee has considered Bill C-57, an act to amend
the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and
to amend other acts in consequence, and your committee has agreed
to report it without amendment.
* * *
1205
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-457, an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would exclude the employment
category for persons who are, in essence, self-employed from the
application of the regulations that result in the employment of
such persons being included in insurable employment. In other
words, people who cannot collect EI should not have to pay EI
premiums.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-458, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance
within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high
school).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Food and Drugs
Act and the Narcotic Control Act to impose minimum prison
sentences of one year for a first offence and two years for a
further offence in cases where a person is convicted of
trafficking in a controlled or restricted drug or a narcotic
within 500 metres of an elementary school or a high school.
Drug abuse is destructive to our youth and to society, and drug
related crimes have been estimated as the source of 85% of all
criminal activity in Canada.
My bill is in the interest of all Canadians and our youth in
particular. It is my hope that this House will support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Speaker, I
very much hope that you will find unanimous consent to put this
motion to the House without debate:
That this House request that the government convey to the
Governor of the State of Texas, the hon. George W. Bush, and to
parole authorities of the state its very serious concern about
the violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in
the case of Mr. Stanley Faulder, a Canadian citizen who is to be
executed on December 10, 1998 at Huntsville State Prison; and
further, that the government convey this House's respectful
request that the execution be stayed pending a judicial review of
the case to ensure that due process has been followed.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents across the country who are
asking that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include the
provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the rights of
grandparents to access or to custody of the children.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following two petitions which come from my riding of
Nanaimo—Alberni.
The petitioners request that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act
to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act to define in
statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single
male and a single female.
1210
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition the petitioners request that parliament
impose a moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI
negotiations until a full public debate on the proposed treaty
takes place across the country.
CRTC
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to present a petition that points out the
injustice of certain decisions made by the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
The petitioners point out that the CRTC licensed the
pornographic playboy channel while declining licences to certain
religious broadcasters.
They also beseech parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC
and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which encourages
the licensing of single faith broadcasters.
TAINTED BLOOD
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also table this petition from citizens of Canada, mostly from my
constituency.
The petitioners state that a majority of Canadians are in favour
of fair compensation for all victims of tainted blood and they
would like action to be taken. They affix their signatures to
that end.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition is in respect of the Young Offenders Act.
These petitioners ask for changes in regard to the Young
Offenders Act. They ask, in view of the increase in crime in
recent years, that laws be changed to make enforcement more
rigorous.
The Speaker: I think three petitions would be enough for
today.
THE SENATE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
also have a petition that I would like to table.
These petitioners are largely residents of my riding of Winnipeg
Centre. They feel very strongly that there is a need to
modernize our parliamentary institutions and they would like to
see the Senate abolished.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AGRICULTURE
The Speaker: I have an application for an emergency
debate which was received yesterday afternoon from the hon.
member for South Shore.
The hon. member will have a very short period to put his case
before the House.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I seek
leave under Standing Order 52 to propose an emergency debate to
address the current farm income crisis.
Producers are selling at a loss. According to Statistics
Canada, farm cash receipts are down drastically in 1998. Net
farm income dropped 55% nationally in 1997 and it is expected to
be worse in 1999. It is certainly one of the worst farm income
crises since the Great Depression.
If we compare Canada's producer support with other countries we
should be ashamed.
According to figures released by Agriculture Canada, Canada
ranks second last, with 2% producer support, when compared to
other OECD nations. The United States, the European Union, Japan
and other OECD countries, respectively, have 16%, 49%, 23% and 9%
support for their farmers.
An emergency debate is required now in order to urge the
government to address this issue immediately before more farmers
are forced into bankruptcy. I believe that all parliamentarians
do not want to force our producers out of the industry.
The debate would also give the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food the opportunity to inform the House about the proposed
$2 billion package that the government is considering to help
farmers through this crisis. Time is of the essence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your careful consideration of this
very important and extremely urgent matter.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I received this request yesterday at
5.40 p.m. I have considered the request for this emergency debate
under Standing Order 52 made by the hon. member for South Shore.
He has explained the general principles of the debate, if it were
to take place.
I have concluded that the current crisis in agriculture in this
country does meet the terms of the standing order.
Since this is Friday, the standing orders would see such a
debate begin immediately and conclude at 4 p.m. this afternoon.
1215
But I do not think this rather hasty arrangement would do
justice to the subject, as the hon. member has said in his few
words, or to the many members who may want to speak on the
matter.
I have therefore decided to exercise the discretion the standing
orders afford to the Speaker and to hold over the debate until
Monday, November 30 at 8.00 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-16, an act to
implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of
Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great opportunity for me to continue my debate. I will not say I
was rudely interrupted by question period because I think
question period is a very important part of the role of
parliament. For us to stop and hold the government accountable
for the things it is doing incorrectly or failing to do is a very
important. I wish when such a great speech like mine is
interrupted by question period that we would also have an answer
period as well. But that is for another time.
I was talking about the fact that we have double taxation in
Canada. We have this wonderful bill, Bill S-16, before us. It is
a great bill. It is long overdue. It is time we start
recognizing there is a global economy. We need to not only trade
with other countries but compete with them. For us to have an
agreement on taxation will help the businesses from Canada that
are dealing with these foreign countries and the foreign
countries will benefit.
Undoubtedly there is an advantage to when Canadians take their
expertise and investments to other countries. But there is also
an advantage to us in the sense that we can help, on the
international scheme of things, to make these different countries
financially strong. This does a couple of things. It helps the
people in that country. It gives them goods, services and
expertise that they would otherwise not have. It helps Canadian
people and Canadian businesses. It gives them an outlet for
their creativity and for their investment dollars. It is a good
return but we must make sure the tax regime is good.
As I said earlier, I believe in the principle of fair
international taxation. Why can we not have that same principle
enacted in Canada? We have the statistics. Over the last five
years since this Liberal government has been in power the real
take home value of the average Canadian family has gone down by
$3,000 a year. Meanwhile taxes have gone up.
The Minister of Finance will say we have decreased taxes. He
can point to one or two little examples where they have reduced
the rates marginally. I commend him for it. Why should I
withhold a compliment for the Minister of Finance? He is worthy
of so few that when I do find an opportunity I should give it to
him. So yes, it has been great that he has taken a few little
taxes down a bit. But the big picture shows the opposite.
Collectively we are paying more taxes than ever.
I am thinking of thousands of families I am speaking for right
now, not only farm families in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta, but families in farms, working families, union people,
all kinds of people right across the country who every month have
difficulty paying their bills.
1220
Yet we extract taxes from them at every turn.
We take the GST, the HST. We take the excise tax and the income
tax. We take the UIC tax. It is a tax because by very
definition money that is extracted from one citizen which goes to
someone else is a tax. It is a function that governments in
Canada have assumed. Governments believe it is a proper role for
them to take money from the person who earned it and give it to
someone who did not earn it.
Do not get me wrong, there are many instances where that is
good. It is perfectly fine for us as a society to reach out in
compassion and care for those who cannot look after themselves.
That is why I became a Reformer. I am interested in making sure
Canada's finances are run in such a way that we can do the things
we truly value.
Let us make sure we look after those who are ill and cannot
work. Let us make sure we look after those who are in dire
straits. Let us make sure we have health care for people who
need it.
The principle is sound and it is supported by the majority of
Canadians. No Canadian should be denied needed health care
because of lack of financial resources. I am deeply committed to
that, notwithstanding the misrepresentations of that belief given
often by people on the other side. I am deeply committed to
that.
But what do we have in this country? We have three levels of
government, in some instances four, and they tax and they tax and
they tax on tax. I gave two illustrations before I was
interrupted. One was the illustration of the tax on the tax on
the tax on gasoline. The second was property tax.
This has nothing to do with the federal government but I
sometimes think it would be a good thing for municipalities to
say that when they have taken taxes from a property that over the
years accumulate and reach the original value of the property,
then we have taxed 100% and surely that is good enough. I have
sometimes thought that might be a limitation.
I would like to see municipalities, provinces and certainly the
federal government have some sort of curbs on their relentless
grabbing of our dollars because Canadians have to work for those
dollars.
Many of us get up early. I worked at NATE, the Northern Alberta
Institute of Technology. In order to do my work and stay ahead
of my students and the rapidly changing technical field, I often
got up at 4 o'clock in the morning so I could get to work. I
would work on the equipment before the students arrived so I
really knew what I was doing so I could act authoritatively.
I got up at 4 o'clock in the morning and sometimes, in order to
supplement our income, I would teach night classes. I used to
say I work on Tuesday nights for me and on Thursdays for Mr.
Trudeau because our marginal tax rates are about 50%. We are
taxed to death.
I taught those evening classes because I enjoyed teaching adult
students who came for night courses. I had some wonderful
experiences and great relationships with some of those people.
But we also needed the money in our family because it was more
and more difficult to make ends meet.
It is worse now than it has ever been. We have families whose
disposable income is down by $3,000 a year since 1993. The
government keeps taking it.
The example I was using was property tax. I remember several
years back when I did a calculation. I earned $4,000. Right off
the top the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta
extracted from my earnings let us say 40% as a nominal number.
The marginal rate is 50% but of course there are some basic
deductions.
Of my original $4,000, 40% of that is $1,600. I am now left
with $2,400 which I deposit in the bank. Then I take out my
cheque book, go to the county office and pay my property tax. In
that year my property tax was $2,400. So I wrote a cheque for
$2,400. Now the municipality can say it only taxed $2,400. But
the fact is that I had earned $4,000 to pay the $2,400 bills
because we have taxes on taxes.
Bill S-16 is right in principle because it says an investor
should not have to pay income tax in Vietnam, or in Croatia or in
Chile and then when he brings that money on his investment home
pay income tax here again. There is an agreement here that we
should avoid double taxation. The same thing is true for pension
funds and other earnings. This is a very good agreement.
1225
However, I wish we could apply that principle of avoiding double
taxation. Though I have not discussed this with anyone else in
the party I have talked to other people about it. They think
perhaps we should have some deductions for Canadian families that
are struggling. Perhaps we could have a deduction for interest
on their mortgages as in the United States. Perhaps they could
have a deduction for their property taxes so that they do not
have to pay their taxes with after tax dollars and avoid that
double taxation. This is an urgent need.
We have before us a bill which goes in the right direction on an
international agreement. It is correct in principle and I
support the bill. I presume most of my colleagues will vote in
favour of it when vote time comes. Meanwhile the principle we
are dealing with here is very important. We need to start
applying it to Canadians who earn money in Canada. Let us stop
taxing them to death.
I sometimes think Canadian taxpayers, and I am one of them, feel
like 500 pound governments are using us as a trampoline. Of
course I would be rather bouncy and it would work not too bad but
there are a lot of other people who would not be able to take the
crush. We have right now thousands of families really struggling
to pay their bills yet the taxman is relentless in his demands.
This is a little off topic, but I am being given parliamentary
immunity from relevance right now since everyone is very
tolerant. I appreciate that. I need to say something about
government policy in the long run.
Here we have a government making a policy. But it just happens
to be true that the area in which I live and which I represent is
suffering immensely these days from long term, wrong headed
policies of the federal government. I am speaking about the
government's policies on agriculture. With its monopoly in the
wheat board we have guaranteed to farmers almost consistently the
lowest price is the law instead of the highest price.
International buyers wait until the Canadian Wheat Board
announces its floor price and then that is the price they offer
and it becomes the price. It is absolutely crazy the way it does
this.
Instead of holding out for a good price the Canadian Wheat Board
claims its only obligation is to sell the farmers' wheat. It is
not accepting its responsibility to sell the wheat at a
reasonable price and perhaps to withhold it when it is being sold
at a loss.
Instead the farmers are forced by legislation to give their
wheat to the wheat board whether they want to or not. They
cannot find another market for it. It is against the law, unless
they happen to live in Ontario or Quebec. Then they do not have
to. They are free of the wheat board. But in western Canada
where farmers are suffering so much that is one of the factors.
The other factor of course is taxation. I spoke to a number of
farmers in the last couple of weeks over this issue. They are
saying taxes on taxes on taxes. I had one farmer this week say
to me “When I make a deposit into my NISA account in order to
spread off my income in years of loss, why does the government
take taxes off that? Why is that deduction not tax deductible?”
It should be.
I hope the finance minister and the agriculture minister start
waking up on policy needed in Canada right now. If we would
provide these farmers with a tax regime and a system of selling
their grain at a reasonable market price, at least something
above cost, whether it is grain, animals or whatever, then we
could survive internationally. We could compete with the best of
them.
The government has to start applying the principles domestically
that it is using in Bill S-16 and recognize that it is 20 years
of bone headed Conservative and Liberal policies with respect to
agriculture that have brought us to the place where now we are on
our knees begging and pleading for disaster relief.
1230
This is a manmade disaster. It could have been avoided. The
crops in western Canada were generally not that bad this year.
There were areas where they were not good. It is despicable in a
year when a farmer has a good crop that he still cannot make it.
He might as well get out of the business and that is what is
happening.
When I was in farming a number of years ago we took some animals
to the market one day and came back with more than we went with.
The animals did not sell at the auction. When we went to take
the truck back home, somebody had thrown a few calves into our
truck.
We went there with six calves to sell and came back with eight
because the farmer could not afford to keep them. He figured I
would take them. Of course I could not bring myself to kill
these young calves. We kept and fed them. I used my mate's
income to subsidize the farm.
That was 15 years ago but those policies are still in place.
While the Liberal government comes out with good things in Bill
S-16 now and then, every time it has a good principle it applies
it in only a narrow fashion. I ask the Liberals simply to
consider applying those same principles to Canadian businesses,
to Canadian families, to Canadian farmers. Let us get the
country up and strong like it should be.
There is not a country in the world that has the wealth we have.
If everything is added together such as our natural resources,
our agricultural capabilities, our manufacturing capabilities,
our mines, minerals and resources, what a wonderful country to
travel to.
Canada is a safe country. People here are not generally worried
about crime because Canadians care for each other. We do not go
around beating each other on the head.
We have an excellent industry of tourism. We have a vigorous
population. No one can live at this longitude and not be
vigorous. Winter comes every year. We are good, hardworking and
dedicated.
I am typical of Canadians who get up at 4 a.m. and do a job.
When I grew up on the farm, my dad used to say the Lord put the
sun in the sky as a light for us to work and it is wrong for us
to waste it.
In summer when the sun came up in Saskatchewan at 5 a.m., we
were out in the fields. That is what the light was there for. We
worked hard. It is a shame that government policies over the
years have basically stolen from us what we have worked so hard
to earn.
I think of the family farm where I grew up. What a shame
government policies put the continued ownership of that family
farm at risk because the government cannot get it right. The
government had better start getting it right. We will have a
good debate Monday on this.
When people get on a roll they see things clearly. I commend the
government for what it is doing in Bill S-16. I hope it spends
this weekend studying. I used to say to my students on Fridays
“There are no classes tomorrow. Sunday is the day of rest. You
can go home and study”. I hope the Liberals study this bill on
the weekend.
The bill will probably come to conclusion and pass today. It
has some good principles on taxation. I hope the members go home
and study it tomorrow. I would like not just every Liberal in
the House but every Liberal in the country to go home and
contemplate.
Tomorrow morning when they wake up contemplate how they are
killing the country with excessive taxation and with bone headed
government policies. Let them fix it. Let them serve Canadians
like they say they are serving them. Let us see them do
something tangible for farmers as they are doing for investors
with this bill.
I drifted far from Bill S-16 on occasion but have always kept it
as my goal in the distance. I have always come back to it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think I will be as voluble as my Reform Party colleague. I
did appreciate his speech.
I am pleased to speak today on Bill S-16, which was passed by the
Senate on June 2. This bill will implement agreements between
Canada and the two following countries: the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam and Croatia and a convention between Canada and the
Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the
prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
1235
The Bloc Quebecois does not oppose treaties between Canada and
other countries insofar as they ensure fair and equitable tax
treatment for persons and encourage trade and investment between
countries. I would mention that the term “person” includes
physical persons, corporations, trusts and all other groups of
persons.
Since the tax rate in the countries concerned in this bill is
similar to Canada's, I will not oppose the bill. However, I do
want to take the time accorded me to speak in this context of
tax conventions in effect between Canada and certain other
countries.
While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of
corporations and individuals, they are in many cases the source
of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.
Great care must therefore be taken to ensure that these treaties
do not open the door to excessive tax evasion. They must
therefore be restricted to countries with tax rates comparable
to Canada's. While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation
of individuals, as defined earlier, they are in some cases the
source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.
Although the most recent treaties, which take their inspiration
from OECD models, are relatively standard, Canada does have some
older tax conventions with countries known as tax havens because
they have low or no taxes on the incomes of individuals and
corporations.
Under the tax treaty between Canada and these so-called tax
havens, the Canadian taxation system closes its eyes to these
amounts, treating them as if they had already been taxed at a
comparable rate elsewhere, and not taxing them when they are
brought back into Canada.
Let us bear in mind that the auditor general has raised this
matter on a number of occasions since 1992. I could also point
out many cases to the government, but that would be like talking
to a brick wall.
There is another danger to certain tax treaties, the ability to
change Canadian tax rules to suit the friends of those in power,
or those in power themselves. I am referring here to Bill C-28.
The Minister of Finance is in a clear conflict of interest in
this case because, if the bill is passed, it will mean millions
of dollars for Canada Steamship Lines, a scandalous trick
discovered by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
We would remind you that all opposition parties supported the
Bloc in this CSL business. The minister ought to defend the
interests of the Canadian taxpayer as staunchly as he defends
his own. Tax treaties and manipulation of the law cost our
taxpayers billions of dollars.
Those billions are lost to us, and the public suffers as a
result.
What should be done instead is for a serious and responsible
government to devote considerable resources to assessing,
adjusting and renegotiating problematical tax treaties,
particularly those with countries that represent the greatest
risk to Canada as far as loss of taxation income is concerned.
1240
What we have here is a government turning a blind eye to the
potential exodus of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid
taxes. What we also have is a government that probably spends
more money on a one-week visit by the Queen of England than it
spends in a whole year on enforcing and improving tax
conventions.
This is a serious issue because it undermines the overall
integrity of our tax system. It also makes Canada look like a
country where wealth means bigger loopholes. It is very
troublesome.
And given the billions of dollars the Minister of Finance has
cut in transfers to the provinces for hospitals, schools and
social assistance, honest citizens who pay their taxes to Canada
want their government to at least ensure that everyone pays his
fair share. It is not such a lot to ask, but it seems to be too
much for this government.
In conclusion, I recognize that tax conventions have the
advantage of preventing double taxation of the operating revenue
of companies in two countries with branches or dependent
companies in one country or the other.
Another advantage is that, in some cases, tax conventions apply
to travel by Quebec and Canadian artists who perform abroad, or
even to travel by those involved in sports, such as hockey
players and other athletes. On the other hand, we know that tax
agreements are nothing new.
They have always existed and will always exist, and will even
increase in numbers with globalization.
Tax agreements establish what we call reciprocal taxation,
insofar as Canada's corporate tax rates and those of the
countries with which Canada signed these agreements are
equivalent or comparable.
In closing, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tax
agreements signed between Canada and other countries when these
treaties are aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation of
residents and non-residents, and encouraging trade and
investments between countries. But make no mistake, these
treaties should not open the door to excessive tax evasion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity today to respond, on behalf of
the Progressive Conservative Party, to Bill S-16 which will allow
Canada to ratify tax conventions and tax treaties with Croatia,
Chile and Vietnam.
Canada, as everyone is aware, is a trading nation. Last year
our exports totalled some $344 billion. Our imports were up
around $329 billion. That gives us some indication of how
important trading is to Canada.
While the majority of our trade has traditionally involved the
United States, we do have trade and we do have investment
treaties and ties with virtually every nation on the face of the
earth, including the countries mentioned in the bill.
Therefore, it is vital that trade and investment be promoted and
carried out with the maximum degree of certainty that we can
possibly have both for us and for our partners.
Over the last quarter century Canada has sought to expand on a
number of tax agreements it has with other nations, especially
with the countries mentioned in the bill.
That has been the policy, as we are all very much aware, of both
Liberal and Conservative administrations. We have now reached a
point where we have 70 such agreements in place. That is pretty
impressive.
1245
Such tax treaties have two main goals. They sort out who has
the right to collect which amount of tax when a business or
person residing in one country earns money in another country.
They also ensure that taxes that are paid in one country are
recognized by the other country.
One knows, for example, what withholding tax to expect on income
that one takes out of that country. As a result, one can invest
and earn income in the secure knowledge that the foreign country
will not make it impossible for one to bring home one's profits
by imposing new and unexpected withholding taxes.
The result is that business and individual investors can pretty
well feel secure that they can invest internationally with
confidence and that they will not have their profits withheld.
That is an important economic objective, whether it be through
treaties such as these or through trade agreements such as NAFTA,
the World Trade Organization or the proposed free trade agreement
of the Americas.
Such treaties prevent tax evasion. They allow the free flow of
information and encourage communication between individual
countries that is needed to catch individuals and corporations
that are evading tax. This is a result, I am sure we could all
agree, everyone would be in favour of.
The member for Kings—Hants, the finance critic for the
Progressive Conservative Party, knows full well the benefits of
international trade. They are well known to all members of the
Conservative Party. It was the PC government, incidentally, that
designed the the North America Free Trade Agreement.
The PC Party also liberalized trade in telecommunications for
Canadian business. The Liberals who were in opposition at that
time were opposed outright to the notion of opening up Canada to
the rest of the world. Now we are all aware they have had a
great conversion. They have seen the light. They are quite
pleased to associate themselves with the North America Free Trade
Agreement. Very often the Prime Minister uses every opportunity,
whether at home or abroad, to promote that agreement. Just
recently we saw the Prime Minister actually take credit for
negotiating the free trade agreement.
On numerous occasions our finance critic has risen in the House
to remind the government and the Prime Minister that the Liberals
are born again free traders. Now that it has become fashionable,
the Prime Minister and his government cannot get enough of
international trade and discuss it at every opportunity.
The PC Party was the party that took the initiative when issues
such as free trade were not fashionable because we knew that it
was in the best interest of Canada. Also the PC Party was the
party that let Atlantic Canada prosper under more liberalized
trade both within Canada and other nations around the world.
Free trade has created a prosperous economy and has created
thousands and thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada for which the
Minister of Finance is currently taking credit as he did in the
House yesterday.
1250
It is encouraging to see the Liberal Party of Canada finally
seeing the light and supporting the very ideas the Conservative
government embraced as the best bet for the future of Canada.
The Conservative Party has no problem with the bill. It is a
good bill and Canada will be better off for it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, the member in whose name the
bill under Private Members' Business stands today is presently in
the House. I believe there would be unanimous consent to see the
clock as being 1.30 p.m. in order that we may proceed to Private
Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INDIAN ACT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords
and tenants on reserve land), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to debate Bill C-402, an act to amend the
Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve
land). The bill is a direct result of a serious incident that
occurred in my constituency last fall, and it has implications
for all Canadians in every province and territory in Canada.
In November 1997, 51 families from the Driftwood Mobile Home
Park just outside Penticton, British Columbia, were evicted from
their homes through no fault of their own. Health Canada deemed
the sewage treatment facilities there to be totally inadequate.
No one at the federal or provincial level had been inspecting the
sewage treatment plant to ensure it met provincial or national
health and safety guidelines.
To make matters worse, my constituents were not protected by
British Columbia's residential tenancy act. The act declares
that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the building and
property of rental facilities to provincial and safety standards
and must oversee repairs of serious problems. One might ask why
my constituents were not protected. It was because they were
renting property on Indian land. The residents, many of whom had
lived in Driftwood Mobile Home Park for years, fell into this
grey area of the law.
1255
Let us put a face to these people, these 51 families who were
evicted from their homes in November. Who were these people?
Many of them were senior citizens. Many of them were low income
families, single income families. They had scrimped and saved to
realize the dream which most Canadians hold of owning their own
home.
Nobody at the provincial level had been inspecting the septic
system of the mobile home park because provincial legislation, in
this case the B.C. residential tenancy act, does not apply to
residential tenancies on Indian reserves.
With regard to the victims of the mobile home park, the hon.
Michael Farnworth, B.C. minister of municipal affairs and
housing, wrote to me stating unequivocally:
It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction
under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility
on federally owned land lies with the federal government. It is
apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy
vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impacts on
individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this
province.
This is not the first time this has happened. Other incidents
involving tenants renting on federal Indian land have ended up in
the Supreme Court of Canada. In almost every case the supreme
court has ruled that provincial legislation does not apply to
residential tenancies on reserve land.
These rulings reinforced that parliament, this House, has
exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies.
Despite that there is still a legislative vacuum which needs to
be filled. That is what I am attempting to do with Bill C-402.
Although the federal government is responsible for tenants on
federal land, Health Canada's health services branch, which is
responsible for approving septic field installations and repairs
on Indian reservations, claimed that it was never informed of the
Driftwood septic installation some 10 years ago or those of other
mobile home parks in my constituency. Therefore no action by the
federal government was taken to prevent what turned into a
disaster for those 51 families in my riding.
Every Canadian believes that no matter what happens he or she
can turn to the courts for redress of grievance. This was not
the case for my constituents. There was no federal law to
protect them. They fell through the cracks.
What was the effect of that happening to these people? Due to
years of neglect, raw sewage started to seep up through the
ground of these people's homes. Many were forced to literally
walk away from their lifetime investment.
On October 9, 1997, in an effort to protect my constituents'
homes, I tried to pull together the interested parties by
organizing a meeting with the federal minister of Indian affairs;
the mayor of Penticton, Beth Campbell; the local MLA, Rick
Thorpe; and the chief of the Penticton Indian Band, Chief Stewart
Phillip.
I congratulate all those people and in particular the minister
of Indian affairs because she was willing to meet with these
people. In spite of the best efforts of all parties involved a
comprehensive solution was not reached. In November 1997 after
only 30 days notice my constituents walked away from their homes
after they were evicted.
They could not move their homes. Some of the mobile homes were
quite old. Some of them can be seen sitting right there today.
They have been destroyed, mainly through vandalism. Some people
in the area even offered them 10 cents on the dollar for their
investment.
Many of these people literally walked away. They had nowhere to
go. They could not move their homes. There were no vacancies in
any other mobile home parks for them to move them to if they
could come up with the money required to do that. One family
literally walked away from their home after Health Canada advised
them to keep their dog in the house and to boil their shoes.
Imagine being told to boil their shoes after walking in their own
yard. That is what happened to these people.
1300
This incident brought to my attention the danger thousands of
Canadians face who rent land on federal Indian reserve lands.
While my constituents faced the tragedy of being evicted from
their homes, luckily no lives were lost. However, the tragedy
could have been much bigger if the inadequate sewage facilities
had led to an outbreak of disease. This is not just a one time
local problem. There are many other mobile home parks in my
riding that could end up with the same fate. I would venture a
guess that there are probably many right across the country.
Other Canadians on reserve lands could also lose their home
faced with this situation. What is needed is effective federal
legislation to ensure that the federal legislative vacuum is
filled so that no other Canadians are crippled by this or any
other similar incident. This is the point of Bill C-402.
Bill C-402 is designed to prevent future Driftwood mobile home
parks from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy
legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. Both the crown
and the sublessor or the locatee will be subject to provincial
authorities that enforce the obligations of landlords and
tenants.
For example, as already mentioned, the B.C. residential tenancy
act ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential
premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards
set out by law. The crown and the sublessor will be responsible
for meeting provincial standards set out by the various
provincial residential tenancy acts.
These people had paid their rent to put their mobile home on a
pad in a park. They were paying rent in good faith for years and
the locatee or the sublessor was not spending that money or a
percentage of that money on the upgrading and care of the
property. The crown definitely has a responsibility because the
crown was one of the signators of the lease.
Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act
that would prevent future generations of Canadians from facing
the tragedy faced by my constituents in November 1997. This is
extremely important. With more economic development happening
right now on reserve lands across the country, we need a
solution. It is required now more than ever before.
In the case of Driftwood it took 10 years for the problem to
surface. Bill C-402 is the answer for future developments on
Indian lands. It would protect residential tenants on reserve
land by making provincial tenancy legislation apply in any
province. It would mean that in new developments on reserve land
involving tenants, provincial health and safety standards would
have to be followed. Tenants would be protected from arbitrary
evictions.
Normally in the course of a speech I would be asking at this
time for support of my legislation in the House. Unfortunately
any support I receive today from the House would be an empty
endorsement. This is no fault of the vast majority of the
members of the House but rather an indictment on our
parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system is set up to
ensure that no private member in the House, no matter from which
party, is able to pass legislation. Standing Order 92(1) states
that no more than five private members' bills and five private
members' motions may be designated votable.
I find this rule ridiculous as do my peers from both sides of
the House. Every member of parliament has a sound knowledge of
the important issues in their constituencies, issues that require
federal legislation to be resolved. These are issues that the
Liberals consider small or insignificant in the big picture or
the scheme of things. The Liberals should always keep in mind
that all politics is local and this issue is very important for
not only constituents in my riding but constituents right across
the country in every riding.
Ministers and departments only see the big picture and ignore the
unresolved smaller issues. They have the power to bring in
sweeping legislation that is always votable. Yet for members of
parliament bringing in a private member's bill is the only way we
can change federal legislation for the better.
1305
Despite the fact that Bill C-402 is only a paragraph or two in
length, it took hours of consultation. Speaking with
constituents, speaking with experts in the field of Indian
affairs and the Indian Act and legal counsel in the House of
Commons, it took literally hours to come up with the solution we
have brought forward in Bill C-402. And that was the easy part.
After the bill is finally drawn up the member of parliament is
forced to wait until his or her bill is drawn in a lottery
system. The merit of this piece of legislation is of no
importance whatsoever. If you are one of the lucky ones to make
it through the House lottery then you must convince the Liberal
dominated committee that your private member's bill is worthy of
being voted on.
Unfortunately for Canadians who rent on Indian reserve land, the
subcommittee determined that Bill C-402 would not be votable. In
fact, about 20 of my colleagues in the House made presentations
to the subcommittee at the same time I did. All were refused the
status of being votable except for one private member's bill
introduced by an unelected, unaccountable senator.
The way private members' bills and business have been treated in
the House is absolutely scandalous, and this occurs every single
day. This deplorable state of affairs must end.
In my riding there is a great deal of economic development on
reserve land and therefore Bill C-402 is very pertinent.
All we are asking in Bill C-402 is that the same protection be
afforded to renters right across the country regardless of living
on Indian reserve land or non-reserve land.
Bill C-402 is an important piece of legislation drafted to
protect Canadians. If passed, it would ensure that those who
rent on Indian land are protected by provincial landlord and
tenant legislation.
Robert E. Lee, an American military commander, once said: “Duty
then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all
things. You cannot do more. You should never do less”. I have
done my duty today by raising this issue in the House of Commons
and now I ask the federal Liberal government to do its duty.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for his interest
in this issue and for all his efforts to bring greater certainty
and equity to landlord and tenant relationships on reserves.
The member has not made this a partisan issue, nor should he
have. We thank him for that.
The House has heard the circumstances which prompted the
member's interest and the reasons behind his sponsorship of the
bill. Certainly none of us can argue with his motives or quarrel
with the very real needs of his constituents which he has
properly identified.
The situation at the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton was
extremely unfortunate. No one can feel anything other than great
disappointment that the situation ended the way it did. Certainly
no one wants to see these unfortunate incidents repeated.
Along with the hon. member, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development was personally involved in trying to bring
all the relevant parties together in the hope of resolving that
situation. Unfortunately these efforts were not successful.
While I do not support the bill for reasons which I will explain
in a moment, I do share its ultimate goal to improve landlord and
tenant relationships on reserves in Canada.
I do not believe the bill is the best way to achieve that goal.
Sometimes in trying to remedy the particular circumstances of a
legitimate and specific situation, our efforts lead to solutions
that do not lend themselves to general application across Canada,
in this case for all reserves.
1310
In our haste to right a wrong we lose sight of the wider issues
and broader concerns that involve all Canadians and all first
nations. I believe this is the case with this proposed
legislation.
Let me focus on three major concerns I have with Bill C-402. It
is too limited in scope. While it does address some of the
issues concerning leases, it does not address the numerous other
kinds of residential leases that presumably deserve the same kind
of protections and certainty intended by the bill.
If we proceed with this legislation we create two classes of
leasehold interests on reserves, those which fall under
provincial legislation and those which do not. This may be an
unintended consequence but it is also an unacceptable result and
cannot be supported.
Second, the bill would bring confusion, not clarity, to the
issue of landlord and tenant relations on reserves.
Third and most important, I have grave concerns about the
process of addressing landlord and tenant relations on reserves.
This legislation offers one solution, to bring the reserve under
the relevant residential tenancy legislation of the province in
which it is located. But there has been no consultation with
first nations to see if this is their preferred option.
It returns us to the old paternalistic approach of Ottawa knows
best. It attempts to substitute our judgment for that of first
nations. It attempts to alter the relationship between first
nations and provincial governments without consulting those
governments as well.
In “Gathering Strength”, the government's response to the the
royal commission on aboriginal peoples, we made it clear we were
not prepared to return to the ways of the past.
We said we had learned from our past mistakes and we were
determined not to repeat them. Instead we wanted to develop a
new partnership with first nations based on mutual trust, respect
and consultation. This legislation fails that very important
test.
Quite apart from the commitments made in “Gathering Strength”
for greater consultation the federal government has a legal
fiduciary duty to consult first nations on any significant
changes which might affect them. This legislation also fails that
important test.
The issue of determining the appropriate laws to govern landlord
and tenant relations is at its core an issue of governance. In
“Gathering Strength” the government pledged to work with first
nations to promote self-governance and this legislation again
unfortunately fails that test.
I am very concerned this legislation prejudges the outcome of
several processes currently underway, processes which I believe
should be allowed to run their course unencumbered by
interference from Ottawa.
As the member knows, the Indian taxation advisory board which
has an excellent record and is highly respected for its mediation
of sensitive first nation issues is overseeing a consultation
process on this issue in British Columbia involving the province,
first nations representatives, park operators, tenant
representatives and officials from the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. The first workshop was held a
little over a year ago and another is scheduled to take place
over the upcoming months.
There are also discussions concerning the development of land
regimes under self-government proposals and the proposed first
nations land management act, Bill C-49, currently being debated
in this House. These discussions may well deal with some of the
points in Bill C-402.
A whole range of issues dealing with land management is
currently the subject of consultations involving my department
and the assembly of first nations and Bill C-402 pre-empts a
potentially important aspect of those discussions as well.
I do not know what proposals will emerge from these various
consultations. It may be that a recommendation will come forward
that band bylaws dealing with residential premises are the best
way to deal with landlord-tenant issues.
1315
This is how the Westbank band council in British Columbia has
decided to proceed and time will tell if bylaws are the best
instrument for this kind of enforcement.
The point is that we should not prejudge the outcome. Let us
allow the consultations to proceed. Let us allow those with the
greatest interest and most concern to meet in good faith and to
see what solutions they might suggest.
That is what “Gathering Strength” is all about. That is what
promoting self-government is all about. It is not about Ottawa
rushing in to fix all the problems and to provide all the
answers. It is about working with first nations and other parties
to seek honest answers and make honourable, reasonable
concessions. In short, it is about partnerships, not
paternalism; co-operation, not control.
For all of these reasons I respectfully oppose Bill C-402. Let
me say again how much I appreciate the initiative of the hon.
member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. While we may disagree on this
particular approach, I know that we share the same concerns and
seek similar objectives and goals. I look forward to continuing
to work with the hon. member and others in a spirit of
co-operation, collaboration and consultation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
request of my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic for
aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
private members' Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act,
introduced by the Reform member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
This bill concerns specifically the obligations of landlords and
tenants on reserve land. Its aim is to protect individuals
renting residential premises on Indian land by extending the
application of provincial landlord and tenant legislation to
leases on reserves.
Under the bill, native landlords and tenants living in one of
the ten provinces of Canada would be governed by provincial
legislation rather than the Indian Act. Bill C-402 adds a
provision to the Indian Act at section 88, and it reads as
follows:
88.1 Notwithstanding this Act, provincial laws relating to the
rights and obligations of landlords and tenants apply to a lease
for residential purposes of land or a dwelling unit on land in a
reserve that is granted
Admittedly, the obligations between landlords and tenants are
not clearly defined in the Indian Act as it now stands, whether
the landlord is the crown, a company or a sub-lessor.
For their part, provincial laws give a very narrow definition of
the contract between the two parties, the tenant and the owner
or landlord of a building. For instance, provincial laws
determine the responsibilities of owners and tenants with
respect to maintenance, safety and cleanliness of rental
accommodation.
Quebec's rental commission legislation gives a clear edge to
tenants. In Quebec, tenants are often said to have more rights
than owners. Although this could do with some clarification, it
is nonetheless indicative of a certain state of affairs.
As for this bill, it can only give more rights and protection to
aboriginal tenants living on reserves.
If I understood correctly, the member introduced this bill in
the House because of the experience of a community in his
riding, the native community of Penticton.
There were 51 families living in mobile homes on this reserve in
the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. In the summer of 1997,
they found themselves with a septic tank problem that quickly
deteriorated into a serious crisis for almost 100 people living
on the reserve.
The federal government, through Health Canada, ordered people to
leave their homes before October 31, 1997. This eviction notice
was sent to the residents of Penticton 30 days before the date
they were being ordered to leave.
As one resident put it, people found themselves all but homeless
overnight.
1320
Some found themselves in real financial difficulty, because they
had invested a lot of money in their homes. Some mentioned
investments of $35,000. Others said it cost them some $10,000
to move and relocate.
In addition, for the natives who could absorb this cost, there
was nowhere to go in the region. Whatever the cost, moving
costs even more when you live on a reserve.
The government and the Department of Indian Affairs remained
silent in the face of the distress caused these people, who were
appalled by the government's lack of action. They thought the
Department of Indian Affairs, the city and the band council
would fix the problem of the septic tank.
However, as the problem was serious and would have entailed
expenditures estimated at $22,000, they preferred to solve it by
evicting the residents.
Obviously, if these residents had come under B.C. housing
legislation as it concerned the obligations of landlords and
tenants, they would not have been evicted so quickly or they
would not have been evicted at all.
Both parties would have had to do a lot, especially the owner or
landlord, before such a massive eviction could take place.
Under provincial law, including that of Quebec, an owner or a
landlord must ensure that all his rental units meet cleanliness
and safety standards.
In this case, the lessor was shamefully in breach of contract.
This bill is, therefore, a response to a real problem recently
experienced by an aboriginal community.
For the Bloc Quebecois, Bill C-402 does not appear to be a
problem in that it provides protection to lessees and lessors on
the reserve by defining more clearly the obligations and
commitments of both parties. However, considering that the
Indian Act is an obsolete piece of legislation, one which could
do with a thorough review, we question the appropriateness of
adding any more modern clauses, such as those the House is being
asked to add today.
Would it not be more appropriate to undertake a thorough review
of this act, in order to give it a better fit with the
aboriginal reality nowadays, as this century comes to a close?
The Indian Act goes back to the last century.
Hon. members will agree with me that many changes have taken
place on the reserves and in the lives of aboriginal people
since that time. It is imperative that these be reflected in
the legislation, so that the aboriginal nations may find some
balance, in their social and economic development in particular.
This bill therefore raises a more complex problem than just
these few clauses concerning the relationship between lessors
and lessees, even though we agree that relationship does need to
be made far clearer. Now that the issue has been raised, it
needs to be looked into thoroughly, and discussed with the
Indian affairs minister and her staff.
This bill strikes us as very timely and must serve as the
starting point for a true debate among the parties involved in
this area.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss an issue that
is overall a very crucial issue at this time in Canada's history
with respect to our relationship with aboriginal people.
I want to pick up on a statement made by the hon. member who
moved this motion. He said “all politics are local”. In his
statements dealing with Bill C-402 he referred to hours and hours
of work in preparing this consultation with Indian affairs
officials and Indian Act experts. However, I beg to hear from
him whether there were any consultations with first nations
people. Were there consultations with the first nations people
of Canada?
When one is dealing with this act, it is of national scope. It
goes from coast to coast to coast. If there is a local issue
which is impacting on the national perspective, it is time to
open the books and look at a major overhaul of an act that may be
archaic.
As the hon. member for the Bloc mentioned, I believe the royal
commission on Canada's aboriginal peoples tried to address the
need to modernize our relationship with aboriginal peoples.
At this time I would have to say that I am opposed to the bill,
but would welcome a new dialogue for us to start a new
relationship with the first nations of this country. They are
waiting for this. They have been calling on the government and
on all Canadians for this dialogue.
I must highlight the fact that a nation to nation treaty was
written with Canada's aboriginal nations. It was not the first
nations which allowed anybody to take hold of this land for
whatever reason.
1325
When the treaty was written it was in the context of the British
nation on behalf of the crown seeking to use and occupy lands to
build a new nation, but the first nations held obligations to the
federal government.
Provincial jurisdiction is very suspect when it comes to first
nations people because the fiduciary responsibilities fall under
the nation to nation treaty with the federal government. The
hon. member is on the right track in asking the House to change
these laws.
The royal commission also considered creating a provincial
jurisdiction across this nation, a chequerboard province of all
first nations, so that they could govern themselves. There could
have been a model for self-governance. This is something that
was not brought out in the recommendations, but the dialogue was
there.
As well, territorial governments have not been taken into
account. Nunavut will be created on April 1, 1999. The
Northwest Territories will reissue itself and reorganize its
governance, as will Yukon. Someday these territories might have
full provincial jurisdiction.
Where are the present landlord and tenant issues concerning the
territories? I believe they fall with the northern affairs
minister. I beg to see some response to that in the northern
jurisdictions because we have to look at this as a national
issue.
A major change happened recently with Bill C-49. Fourteen first
nations were included, in a very consultative manner, to deal
with land management. However, the bill did not consider the
issue of residential, agricultural or business leases in these
first nations.
First nations governments are saying that they should be able to
address tribunals, that they should have a means for dealing with
and appealing decisions on jurisdictional issues, such as a
business jurisdiction being changed to residential, especially
for the people who presently hold leases. This whole topic opens
up a major concern.
At this time I have to tell the hon. member that I cannot
support his motion, although I acknowledge that the House of
Commons needs to address the Indian Act in consultation with all
first nations of this country.
The new millennium would be a fine opportunity for us to provide
a good example to the world. There is a human rights conference
being celebrated right now in Edmonton. A lot of aboriginal
people feel that their human rights have been infringed through
the development of this country, with respect to land use and
their education, cultural and spiritual life. All of these
things have infringed on their way of life. Let us address these
issues in an open way, with open and respectful dialogue. Then
we can build a nation that will be good for our children and for
future generations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to draw a few references from the remarks of the member for
Churchill River. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear his whole
discussion, but what I did hear I thought was very well put forth
and very well thought out.
I think he could have used a little more emphasis on the
benefits that can be derived from the protection of both the land
owners, in this case the first nations, and the lessors of first
nation lands. Bill C-49, which the member referred to, deals
with this issue in a very positive manner. If we did not have
Bill C-49, then maybe some type of legislation like this would be
required. Unfortunately, this would be inappropriate.
We cannot willy-nilly and easily change the Indian Act. This is
a long, drawn out process that would take the support of all
members of parliament. Certainly I do not see that support, nor
do I believe that most members of parliament see that support.
1330
However, I speak to Private Member's Bill C-402, an act to amend
the Indian Act, and specifically the obligations of landlords and
tenants on reserve land. This bill seeks to have provincial
landlord and tenant laws applied to leases on reserve land.
As everyone in the House is aware, reserve land is a federal
responsibility. As such, provincial laws currently do not apply
on reserve and I would dare to say they will not apply on reserve
in the near future.
This is a complex issue. It is not an easy thing to change. We
simply cannot give provincial laws jurisdiction where there is
already federal jurisdiction and we do not have a willingness on
the behalf of the land owners, in this case the first nation and
the Government of Canada, to grant that jurisdiction.
The Indian Act sets out provisions relating to reserve land.
Aboriginal people do not own land on reserve, unless the band
council with the approval of the minister allots it to that
individual, usually through a certificate of possession. Anyone
with a certificate of possession may lease or sell land, subject
to restrictions such as approval of the minister. All lands
remain reserve lands under the Indian Act unless they have been
surrendered conditionally or unconditionally to the minister.
To lease land on reserve the first nation must surrender the
land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. To sell
land it must be absolutely surrendered to the minister.
I want to go back to leased land on reserve. The first nation
must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being
leased. It is obvious that the jurisdiction and the
responsibility and control is in the hands of the minister of the
day.
Bill C-402 would provide the ability for provincial landlord and
tenant laws to apply on reserve. Provincial laws may include the
following provisions: the right to limit rent increases; the
right to establish rules for terminating the lease, for example,
evictions cannot occur without notice and reason; the obligation
to meet certain standards of cleanliness and damage repair. That
sounds right and most reasonable thinking people would ask why we
cannot do this.
Again, it gets back to jurisdiction, and it gets back to the way
we run the country. I am not saying that is correct, but I am
saying that we cannot change it in the short term. In the long
term with a lot of research and due diligence and study on
everyone's part and the ability to sit down and discuss this
perhaps, and certainly I for one would support anything that
brings the first nations out from under the aegis of the Indian
Act. It is an archaic piece of legislation; in the long term it
is harmful and in the short term I would say it is
discriminatory.
I would like to explain some of the reasons this piece of
legislation in my opinion will not work.
We are imposing regulations on first nations. This is a step
away from self-reliance for first nations. It is a step away
from responsibility for first nations. It is a step away from
self-government which all parties in the House have proposed to
support. There is some discussion on what self-government is, but
that is not in here. We are discussing something else
altogether, a bill to impose provincial laws where there is
federal jurisdiction. This changes one small segment of the
Indian Act instead of removing the paternalistic and onerous
obligations required by an act that was flawed from its
inception.
Certainly the PC Party has always supported increasing first
nations self-reliance and self-government, concepts that require
first nations to assume control and responsibility of resources,
land and administration. That sounds like leases of property to
me. The bill before us contradicts that goal.
The Indian Act states that the first nations land is clearly
under federal jurisdiction, so provincial rules have no authority
on the first nations land if they contradict the Indian Act. One
assumes that the first nations negotiated in good faith and
continue to negotiate in good faith.
Since some first nations rely heavily on income derived from
leased land, they must ensure rents are set at levels that ensure
optimal use of that property. Under the Indian Act the first
nation may lease land with the permission of the minister by
surrendering or designating such land. This prevents first
nations from optimizing economic development opportunities since
the process can be time consuming.
As well, this already ensures that some protection is available
for tenants on first nation land since leases must receive
federal approval.
1335
Although I do not support Bill C-402, I see that there is a
problem between landlords and tenants in relation to first
nations land. However, that does not take away from the fact
that first nations people need to be responsible for first
nations land. At the end of the day we must recognize that they
own first nations land. It is fine for them to decide they want
to continue a lease for economic gain or opportunity. It is also
fine for them to decide to discontinue a lease which they have
the legal right to do.
Unfortunately provincial laws do not apply because it is within
federal jurisdiction. It is a simple concept although some
members have difficulty wrapping their heads around it.
I support making changes to the Indian Act. However this change
already exists under Bill C-49. If it passes third reading and
the bill gets through the House there will be provisions
available for tenants and landlords to deal with one another.
That is the way to do this in a democracy.
Although there may be some sympathy with the member and for the
lessors involved, they did sign a binding contract with the first
nations. They are responsible not only for their own investments
but they are also responsible with the first nations. There is a
binding contract. We have to give first nations responsibility.
At the end of the day we may not be happy with every single thing
that is done, and the first nations may not be happy, but in a
democracy the first nations have the right to be masters in their
own home. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to Private Member's Bill C-402.
This bill will amend the Indian Act to provide protection for
individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by making
provincial landlord and tenant legislation apply to those leases.
The impetus for this bill came from an incident in the
Okanagan—Coquihalla riding in British Columbia. Although I am
not a resident of this riding or of the province, I feel the
implications of this incident are important to Canadians
nationwide and certainly to constituents in my area.
Last November the 51 families of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park
were evicted from their homes after Health Canada declared the
sewage treatment facilities were inadequate and posed a serious
health hazard. Under B.C. law it is normally the responsibility
of the landlord to ensure the building and property are kept in a
condition that makes the building reasonably comfortable to live
in. Part of this responsibility is to maintain the building and
property to health and safety standards. In the case of mobile
home parks, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure
the property is safe and habitable.
The unfortunate residents of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park
enjoyed no such protections. Why? Because their homes were
located on the property of the Penticton Indian band. Nobody had
been inspecting this land because it fell under a grey area of
the law.
I would like to give a bit of the history to put this incident
into perspective. On March 30, 1988 under section 58(3) of the
Indian Act, the minister granted authorization to lease Indian
reserve land to Ethel and Margaret Kruger for their benefit. The
term of this lease was from March 30, 1988 to March 30, 1998.
The property of the lease was to be used for the purpose of the
mobile home park operated by Sanmar Mobile Home Services.
When that firm created the park the septic fields were not
engineered to handle the high volumes that are being experienced.
As a result these fields have been saturated beyond a safe level
and the overflow is creating a serious health hazard.
Health Canada's Indian health services branch, which is
responsible for approving septic field installations on Indian
land, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic
installation. This breakdown in communication led to 51 families
being torn from their community, many forced to abandon their
homes without any compensation. If this situation were not tragic
enough, the same fate may await other residents of mobile home
parks located on the Penticton reserve land.
Health Canada has declared that both the Driftwood and Delta
mobile home parks face serious health risks. Although the Sun
Leisure and Riva Ridge parks have inadequate septic systems,
Health Canada has not yet declared them to be a serious health
risk.
1340
The residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park were given 30-day
eviction notices. In an effort to resolve this problem, my
colleague organized a meeting between the minister of Indian
affairs, the mayor of Penticton, Ms. Beth Campbell, and the local
MLA, Rick Thorpe, and Chief Phillip of the Penticton Band.
Despite the efforts of those involved, a comprehensive solution
was not reached and the hon. member's constituents lost their
homes only one month before Christmas. This is at a time when
people should be enjoying the fellowship of their friends and
families in the comfort of their own homes, not worrying about
where they will be living.
This incident should not be repeated but it is a very real
possibility. Thousands of Canadians who rent federal Indian
reserve land are in danger, citizens of Canada who have no idea
that they have been left in limbo because the law does not
recognize their rights.
The Indian Act is a complex one. For years different levels of
government have been struggling with what the bill covers and
what it does not cover. According to the Supreme Court of Canada
there are only two ways for a non-Indian to be in lawful
possession in a reserve, through the operation of sections 28(2)
or 58(3).
Section 28(2) states:
The minister may, by permit, in writing authorize any person for
a period not exceeding one year, or with the consent of the
council of the band for any longer period, to occupy or use a
reserve or to reside or otherwise exercise rights on a reserve.
Section 58(3) states:
The minister may lease for the benefit of any Indian, on
application of that Indian for that purpose, the land of which
the Indian is lawfully in possession without the land being
designated.
It is under these sections that a 10-year lease was granted.
Although it was not outlined in the lease, it was implicit in the
agreements with the sublessees that they would be protected under
the provincial landlord and tenant legislation. Indeed it was
the responsibility of the lessee to provide at its expense all
services and facilities required for use of the premise. This
would include septic services.
However, because of the failure of Health Canada to inspect
these services, the residents fell through the cracks. Although
they appealed to the provincial landlord and tenant board they
were not successful.
The Supreme Court of Canada stated that provincial legislation
does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves.
Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate with respect to
such tenancies. This was stated in Millbrook Indian Band v
Northern Counties Residential Tenancies Board et al, 1978. Again,
in Anderson v Triple Creek Estates, the supreme court stated that
provincial legislation does not apply to an eviction dispute
between a mobile home park tenant and the park proprietor. It
continues to say that “although it may be unfair to deprive a
person of an appeal against a termination at will of a tenancy,
this matter can only be resolved on reserve land by federal
authority”.
A letter from the British Columbia minister for municipal
affairs and housing, Mr. Michael Farnworth, confirms this is a
federal responsibility. He writes:
It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction
under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility
on federally owned lands lies with the federal government. It is
apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy
vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impact on individuals
and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.
It is apparent that there is a responsibility on the part of the
government to fill in this void. That is where Bill C-402 comes
in. The bill is designed to prevent future Driftwoods from
happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation
apply to leases granted by the crown. The crown, the lessors,
and the sublessors will be subject to provincial authorities that
enforce the obligations of landlord and tenants.
Although I have already mentioned this, I will do so again for
the benefit of members opposite. The landlord and tenant
legislation in B.C. ensures that a landlord must maintain land or
residential premises in compliance with health, safety and
housing standards set out by the law. The crown and lessor will
be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out under the
various provincial residential tenancy acts.
Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act
that would prevent other Canadians from facing the tragedy of the
unfortunate residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park.
I realize that Bill C-402 is a non-votable item and that is very
unfortunate. As has been explained in this House, it is a very
unfortunate thing that we as members of parliament cannot help
create laws.
The bill would ensure that Canadians are all treated equitably
before the law. If any of the members opposite would care to see
what Reform stands for, all they need to do is flip through the
Reform Party blue book and peruse the statement of principles.
The first statement says:
We affirm our commitment to Canada as one nation, indivisible,
and to our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal
provinces and citizens.
1345
The last statement of principle states:
We believe in the true equality of all Canadian citizens, with
equal rights and responsibilities for all.
I think it is absolutely plain to see this is a party dedicated
to the equality of all citizens and I congratulate my colleague
for bringing this forward. I know Liberal Party members think
quite highly of the Reform Party blue book because they have,
albeit it with mixed success, adopted many of our policies as
their own.
However, they would do well to consider these two principles
that are so core to the heart of our party. It is apparent
through the actions of this government on many issues that it
does not consider equality of all Canadians a thing to be
grasped.
However, perhaps we should leave this debate for another day.
It is because of my dedication to the equality of all citizens
that I support this bill.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank hon. members who participated in the debate today on Bill
C-402.
I would like to respond to some of the comments. Bill C-49, the
land management act, deals only with 14 bands and that there are
just about 700 native bands from coast to coast to coast. It
certainly does not affect the Penticton Indian Band whatsoever.
Therefore Bill C-49 does not respond to the needs of the people
from my riding.
I appreciate very much the parliamentary secretary's passing
along his regret regarding the outcome of this tragic incident.
I will convey that to my constituents. I will also convey to my
constituents today that the Progressive Conservative Party and
the New Democratic Party support in principle the eviction of 51
families from the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton. I find
it quite regrettable today that they could not see there was a
great deal of support for Bill C-402 which directly deals with
the problem faced by these families.
I would have to argue with those members opposed to Bill C-402
that striking another committee to look at the issue does not
help at this point. As I mentioned, the establishment of some of
these mobile home parks in my riding goes back 20 years. Members
pointing out that the Indian Act is flawed are absolutely
correct.
However, Bill C-402 deals specifically with an emergency
situation and it also brings equality to renters regardless of
whether they are native or non-native. It does not matter. Bill
C-402 brings equality to all people who find themselves in the
position of renting land.
In the House of Commons there are many of us who rent apartments
or homes in Ottawa. If we found ourselves in the situation the
people of Driftwood mobile home park found themselves in we would
have the Ontario provincial tenancy act there to protect our
rights as renters. That is what Bill C-402 does. That is what we
are attempting to do with this legislation.
I think it is wrong and meanspirited for members of other
parties to say they will not come to the aid of the people of the
driftwood mobile home park. I also point out that on the horizon
there are four more mobile home parks in my riding that will face
a similar situation. We will not be talking about 51 families,
we will be talking about 200 families.
What will the federal government do at that point? I hope its
response will not be to strike a committee and seek consultation
across the country. We need action and we need it now. That is
what Bill C-402 would have done.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There are presently negotiations going on between
parties. I ask if there would be consent to suspend for about 15
minutes because there are a few details to iron out in this
consultation.
Either at the call of the Chair or in 15 minutes, whichever
comes first, Mr. Speaker could entertain what you usually do at
the conclusion of debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government House
leader has requested that the House suspend for no more than 15
minutes. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated votable, the time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
It being 1.50 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.50 p.m.)