36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 57
CONTENTS
Friday, February 25, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Third Reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Ted White |
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
| Amendment
|
1100
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1105
| GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| CANADIAN SOCCER
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1110
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| CHINESE CANADIAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| CANADIAN FORCES SUPPLY DEPOT
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1125
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1130
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| KENORA—RAINY RIVER
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1135
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1140
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1145
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1150
| TRUCKING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1155
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| SCOTIA RAINBOW
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1200
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Bill C-20
|
| Mr. Peter Milliken |
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1210
| AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-437. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-438. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT
|
| Bill C-439. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY ABORTION REFERENDUM ACT
|
| Bill C-440. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1215
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-441. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1220
1225
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1230
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1250
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1255
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion
|
1315
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Third reading
|
1320
| Division deferred
|
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1330
1335
| Mr. David Iftody |
1340
1345
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1350
1355
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1400
1405
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1410
1415
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1420
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 57
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 25, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-2, an act respecting the
election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other
acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments
to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to acknowledge the
efforts of all those who were involved to varying degrees in the
drafting of this bill, and thus in improving the Canada
Elections Act.
I particularly wish to thank the committee members—a number of
whom are present in this House as I speak—and to offer particular
congratulations to the leadership of my parliamentary secretary,
the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, and his predecessor,
the hon. member for Peterborough.
It had become obvious that our elections act needed reforming.
It dates back 30 years, as has been pointed out by numerous
members from all parties. It was also important to amend the
legislation to reflect a number of court decisions relating to
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Action was
therefore required, and action there was. Collective action,
moreover.
Last fall, my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Charleswood
St. James—Assiniboia, pointed out, and rightly so, that this bill
is not solely the creation of the government, but is indeed the
fruit of a concerted effort by all parties represented in this
House, the outcome of which is reflected in the report by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs released in
June 1998.
It is also appropriate to point out, I believe, that this reform
of our electoral process has its roots in the Lortie commission
of 1991. In other words, our future elections act has taken
close to nine years in gestation, parliament after parliament,
committee after committee, study after study, consultation after
consultation. A nine year gestation period.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: A white elephant.
Hon. Don Boudria: Yes, in fact, it is like four elephants in a row.
I will not dwell at length on the many stages we went through
before undertaking this reform, because these are well known.
However, I will mention the reports, three of them, from the
chief electoral officer, which have guided our efforts and, of
course, as I said, the work done by the former and current
members of the committee.
Last fall, I took advantage of the parliamentary break to travel
across the country to meet academics and students, and to talk
to them about the reform that was taking shape.
[English]
What changes will be made by the bill? First, there a number of
changes of an administrative nature. For example, the problem of
voting hours in time zones that do not switch to daylight savings
time has been corrected. We have also given returning officers
the right to vote, which is certainly something that was due.
We are ensuring that the right of candidates to campaign in
multiple unit residential buildings is protected by law so that
people who own these large buildings cannot stop a candidate
from entering if they happen to favour another political party.
1010
We have also harmonized certain measures of the act which the
requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have
called for in various judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada,
mainly the Libman decision. This includes the reintroduction of
third party spending limits. I will come back to that point in a
few minutes.
Finally, with regard to financing, we have attempted to make
certain provisions of the act consistent with the economic
reality of today; that is to say, to take into account the need
to change some of the measures which were designed some 30 years
ago.
Since Bill C-2 was introduced there have been some important
changes. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
continued its important work throughout the fall. I know
something about this because I was called upon to testify before
the committee on at least three different occasions. The latest
conclusions of the committee are reflected in Bill C-2. The
committee made a number of amendments to the bill which I would
like to outline to the House today.
Hon. members will recall that originally the Canada Elections
Act included a blackout of some 72 hours before polling day. The
supreme court felt that 72 hours was too long, but that a
blackout was justifiable. The court felt that 72 hours was not
justifiable and that in order for this blackout period to work
there would have to be other elements to justify it.
We initially wanted a blackout period of 48 hours. Many people,
including members of the House, told us they would not want to
support that measure. Therefore, we eliminated the provision
entirely, except for a blackout on voting day. That came largely
as a result of representations which we received from western
Canadians who felt that it was inappropriate to have the results
in central Canada known to people in western Canada before they
had voted themselves, something which we recognized some time
ago. It was equally important to protect the new so-called exit
polls from the night of the election from becoming known until
people had actually voted themselves. We concur with that and
the change has been made to reflect it.
We also have a blackout that establishes a cutoff for polls and
ads to ensure that voters across the country have access to the
same information before they vote.
If we think it is important for voters in western Canada not to
have access to the results of the votes cast in eastern Canada,
surely it is equally important for voting held previously and as
manifested in exit polls not to be revealed before the voting is
complete.
We had also decided to abolish the process of vouching, which
allows voters in rural regions to guarantee the identity of their
neighbours at the polling place, even if those neighbours have
not been registered. Here, as well, we heard some concerns and
we have agreed to extend this vouching process to all electoral
districts subject to certain conditions. I want to thank the
hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre who made excellent
contributions to the committee in this regard, and who offered
amendments.
Another amendment he offered, which we accepted at report stage,
would allow us to know the identity of people who give
contributions through companies they own when those companies are
numbered companies and do not otherwise have easily identifiable
names. Now the names of the principals will be known.
I believe the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes also made
a contribution to that effect and I thank him as well.
1015
[Translation]
An hon. member: Les Patriotes too.
Hon. Don Boudria: Les Patriotes too. We must not forget Les
Patriotes.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: They were great Liberals.
Hon. Don Boudria: The Minister for International Trade is
reminding me that Les Patriotes were great Liberals, and I would
not want to forget them.
Getting back to my speech, I do not want to get into partisan
rhetoric, because it is not in my nature.
[English]
Another point of concern is the personal safety of electors. If
there is reason to believe that the disclosure of electors'
personal information, such as their address, would put them in
danger, they would be allowed to indicate a former place of
residence. This is very important for women who live in shelters
for battered women. Their aggressors would not be able to find
them because the address would not be on the voter's list. That
was a side effect in the past when we had to print a permanent
voter's list. We have made accommodation in the bill to protect
those in danger of violence. This clause will now protect women
who are living in battered women's shelters.
We also recognize the difficulties that can be encountered by
persons with disabilities who need help to mark their ballots and
who cannot get to the poll. An election officer will come to
their residence now and assist them to vote in the presence of a
witness of their choosing.
On the practical side of things, we have considered the future
impact of new technologies in the polling process and, more
specifically, their utilization. We will authorize the Chief
Electoral Officer to develop an electronic voting process and put
the process to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs to seek approval to test it.
I must thank the hon. member for North Vancouver who has been
quite insistent on involving electronics and modernizing the
electronic voting process. At his strong insistence, we put that
item in the bill.
With regard to finances, there are a number of changes to the
reporting procedures. It should be clear that from now on
candidates can include expenditures for child care and the care
of any dependants in their reimbursable expenses. Although this
clause has been designed for everybody, I hope it will have a
particular attraction to women who might want to be candidates.
It is not the be all and end all, but if it at least encourages a
larger number of women to be candidates then it will have
contributed toward the democratic process.
Another new measure lowers the veil on trust funds.
[Translation]
Again, it is the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes who
brought this issue to our attention.
[English]
The bill stipulates that the name and address of the original
donor for any contribution over $200 made through a trust created
to promote the election of a candidate will now have to be
clearly identified. I thank the hon. member for bringing that
issue to our attention as well.
To respond to the technical concerns expressed by experts, the
spending limits for candidates and political parties will be
adjusted using the revised list of electors. We now have a
larger than usual number of revisions on the permanent voters
list. This meant that a candidate running for public office
would often not have the total number of names. Therefore, when
they set out campaign spending limits and found out later that
there was a revision, they were unable to take into account the
multiplier effect of the new people added on the voters list in
order to increase the amount they were allowed to spend. This
will now be taken in account because we have made that
adjustment.
This is where I am afraid that perhaps some members, in
particular my distinguished colleague from Vancouver North, might
not agree with me. The most important financial reform of this
bill relates to the participation of third parties in an election
campaign.
1020
The elections act formerly imposed limits on third parties and
candidates. Those of course had been thrown out by a court in
Alberta and had not been appealed. The result of this was that
in the last election campaign those who wanted to vote for a
member of this House had spending limits in terms of what they
could do to promote the candidate. However, anyone organizing to
defeat a member of this House, effectively had no limit if they
organized through a third party.
Call that third party the National Citizens' Coalition, call it
the rifle group, call it anything else, it does not matter. Those
who were outside of the candidate process could do virtually
anything, could obtain funds entirely, if they wished, from
outside of Canada, something that is illegal for the purpose of
electing someone and they could participate indirectly in the
electoral process that way.
Luckily the Libman decision in 1997 by the Supreme Court of
Canada declared that control on third party spending would help
to preserve the fairness of the democratic electoral process.
Bill C-2 rectifies this and now puts in measures to control third
party spending.
[Translation]
The measures concerning third parties are based on three major
principles. First, third parties have a right to participate in
the electoral process. This is in compliance with the supreme
court ruling in the Libman case.
Second, their spending should be restricted just like that of
registered parties and candidates.
That is perfectly normal.
Third, even if the third parties have important things to say,
their spending should be subject to limits that are stricter
than those of the candidates or the political parties, since,
after all, still according to the Libman decision, according to
the supreme court, the candidates and the political parties are
the ones trying to get elected.
Second, naturally, the limits that apply to the third parties
apply only to spending on advertising, whereas in the case of
the candidates, the limits apply to almost all spending,
including the cost of running an office, election headquarters,
and so on.
We therefore are proposing to limit the advertising expenditures
of third parties to $150,000 nationally and to $3,000 within
each riding.
We are also proposing that third parties be required to register
once their spending on advertising exceeds $500.
We want to avoid in this is having a group with a very small
base, such as a school program wanting to write to a candidate,
subject to such a limit. We do want to be reasonable.
Therefore, only spending of $500 or more would be subject to the
elections act.
Members will agree that all these measures reinforce the three
broad principles governing our electoral process, namely
accessibility—it is expanded by this process—fairness—I think that,
once again, with the measures on the third parties, and so on,
the bill talks a lot about fairness—and transparency, which will
be increased by the new ways of disclosing amounts and electoral
spending.
Bill C-2 provides us with yet another opportunity to assert
Canada's leadership in the electoral process and thus enlighten
democracies the world over.
I am sure that all members will recognize the wisdom of the
measures proposed and that they will take this opportunity to
support them. Our electoral system is the envy of the world.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: As is our country, and even the Bloc Quebecois
members opposite who can hear me know it. No doubt that is what
is behind the hubbub this morning.
1025
In conclusion, I know that other members wish to speak early on
today so as to be able to make it home for the weekend. I thank
them for their contribution throughout the process and
congratulate them on a job well done. I would like to be able
to jump the gun and congratulate them on their unanimous support
for the bill, although I realize it is not impossible that one
or two of them may decide to vote against it. After all, we are
living in a democracy.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: May we ask questions?
The Deputy Speaker: No, there are no questions and comments for
the first three speeches at third reading.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I seek
the unanimous consent of the House to be allowed to ask a
question of the member who just spoke.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will preface my comments today by pointing out that the
government has moved time allocation on this bill. It is the
23rd time in this parliament that it has moved time allocation on
a bill before the House. It has preliminarily closed debate on
bills 23 times since the start of this parliament.
Bill C-2 is an example of a flawed bill that the Liberals want
to ram through the House. They do not particularly want it to be
examined in this public place so they have limited the time for
debate. I can see the minister burying his head in shame. I
want to remind him that since we began debating the bill in the
House, the Reform Party has had only two hours and forty minutes
out of a total of seven hours and twenty-three minutes to debate
a bill which the minister himself has said, has not been dealt
with for 30 years.
Before making my own comments, I will deal with a few things
that were said by the minister. He said that we had improved the
Canada Elections Act by combining the results of all the parties
working together in the House. However, a few days ago we voted
on the report stage amendments to Bill C-2 and there were close
to 80 amendments proposed by the opposition. I think this shows
the minister that the opposition was far from satisfied with the
process to that point. If close to 80 amendments were being
proposed at report stage, then the minister must be wrong when he
says that the elections act has been improved.
He also mentioned that he had travelled during the break last
fall to talk with academics and students across the country. The
funny thing is, the minister would not allow the committee to
travel across the country to talk with academics, students and
interested parties even though we had made requests to do so. I
actually heard him on the radio talk show CKNW in Vancouver. I
remind the minister that the callers absolutely trashed the gag
law component in Bill C-2 and he had a fairly rough ride from the
callers on CKNW in Vancouver.
He also mentioned the Libman decision. I will come back to that
in a little more detail because it does deserve some detailed
comment, in particular because of a court ruling that came out of
British Columbia on February 9. The minister knows that he is
clutching at straws when he quotes Libman. He also knows that it
will cost taxpayers a lot of money to defend this flawed bill.
What he should have done was had discussions with third party
interests and tried to reach some accommodation.
The minister also talked about the release of results and how
things had been done in the bill to make sure that westerners did
not see the results of the election before their polls had
closed. Even the Chief Electoral Officer told the minister that
with the Internet in place now it was almost impossible to
prevent the transmission of results. If people want to see them
they can dial up the website for Scarborough—Rouge River, for
example, where they may have already posted their own local
results after the polls close in Ontario. There is really no
effective way of preventing the distribution of results.
The publication of polls is another area that has just come
under court challenge in British Columbia.
A very important result came out of the province on February 9
which put into question the entire section of the bill to do with
publication of polls. I will deal with that a little later as
well. I will come back to third party spending limits too
because they are an important part of the bill.
1030
As the minister wrapped up his speech he mentioned our electoral
system being admired around the world. That is just plain wrong.
The Chief Electoral Officer was questioned at length in committee
by members of all parties about the patronage system which is
riddled throughout the elections act. The Chief Electoral Officer
has no power over who is appointed as a returning officer or a
deputy poll clerk. All those positions are patronage
appointments put in place by the parties.
When the Chief Electoral Officer was asked whether he would
recommend our Elections Act to any third world country or an
emerging democracy, and I asked him that question, he said he
would not. There is no way that he would recommend Canada's
Elections Act to a third world country or an emerging democracy.
He did not say what the minister just said, that our act is
admired around the world. He said the act was not fit for a
third world country. I remind the minister that the act is far
from perfect.
Notwithstanding the fact that the minister took great pains to
point out the various amendments that were finally accepted by
the minister during the committee process, as I mentioned almost
80 amendments were proposed by the opposition parties in the
House. We went through a lengthy voting session two nights ago.
We were up until 12.40 in the morning voting on almost 80
amendments. That proves absolutely that the opposition parties
were not satisfied with what happened at committee.
It is now crystal clear that the government sent the bill to
committee before second reading with the intention of keeping it
out of the public spotlight, despite the claims of the minister
that the process was designed to accommodate meaningful
amendments.
Not very many significant amendments were made in committee,
even though the official opposition, third party witnesses, the
print media, broadcast witnesses, small parties and many other
expert witnesses made suggestions, good ones, on ways in which
the bill could have been made more democratic.
The elections act is so biased toward the parties with seats in
the House that it is normal for any changes to the elections act
to be slipped through on a Friday afternoon when there is hardly
anybody here. I know the people who are watching this debate on
television do not have a vista of the House right now, so they
cannot see or have any idea who is here and who is not.
I know I am not allowed to mention the presence or not of
members in the House, but it is a well known fact that when the
government wants things to slip through quietly without too much
attention it does it on a Friday afternoon when it can be done
with a lot of ease because hardly any members are present.
In this case I know the minister started off thinking he would
be able to push the elections act through in that manner. He was
quite surprised to find that initially the official opposition
was vigorously opposed to some parts of the bill. That was
joined then by the other opposition parties and we turned it into
a bit of a nightmare for the minister. He has moved closure on
debate now to try to ram it through on a Friday before we all go
home for a break.
Elections acts should be politically neutral and should be
supported by all parties in the House. They should be supported
by the Chief Electoral Officer. They should be supported by the
voters. That is not the case with the elections act. It is
opposed by all those groups.
The government has wasted an opportunity to modernize and
democratize the act. The new act does little more than renumber
the paragraphs in the old act. At the same time it tries to
reintroduce sections that have already been struck down by the
court. The bill maintains the most objectionable provisions of
the old act, especially those that benefit the ruling party,
which in this case is the Liberal Party.
The bill does nothing to address serious public concerns
involving campaign financing, party registration requirements,
the timing of byelections, third party spending issues and
patronage appointments within elections canada.
The rights of electors and third party participants in the
democratic process continue to be trampled by provisions which
adopt a paternalistic role in terms of dictating how much money
can be spent and presuming to decide for electors who is a
frivolous candidate and who is not.
In drafting the bill the government virtually ignored the work
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, even
though the minister made reference to that report.
The government also ignored several decisions of various courts
and the Supreme Court of Canada.
1035
The government is very inconsistent in the way it looks at court
rulings. Given its past reluctance to go against any court
ruling by introducing the bill and pushing it through the House,
the government is saying that it is okay for the courts to make
child pornography legal and to allocate fisheries according to
race, but it is not okay to touch the elections act or anything
that affects our ability to get elected, especially if it is the
ruling party.
Returning to some specifics of the bill, I will deal first with
third party spending. Let us look at the effect of third party
spending. I think everybody would agree, if one candidate only
has $1,000 to spend—and that is certainly the case with some of
the smaller parties—and another candidate like myself has an
allowance of $60,000, that there is an imbalance. I think
everybody would agree that my $60,000 would allow me to put up
billboards and to run advertisements on radio and television. The
smaller party candidate who only has $1,000 would be lucky if he
or she could put up one or two billboards and would truly be at a
disadvantage.
If we are looking at the difference between $100,000 and $1
million in a riding there will not be much difference. If I
could spend $100,000 on billboards and advertisements and
somebody else came along with $1 million, he or she would have so
many billboards and so many advertisements that it would actually
be an irritation that would work against the interest of that
third party. Even if there is an influence from third party
spending, relatively speaking it is not great when we consider
that candidates get to spend $60,000 or more and the parties get
to spend a lot more.
The minister spent a lot of time talking about Libman at which
point I mentioned that he was clutching at straws. In Libman v
Quebec the supreme court struck down the third party spending
limit in the Quebec referendum act as too restrictive. It said
that reasonable spending limits were both constitutional and
desirable and left it up to the legislatures and parliament to
determine a reasonable limit. However the supreme court decision
is in conflict with two separate decisions in the court of
Alberta and the February 9 decision in the B.C. supreme court
which struck down all third party spending limits as
unconstitutional.
The supreme court decision dealt with spending during a
referendum campaign whilst the other three courts dealt with
spending during election campaigns. It therefore appears that
the minister is clutching at straws when he uses the Libman
decision based on referendums to try to defend a gag law in an
elections act. Furthermore, the main evidence in the Libman case
was based on the Lortie report which as the minister stated is
some nine or ten years old. The Lortie report was based on a
preliminary report by a UBC political science professor named
Richard Johnston.
His report indicated that third party spending—and this was a
preliminary report—might influence election outcomes. However,
Mr. Johnston filed his final conclusions a few years later in
which he said that third party endorsements had no discernible
effect on election outcomes. That is the flaw in the Libman
case.
In his ruling in the B.C. case Justice Brenner stated that there
was no evidence which would allow him to conclude that third
party spending or advertising had any impact on voter intentions
and that to override charter rights it was necessary that there
be more than a general hypothetical concern about a problem when
there was no evidence the problem existed in the past or is
likely to exist in the future.
The Libman case was based on the Lortie report, which was based
on flawed evidence. The B.C. court pointed out that flawed
evidence. If the minister forces the issue back into court—and
certainly the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National
Citizens' Coalition have said they would take it there—he will
lose. There is no doubt that referendum spending is different
because it only relates to a yes and no answer to a question,
whereas elections involve an enormous number of issues and
candidates. The same rules cannot be applied, and in any case not
a single study in the world indicates that third party spending
can be linked conclusively to an election result.
1040
Mr. Gerald Chipeur, a constitutional lawyer with the firm of
Fraser Milner, has successfully challenged unfair sections in
both the provincial and federal elections acts. He told the
procedure and House affairs committee that the Libman decision
would likely not survive a challenge because of its applicability
to referendums rather than to elections.
In addition, one group that appeared before the procedure and
House affairs committee was Environment Voters. In support of
its arguments against third party spending limits, it provided an
opinion letter from barrister Clayton C. Ruby of Ruby and
Edwardh, a law firm in Toronto. In his letter Mr. Ruby stated
that in his view third party spending limits could not be
justified under the constitution. He also made reference to the
Libman decision by stating:
The supreme court passed an opinion on the Alberta court's
striking down as unconstitutional spending limits in the
elections act. The supreme court put out its opinion that it did
not think the Alberta court's ruling was valid in terms of
elections even though the supreme court had not studied the
evidence. It was not a ruling based on evidence. Yet the
minister continues to cite the supreme court's comments as
justification for imposing spending limits on third parties.
Far from levelling the playing field, if the supreme court
decision were to be upheld it would give advantage to the
Liberals because it restricts the ability of any other person or
group to counter government propaganda during an election.
The new bill limits third party spending to $150,000 for a
general election, of which no more than $3,000 may be spent in
any particular riding. This is in stark contrast to the total
election spending limit for the Liberal Party of Canada which is
close to $30 million. Of this amount, approximately $18 million
is allocated to its 301 candidates in the form of their
individual campaign expenses, while the remaining $11 million can
be spent directly by the party.
By way of comparison, for the 1997 general election the election
expenses limit for the Bloc Quebecois was $3.02 million. For the
PC Party it was $8.5 million. For the NDP it was $11.4 million
and for Reform it was $8.5 million. Let us remember that these
were the maximum amounts allowed and not necessarily the actual
amounts spent. They are based partly on the number of candidates
running.
I already mentioned that the National Citizens' Coalition and
the Canadian Taxpayers Federation intend to challenge third party
spending limits as unconstitutional. They are confident of
winning their case based on what has been learned from the
Alberta, the B.C. and the Quebec court decisions.
It is not the place of the government to limit the right of
individual Canadians or groups of Canadians to spend their own
money in support of a cause or candidate. The right to spend
one's own money on election advertising is a right which is just
a valid for the poor as it is for the wealthy. It would have
been a much better approach to consult with third party interests
across the country in an effort to reach a compromise on
reasonable spending limits. That way the expensive cost of court
challenges, which will eventually strike down all the limits,
could have been avoided.
In completing this section I would mention as evidence that
third party spending cannot be tied directly to any outcome.
During the referendum on the Charlottetown accord the yes side
lost even though it spent 10 times as much as the no side. During
the 1993 election the PC Party spent many millions of dollars
more than any other party in the race and yet had only two
members elected to the House. Reform, which spent one of the
smallest amounts per member, had 54 members elected to the House.
In addition, referenda conducted in Switzerland and California
over several decades show no correlation between the amount spent
by each side and the final voting result.
1045
Even if third party spending did make a difference in elections,
why would we be opposing that? Elections are supposed to be for
the voters. If the voters are upset or pleased with any
candidate, why should they not be permitted to spend their own
hard-earned money on opposing or endorsing that candidate as they
see fit? What right does the government have to interfere in
their freedom to express their opinion about a candidate?
I am prepared as a member of this House to have any third party
spend anything it wants in my riding. I believe that as long as
members of the House are following the will of their
constituents, they will not be removed from office. It is when
they choose to represent their party view or their own personal
view over the will of their constituents that they get kicked out
of office. That is why many members are afraid of third party
spending limits. They are afraid that if they do not obey their
constituents' will and instead obey their party will or personal
will, they will be thrown out of office.
I have one more quote from the ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court
on February 9 regarding third party spending. The court said:
“There are certain circumstances in which the goal of fairness
in elections would support an argument for third party
advertising. If in a future election campaign all of the parties
were to agree on a significant policy point then the lack of
third party advertising would mean that the people would be
limited to the views of the major political parties and media
commentators. The third party spending limits would effectively
silence citizens who wished to express a contrary view”.
That is an argument right from a judge of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia. It supports the idea of third party spending
limits. I find that an interesting and supportable argument.
Turning to the publication of poll results during the blackout
period, in the case of Thomson Newspapers v the Crown, previous
legislation preventing the publication of poll results in the
final 48 hours of an election campaign was struck down. The
government is now imposing a 24 hour blackout even though the
print media have declined to give any assurances that they will
not again challenge this provision in court.
I would say that the print media probably have been encouraged
to take this back to court by the ruling which just came down
from the British Columbia court. The British Columbia court has
struck down yet again any blackout provisions on the release of
poll results and it went every further. It said there should not
even be a requirement to print methodology for the polls. What
the court in B.C. has said is that there is no right of
government to interfere in the publication of polls or even the
methodology for those polls.
The government rejected a suggestion that I made in committee
and which was accepted as a compromise by the media, that they
could print poll results right up until the time of the election
but they would have to print the methodology so that voters would
know how those poll results were obtained. The minister rejected
that compromise. Now the court is striking down the entire
provision that was in the act. We have ended up with something
worse than if we had accepted the compromise which I negotiated
with the parties during committee.
Clause 326 of the new elections act requires that the first
person to transmit poll results and anyone who transmits them in
the 24 hours thereafter, must provide the details of the poll
methodology. However, in the recent Pacific press case in
British Columbia, Justice Brenner struck down the provisions
requiring publication of such information on the grounds that it
offends the principle of freedom of the press which is guaranteed
under section 2(b) of the charter of rights.
As in his ruling on the matter of third party spending, Justice
Brenner applied the rule that in order for a law to justifiably
override a guarantee under the charter, it must be demonstrated
that there is a pressing and substantial need for such
legislation. He concluded that there is no history of false or
misleading elections opinion surveys being published, that there
is no evidence that any individual has encountered any difficulty
in obtaining methodological information from the sponsoring media
outlet, and very few individuals are interested in obtaining such
information beyond the customary information routinely provided
by the media.
1050
Justice Brenner therefore concluded there is no pressing and
substantial need for these requirements and he struck down the
law. We now have the British Columbia case of February 9 pushing
another section of the minister's elections act right out the
window.
Public opinion begins to form long before the election writs are
issued. It continues to be shaped throughout the election period
and after based on the many types of information and issues that
are being discussed. To suggest that voters will change their
allegiance on the basis of poll results a few minutes before they
go to the polls is absolutely ridiculous.
In committee the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario had this to
say about blackout provisions: “I have concluded that the
blackout has no truly useful purpose and therefore ought not to
be imposed on the electorate for electoral process. It is
unnecessary and it limits the constitutional right otherwise
given to Canadians. I suggest that Bill C-2 not impose blackouts
at all”. He also stated that enforcement of blackout provisions
is virtually impossible.
Constitutional lawyer Gerry Chipeur, whom I mentioned earlier,
in his presentation to the committee said that of all of the
provisions in this bill that fly in the face of court decisions,
the blackout provision is the most certain to be struck down.
Turning to another court case on the requirements for registered
party status, in March 1999 an Ontario court struck down the
sections of the elections act which would require a party to run
50 candidates in an election to remain on the register and to
have its candidates listed with party affiliation on the ballot.
The court indicated that two candidates should be sufficient to
constitute a party. However all of the small parties who
appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, including the Communist Party of Canada which had
challenged the law and had it struck down, said that the number
12 as contained in a private member's bill which I had put
forward to the House was an acceptable compromise.
All members will know that the number 12 relates to the
recognition of party status in this House. The position I put
forward in committee was that 12 was a sensible number as opposed
to two, which most people would think was a bit low.
If the government had bothered to consult with the affected
parties an acceptable compromise could have been reached because
all of the parties agreed to 12. Then we could have finished
this whole legal court challenge, put it to bed and we would have
had a workable number in the bill. However, the minister refused
to accept it and now that case is going to appeal on March 2 and
3, in a couple of weeks. Right about the time that this bill goes
to the Senate we are going to have a court case probably striking
down provisions in the bill. It is totally ridiculous the way
the minister has handled this matter.
The court said that we could have a party of two people and that
is clearly what the court will ultimately decide again. Instead
of 12 we are going to end up with two. The minister foolishly
has plunged ahead with his number when there is every piece of
evidence to support a higher number.
In fact in committee when he was asked about it, the minister
said, “Obviously given that I am the minister who suggested to
have the appeal, I am of the opinion that it works just swell the
way it is”. I think that shows the intransigence of the minister
on this. He is quite happy to ignore the ruling of the Ontario
Court of Appeal because he does not like the number 12 or the
number two.
The position the official opposition takes is that elections are
for the voters. The government takes the position that elections
are for the parties. The reason it wants the 50 candidate rule is
because it does not want competition from small parties. The
government thought back in 1993 that the Reform Party would not
be able to get 50 candidates so we would not be able to have our
party name on the ballot. It thought that was a great way to
prevent us from ever coming to the House of Commons. It was wrong
because here we are.
The government is still trying to prevent any other party from
getting a foothold in this place and it is wrong. Voters have a
right to know that if there is a candidate on their ballot, that
that candidate has a relationship to some other candidate in
another riding by means of party affiliation.
It makes sense for openness and the conveyance of information to
voters that there be a party name on the ballot beside every
candidate who is a member of a party, regardless of whether that
party runs 12 candidates or 50 candidates in the election.
1055
Turning to patronage appointments, one of the worst parts of the
whole elections act and the piece that the Chief Electoral
Officer criticized three times in three separate appearances at
committee was the patronage appointments in Elections Canada.
The Chief Electoral Officer cannot even appoint his own
returning officers. All 301 returning officers are appointed by
the Prime Minister of Canada. They are Liberal patronage
appointments to what should be non-partisan positions throughout
Elections Canada. It is a disgrace. No wonder the Chief
Electoral Officer will not even recommend our elections
legislation to a third world country because of the patronage
that is riddled throughout it. He told the committee how
difficult it is to get rid of an incompetent returning officer
because he cannot go to the Prime Minister and say “Your
political appointee is incompetent and an idiot who should be
removed from office”.
Every one of the opposition parties tried to get the government
to change that rule and to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to
advertise based on competence and ability to do the job.
That whole system of patronage runs right through Elections
Canada with all the political parties being able to appoint
people at the lower echelons within the structure. Certainly
many of my Reform colleagues and I refused to do that in the last
election. We insisted that the returning officers advertise in
the newspaper for qualified people. That is the way it should be
done.
We are coming very close to question period. At this stage I
would like to put forward an amendment.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House
of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making
consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a third
time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs for the purposes of:
Reconsidering clause 350 in light of the B.C. Supreme Court
ruling of February 9, 2000 that struck down gag law provisions in
the B.C. Elections Act and prior similar rulings of the Alberta
Court of Appeal with due regard for the constitutional right of
Canadian citizens to free expression;
Reconsidering clause 370 in light of an Ontario court ruling
that struck down provisions requiring political parties to
endorse a minimum number of candidates in a general election in
order for the party to be registered, with due regard for the
right of small, regional and nascent political parties not to be
disadvantaged such as by having their names excluded from the
ballot;
Reconsidering clauses 324 to 328 in light of the B.C. Supreme
Court ruling of February 9, 2000 that struck down provisions in
the B.C. Elections Act imposing a blackout on the publication of
poll results and requirements for the publication of
methodological information, with due regard for the
constitutional right of Canadians to free expression;
Reconsidering clause 13 with due regard for the democratic
principle that the Chief Electoral Officer should be selected in
a non-partisan and democratic fashion rather than being
unilaterally and arbitrarily appointed by the government of the
day;
Reconsidering clause 24 with due regard for the entreaties of
the Chief Electoral Officer that he be allowed to hire returning
officers according to merit as determined through competitions
open to all qualified Canadians, to insulate the appointment
process from partisanship;
Reconsidering clause 26 with due regard for the principle that
the electoral system and all of its agents constitute the very
foundation of the democratic process in Canada, and as such the
appointment of assistant returning officers should be free of
real or perceived political bias;
Reconsidering clause 34 with due regard for the importance of
insulating the process for appointing deputy returning officers
from patronage, nepotism and partisanship;
Reconsidering clause 35 with due regard for the principle that
poll clerks should be hired impartially on the basis of merit
rather than being appointed by the government of the day
according to political affiliation;
Reconsidering clause 57 with due regard for the danger that the
timing of general elections could be manipulated for reasons of
political opportunism by the government of the day;
Reconsidering clause 59 with due regard for the right of
Canadian citizens who are inflicted by natural or man-made
disaster to have full and fair opportunity to participate in the
electoral process;
Reconsidering clause 67 with due regard for the constitutional
right of all Canadians, regardless of wealth, to be qualified for
membership in this House; and
Reconsidering clause 143 with due regard for the potential for
abuse of the electoral process such as the casting of multiple
ballots by a single voter on behalf of imaginary friends or the
registration of household pets as voters.
1100
The Deputy Speaker: Debate is on the amendment, and we
will resume debate after Oral Question Period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1105
[English]
GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to turn your attention to one of the world's most
important natural resources, our Great Lakes.
The area surrounding the Great Lakes is home to 8.5 million
Canadians and is of great economic importance to Canada.
Recognizing this, Canada and Ontario signed an agreement
respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, crafted to restore
and protect the ecosystem, to prevent and control pollution and
to conserve species, population and habitats. A strong ecosystem
is also integral to a healthy and vigorous economy.
Since signing the Canada-Ontario agreement water quality has
improved substantially. Among the accomplishments is a
significant decrease in the levels of contaminants in the lakes
and an increase in the number of sentinel species, such as lake
trout and osprey. Yet there is much more to be done. I make the
plea for new funding to improve our waterways and enhance the
quality of life for our citizens.
I call for the renewal of the Canada-Ontario agreement to ensure
continued co-operation and co-ordination in this important
endeavour. Above all else, let us leave an environmental legacy
to our children.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 54% of
Canadians say that health care is their number one concern.
The Minister of Health proposes more rounds of talks with the
provinces, but not until May. We already know the system is not
working. We know the status quo is not an option. We already
know that health care is not sustainable.
Here is what the government does not tell us. Canada ranks 23rd
out of 29 OECD countries for total health expenditures. The
provinces are having to devise their own strategies because the
government shows no leadership. Above all, the disasters in
health care continue.
We have a government which has misplaced $1 billion. Ours is a
country whose government has placed us in the bottom third of the
OECD countries, below Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Will it take the total collapse of health care before this
government gets off the fence and does something?
* * *
CANADIAN SOCCER
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the Canadian soccer team for making the
finals in the Gold Cup.
After a stunning goal in the 68th minute of play, Canada beat
Trinidad and Tobago 1 to 0 last night and will play Colombia
on Sunday for the Championship of the Americas.
As a former soccer coach and the proud father of a soccer
enthusiast, Matthew, I am particularly proud of Canada's soccer
achievements.
A lot of expensive equipment, like hockey sticks, is not needed
to play soccer. Players need a pair of shorts, good running
shoes, energy, a quick mind and the desire to make some good
plays. That is why soccer is the most universal sport in the
world.
It encourages a common bond between players from Canada and
other countries from all parts of every continent in the world.
Canada was ranked 85th in the world but beat 10th ranked Mexico.
Our team is now in the finals for the Confederation Cup against
Colombia on Sunday. This is truly an accomplishment.
Our congratulations to the coaches, players and all the
volunteers who made this victory possible. They have made us all
proud.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all
those attending the Sommet de la Jeunesse in Quebec City,
including the Quebec Liberals, reached consensus on the
necessity for the Government of Quebec to repatriate the entire
policy of parental leave.
In order to avoid distortions and waste, the Government of
Quebec therefore asked the federal government to comply with the
Emploment Insurance Act, which calls for the right to opt out
with full compensation.
As is his usual habit, the Prime Minister said no.
In so doing, he is saying no to the Government of Quebec, to the
Liberal Party of Quebec, to the social and community
organizations of Quebec, and the families of Quebec in
particular.
Of course, keeping that program in Ottawa lends political
visibility to the Liberal Party. They ought to have learned
their lesson from the Human Resources Development Canada
scandal: when visibility overrides public interest, it is a
two-edged sword.
We are asking this government to put the interests of Quebec
families before its partisan interests.
* * *
1110
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in last fall's throne speech the government made very significant
commitments to increase the well-being of our nation's children
and to undertake measures that improve the health of our natural
environment.
Monday's budget will be the true measure of the government's
commitment to both the children's agenda and to the ecological
agenda.
* * *
FUEL TAXES
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac who are irate at the high gas and fuel
prices.
It would seem that the federal government is once again turning
its back on hard-working Canadians.
Not only has the high fuel tax hurt the trucking industry, it
has also hit low income families especially hard, many of whom
cannot handle any extra heating costs.
In 1995 the Liberal government raised gas taxes by 1.5 cents per
litre as a means to lower the federal deficit. The deficit is
gone. Can the government explain why the fuel tax still remains?
Because of such extra taxes the Department of Transport enjoys a
surplus in excess of $6 billion per year, mostly due to fuel tax
revenue increases.
Today I urge the Liberal government to take action immediately
and lower fuel taxes to help all Canadians through this very
difficult period.
* * *
CHINESE CANADIAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I was pleased to attend the Chinese Canadian Heritage
Foundation inaugural gala in Vancouver. The gala raised money
for the Chinese Canadian Heritage Foundation, which will be
dedicated to preserving, recording and promoting Chinese Canadian
heritage for all Canadians. This is the true spirit of Canada's
multicultural society.
I would like to thank the co-chairs, Dr. Jan Walls and David
Choi, the donors and the many volunteers who made this event a
success.
The efforts of the foundation will let all Canadians know of the
invaluable contributions which Chinese Canadians have made to our
great country so we will have a better understanding and
appreciation for each other.
* * *
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in May 1998 Industry Canada made a $5.7 million
investment under Technology Partnerships Canada in Research in
Motion, RIM, Advanced Wireless Technology to develop the next
generation of RIM's two-way messaging products.
The result is the small hand-held device called the Black Berry.
This device was selected as the ultimate mobile computing tool of
1999 by Info World magazine for providing easy and timely
wireless access to e-mail.
RIM, founded in 1984 in Waterloo, is the world leader in
wireless technology. RIM is a great example of Canadian
companies that compete and win on a global scale. Not only do we
get back the $5.7 million investment, we also get royalties.
Technology Partnerships Canada also helped in the creation of
hundreds of new jobs.
I congratulate Research in Motion and Industry Canada.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Monday is budget day. Canadians will see some tax
relief from one hand, while the other hand takes it back with new
taxes.
Reform's solution 17 proposal would reduce taxes to a single
flat rate of 17%; real tax relief which would remove two million
low income Canadians from the tax rolls.
Opponents claim that our plan would slash needed social
programs. This is nothing more than fearmongering by those who
want to keep our taxes higher than they need to be.
By reducing wasteful government spending Canadians could have
these tax breaks and rebuild underfunded social programs at the
same time.
A case in point is VIA Rail. VIA Rail exists only through the
provision of huge government subsidies, subsidies which the
government is now proposing to increase to $500,000 a day.
The private sector has already taken over former VIA Rail money
losing operations, which now operate without subsidies. They pay
taxes, they bring in tourist dollars and provide unsubsidized
jobs for Canadians.
It is time for the government to stop its wasteful spending
habits and provide real tax relief to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FORCES SUPPLY DEPOT
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to draw attention to the
fact that the 25th Canadian Forces Supply Depot, located in
Montreal, has been successful in obtaining international
certification for the quality of its environmental management
system.
It had already earned international certification for its
processes, and now it is one of a select group of Canadian
organizations meeting both of these important international
standards.
1115
The 25th Depot is the largest military logistics centre in
Canada and warehouses more than 2,000 hazardous products.
Thanks to the efforts of staff and management, the Depot has
developed an appropriate environmental management system, based
on hazardous goods monitoring, staff training and adherence to
legal requirements.
We congratulate the staff of the 25th Supply Depot on obtaining
this certification.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have obtained documents that show that the Prime
Minister's office and the human resources minister's office were
both intimately involved in the renewal of an HRDC grant to
Les Confections Saint-Élie.
These documents outline a meeting between Denise Tremblay of the
PMO and Robert Theriault of the HRD minister's office. That
meeting discussed whether or not an HRDC grant should be renewed
for that textile company in spite of the fact that the company
did not reach its agreed upon job targets.
Why were both the Prime Minister's Office and the human
resources minister's office so personally involved in this
particular case?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have the information on this specific project.
I would be happy to try to get it for the hon. member. I am
confident that any of the allegations made by the hon. member
suggesting some improprieties are not well-founded. If he wants
to place similar questions again, I will ask the parliamentary
secretary if she has information that she can provide to the
House at this time.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we will be happy to provide the information for the
deputy prime minister.
Yesterday the human resources minister argued that a textile
manufacturer moved from a city with a textile industry to a city
with a fountain industry because it could not find a location in
Montreal. An hour later the president of the numbered company
contradicted her. He said that it was not because they could not
find a location in Montreal, but rather, that the move was made
for business reasons.
Did the Prime Minister's special support of Les Confections
Saint-Élie have anything to do with the moving of jobs from Rosemont
to Shawinigan?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
assure the House that HRDC officials are looking into this
matter. If any irregularity has taken place, HRDC will take the
appropriate action.
The company's decision to relocate was a business decision and
it had every right to make that decision as 75% of the total
investment was its private money.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 25% was not.
A no name textile company applies for a grant in Montreal. It
ends up in the Prime Minister's riding, a place not exactly
famous for its textile industry. Now there are questions about
whether or not 3393062 ever actually set up a textile plant.
Why were high level staff from the PMO and the HRD minister's
office so personally involved in decisions of this nature?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
very strange comment for a member from a party which has an
ongoing love affair with the private sector.
We in the government believe we have a role in participating in
the creation of economic opportunity for people, particularly in
areas of high unemployment. We are building the workforce for
the 21st century and we will continue to participate with private
sector partners who are willing to leverage our money.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the taxpayers who are concerned
about where their money is being spent.
We know there was a meeting on September 2 involving a top local
HRD official, the minister's own assistant and the Prime
Minister's assistant. We know they met to give funding to
Les Confections Saint-Élie, which had fallen 25% short of its job
creation commitments as required under the TJF.
Why did the minister and the Prime Minister pressure the local
HRD official to make a payment contrary to the signed TJF
agreement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is making a totally unwarranted
allegation when she uses the word pressure. I challenge her to
get up and show proof of pressure. If she does not have it, and
I do not think she has, she should withdraw those unwarranted
allegations.
1120
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are also interested in what else the
Prime Minister's assistant, who is known for interfering in TJF
projects, talked about at that meeting. We know a new request
for funding came for Les Confections Saint-Élie a month after HRDC
had broken the rules and had approved the final payment for that
initial grant.
Did Les Confections Saint-Élie receive any further funding from
HRDC as a result of that meeting?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have
to get back to the member on that particular question. I do not
know if the contract was amended.
However, I do know that TJF had 30,000 projects across the
country and they have a 95% success rate, which is better than
the private sector working in the open market. Statistics Canada
reports that of the start-ups of new businesses, only 77% are
still alive after their first birth date.
Our success rate with our partnerships of government and the
private sector are actually more successful than those in the
private sector alone.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
received additional information on this unbelievable matter
concerning the ridings of Saint-Maurice and Rosemont.
For one thing, the file was not transferred to Shawinigan, but
remained in Montreal.
On March 5, 1998, the owner of the company met with officials
from Human Resources Development Canada, in Montreal, and told
them that the premises located at 5800 Saint-Denis Street were no
longer available and that he was looking in other regions of
Quebec, including Beauce, to get closer to the American border.
As we know, that person's company ended up in the riding of
Saint-Maurice, in Shawinigan.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm these facts?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot confirm what the hon. member claims to be facts. Are
these facts or his own suppositions?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister will soon be in a position to
differentiate between facts and suppositions, and I can hardly
wait.
He will admit that the businessman who decided to get closer to
the U.S. border by going to Shawinigan is definitely not good in
geography.
On March 15, 1998, 3393062 Canada Inc. signed a lease with
Confections Saint-Élie Inc. By the way, the name of that company
sounds familiar. Oh yes, it is located in the Prime Minister's
riding.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm these facts?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
questions being posed by the Bloc Quebecois members suggest that
they do not understand the history of the area of Shawinigan nor
the history of the textile industry in the country. Shawinigan
has long been a textile centre and it is perfectly logical.
The other thing is that it is not always wise to second guess
the business decisions of our private sector partners, whether
they be private sector or non-profit organizations. The genius
of this country is that we accept and promote the ideas of local
entrepreneurs to create economic activity because we are
building—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us continue
this little horror story.
The company started its business by creating five jobs. On
March 19, 1998, it invoiced HRDC for the five jobs. On April
14, 1998, the firm was paid the amount of $165,984 for the 42
jobs it was to create.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm these facts?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
inform members that we have 30,000 projects under grants and
contributions. We know not everything will be perfect, but when
we hear of any irregularities we will research them. If we find
any kind of bad behaviour it will be referred to the police.
Members will always find a way to pick a scab. Even though 95%
of the projects are in good hands and Canadian taxpayer money is
well invested, they will continue to pick the scab of the few
they can find that may have some problems or do have problems.
However, we will refer the problem ones to the police.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
parliamentary secretary refuse to confirm these facts, when I
talked yesterday with assistant deputy minister Danielle
Vincent, who confirmed them.
My question is unchanged: where is the money?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
difficult to comment on a private telephone conversation from
yesterday. I am not privy to the ideas of that conversation and
therefore I cannot comment. However, I assure the House that the
officials are reviewing this file and if anything is untoward it
will be referred to the police.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
The other day in the House the minister said that more than
money would be required to fix health care. We certainly all
agree with him on that. There is a need for reform.
However, the reality of the situation is that more money is
required as well. More money must be delivered on Monday when
the budget comes down in order to restore the 50:50
federal-provincial partnership if the minister wants to have the
moral high ground again and if he wants to be able to work with
his provincial counterparts, as he says he wants to do.
Will there be significantly more money put back into health care
on Monday in the budget?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the budget will be tabled on Monday, but let us look at what the
government has done over the last two to three years. When all
other programs were being reduced, we restored and increased the
transfers to the provinces for health. The Prime Minister, in
his letter to the premiers following their February 3 meeting,
said that careful consideration would be given to the priorities
expressed by premiers.
I urge the member to wait until Monday. I also urge the member
to urge his provincial counterparts in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
B.C. to work with us toward medicare renewal in the months ahead.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was here when the Canada Health Act was passed. When
the government laid down the rules for medicare in the Canada
Health Act, it was contributing a heck of a lot more money to
medicare than it is today on a percentage basis.
Does the minister not acknowledge the need to get back to a
50:50 relationship between the federal government and the
provinces if he wants to show the kind of leadership in reforming
and saving medicare that he claims he wants to do? He is going
to have to do that. When will that be done? Is he committed to
doing it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I acknowledge that the Government of Canada has to do its part.
Not only is this the right thing to do, and the money is needed,
but over time the Government of Canada will not be in a position
to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act unless it has
a presence in the system. That is why, under the Prime
Minister's leadership, we committed significant additional money
last year to health transfers to the provinces. As we said at
the time, more will be done as our balance sheet improves.
I agree with the hon. member. I urge him and his counterparts
to work with us to renew medicare into the future.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
with yesterday's welcomed but belated announcement of Manitoba
and Saskatchewan agricultural support, the minister acknowledged
the huge impact that the cancellation of the Crow benefit had on
farm net incomes.
Is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food now admitting to
western Canadian farmers that he and his government totally
mishandled the cancellation of the Crow rate and that it should
have been phased out over a much longer period of time, as was
proposed by the previous Conservative government?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when this government took over from the
hon. member's party, I do not have to remind Canadians of the
financial situation of the country. We had to make some changes
at that time. We made changes that affected the grain
transportation policy in western Canada, which we put
considerable resources and funds into it at that time. We added
more to that yesterday. The result of that is further
diversification and, in the long run, a stronger agricultural
economy both on the farm and in rural western Canada.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister obviously did not admit to his mishandling of it but
he should have.
We know we have a grain handling problem right now in
transportation. Will he commit to fixing the transportation
problem and throwing his full and immediate support behind the
implementation of the Kroeger report recommendations?
1130
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there has been
an ongoing consultation and discussion process with Justice
Estey, with Mr. Kroeger, with the industry and with everyone
involved in grain transportation across the country.
The government's intention is to make some positive changes to
strengthen again in another way western agriculture on farms and
in rural communities.
* * *
KENORA—RAINY RIVER
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the riding of the minister of Indian affairs there is
a different definition of the winning conditions. If people
donate to the minister's campaign they win big. If they are
members of the Liberal executive and donate to his campaign, the
rules will be bent to ensure that they win big.
Businesses in his riding donated just over $16,000 to the 1997
election campaign. That is a fair amount of money, but the
return on the investment was a staggering $2.5 million. Why does
the Indian affairs minister think that it is okay to repay the
generosity of private donors with public funds?
The Speaker: Order, please. We are going a bit far in
the allegations today. If the hon. Deputy Prime Minister wishes
to address this question I will permit it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is making an outrageous allegation. He
is saying that there is a direct connection between donations and
government funds.
I challenge the hon. member to say that outside the House and
take responsibility for alleging what is conduct contrary to the
criminal code. I suggest he back that up with facts here and
outside the House. If he cannot do that, as I know he cannot,
then let him withdraw those remarks and take the blame for
misusing the privileges of the House as he is doing.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the president of the Liberal Party in the Indian affairs
minister's riding got a taxpayer funded loan of $150,000. Lucky
him. The trouble is that the agency that gave him the loan
limits its loans to a maximum of $125,000. He got $25,000 more
than is allowed.
Why do prominent Liberals in the Indian affairs minister's
riding get more money than anyone else is entitled to?
The Speaker: Order, please. I think the thrust of the
questions is such that these are pretty strong allegations. If
the hon. minister or anyone else wants to respond to that I will
permit it, but I prefer we stay away from the party stuff and
stick with the policies for which these ministers are
responsible.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again that member and that
party are absolutely wrong.
First, treasury board guidelines and the agreement signed
between the federal government and the particular local agency
allow for loans over $125,000. If the hon. member did his job
and actually did his research instead of just reading the paper,
he would have known that.
By the way, that is a loan given on a commercial basis with
repayment and with an interest rate much higher than what someone
would pay in the private sector.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
riding of Rosemont affair, the minister claimed that no premises
were available in Montreal. The owner, Mr. Goldberger, was
furious and denied this, saying that his decision was strictly a
business one.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what reasons were given
for this business decision, for leaving Montreal to go to
Saint-Maurice? What other business is involved?
The Speaker: I do not know that the government can know what
went on in that person's head.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. Deputy Prime Minister
wants to answer the question, I give him permission.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think the hon. member's question is a matter for the
government. It is impossible for me to know what went on in Mr.
Goldberger's head. The hon. member must ask Mr. Goldberger and
ask him what he meant by “business decision”.
1135
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Goldberger says Confections Saint-Élie signed a lease in March
1998. Confections Saint-Élie also got grants in the summer of
1997, which the Prime Minister boasted about in his election
flyer.
Is this the business in question with Mr. Goldberger?
[English]
The Speaker: Once again I do not know how we can get
inside the head of someone else. If the parliamentary secretary
wants to answer the question, go ahead.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
you. Opposition members continue to ask questions about this
file when I have already assured them that departmental officials
are looking into it to see if there are any irregularities.
I would like to say, though, that with 30,000 projects across
the country with a variety of partners we should be looking at
these things as the best efforts of groups of Canadians, whether
they be business persons or non-profit organization members, to
create economic activity. We have leveraged $2.7 million in
private sector partnership—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
a surprise. The human resources minister got it wrong again. The
minister's famous list has Aquilium Software Corporation listed
as bankrupt. That came as quite a shock to the company. It is
alive and well, and frankly must be very glad the human resources
minister is not its accountant.
Is it the policy of the minister to deem companies bankrupt so
they can qualify for even more HRDC money?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party does not know how to accept good news when it finds it, it
is so busy thinking of the bad news.
The list we released on February 21 includes the status of
bankrupt and closed companies as we knew them when the funding
was stopped. It is quite possible and to be hoped that some of
these companies were able to get back on their feet and are now
successful. The department would not have tracked their status
after the project had been stopped.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, good news does not constitute driving a company under
with kindness. The HRD minister took a billion dollars of
taxpayer money and bungled it.
Now they are spending money, giving it to companies and telling
the world that they are bankrupt. What kind of mismanagement is
that? Is it a policy of the minister to kill and drive viable
businesses under with kindness?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that
is the most ridiculous nonsense I have ever heard in the House.
We are in the business of creating economic activity—
The Speaker: Let us tone down the rhetoric on both sides
a bit.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: The government is certainly not in the
business of driving companies under. The government is in the
business of creating opportunities for Canadians by leveraging
private sector money with government money in order to create
opportunities.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member
for Rosemont was told by the assistant deputy minister of Human
Resources Development Canada that the entire grant of $165,984
was paid to Mr. Goldberger's company on April 14, 1998. Yet
this same deputy minister admits that only five jobs had been
created by that date.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether it is routine
practice for this government to distribute the full amount of
grants even before jobs have been created?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
questions that are coming forth from the Bloc Quebecois today
contain levels of detail for which I would have a fulsome answer,
provided they had the courtesy of giving me these details ahead
of question period.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
put a more general question to the Deputy Prime Minister, or
other delegated ministers, or perhaps the Minister for
International Trade could answer.
Is what we have here not proof of the practices fit for the dark
ages that the Minister of Human Resources Development condemned
when she first took up her post?
1140
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is well known that one of the longstanding conventions, based on
longstanding precedents of this House, is that only the present
minister comments on matters having to do with a department.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister who arranges our tax levels is the final banker. He is
the trustee of the money that taxpayers are obligated to pay.
Canadians are looking to him to oversee the money management of
the government.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said:
Since the finance minister supports the human resources minister
even after the billion dollar boondoggle, how much would she have
to lose before he withdrew that support and showed Canadians they
could trust him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the stewardship of the Minister of Finance on behalf of
the entire government of the finances of the government is proven
by the fact that he eliminated, together with all of us, the $42
billion deficit left to us by the Conservatives.
He has back to back balanced budgets, back to back surpluses,
low interest rates and low inflation. That is fine stewardship
and it goes much further than the empty rhetoric of the hon.
member.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, listen
to this for stewardship. The minister of HRDC said that she took
action when she became aware that her department was in the dark
ages in the management of grants and contributions.
Last spring the auditor general reported on a $1.9 billion TAGS
program: 34% did not contain any proposal, 26% had no clear
objectives and one-third did not meet the criteria under which
they had been approved. I could go on.
Why did the minister wait until this January, almost a whole
year, before she took action on this mismanagement and
incompetence?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is the first one to admit that there are problems within the
department in grants and contributions administration.
She has come forward with the action plan to address these
issues. That action plan has been suggested and reviewed by
outside specialists. Currently it is being reviewed or will be
started to be reviewed by the human resources development
standing committee.
We are trying to fix the problems. Picking at the scabs that
can be produced by looking through these files is not helping
anyone.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in connection with the CINAR affair, which now admits to fraud,
after public denunciation and a new investigation, yesterday in
this House the Minister of National Revenue indicated that his
voluntary disclosure program might apply.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are we to
understand that the government is preparing to grant CINAR the
right to make use of that program, thus providing this affair
with a first class funeral?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, quite the contrary. The
honourable member is well aware of the existence of a voluntary
disclosure program.
Besides, we are not of course allowed to comment on individual
returns. The Bloc Quebecois ought to be able to understand very
clearly why the contents of individual returns ought not to be
disclosed.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade.
With the increase in our small and medium businesses' activity
abroad, could the minister tell us whether Canada is really
benefiting from the opening up of international markets?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of this House today to
the fact that the opening up of markets benefits all, and
certainly Canada.
For example, last year, our exports increased by nearly 12%, and
our imports by 7.7%. The Government of Canada is working
tirelessly to have the international system based on clear rules
so our SMBs may enjoy greater access to the markets, as they
create longstanding and quality jobs.
This also means a better
quality of life for Canadians. Hats off to Canada's small and
medium business—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert.
* * *
1145
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is sending its top bureaucrats, including those from
HRDC, to the all-inclusive P.A. Douglas seminar in Banff. On the
agenda in between the wining and dining are such riveting topics
as “How to Say Goodbye”, our wish for the minister.
How can the minister justify this expense? What will HRDC
bureaucrats be learning, how to say goodbye to more taxpayers'
dollars?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member did not give us any notice of this
question on a detailed specific matter. However, I will take
note of the question, consult with the minister and get back to
him on the real facts as soon as possible.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
based on the billion dollar waste scandal, it is apparent that
HRDC officials did not gain any managerial wisdom at last year's
luxurious retreat in Banff. This year an agenda item is
“Getting People to Like You”.
If the minister and her officials want people to like them, they
do not need a seminar. They need to stop their irresponsible and
wasteful spending at HRDC. Why does the minister make it so
difficult for people to like her?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is a seminar on getting people to like you,
that explains where the Leader of the Opposition must be today.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We should not say whether
one member is here or not on any given day.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, all week and today included the government has suggested
that it has restored the cuts it took out in 1995. That
statement is a distortion of the facts and it does a great
disservice—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Let us go easy. It is not
out of order, but you are getting close.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Let
me just say that it obscures the facts and does a disservice to
Canadians.
The facts are the government cut the cash to health care. Cash
transfer payments are the glue that holds the national health
care system together. When cash drops so low, the government
loses the moral authority to enforce the Canada Health Act. We
are still short $4.3 billion in cash.
My question is simple and straightforward. On Monday will the
government put back the cash it took out of health care?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member wants to be informative and tell the
whole story, why does she not give the facts on the value of the
tax points in billions of dollars for health care and the value
of equalization? Without that, her answer is incomplete. Because
of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say misleading, but at the
very least it is incomplete.
The Speaker: More than that, you cannot even say that you
are not going to say misleading.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, let me mention to the Deputy Prime Minister the
government's own words in the federal budget of 1997 which stated
“only the cash transfer affects program spending”. The
government knows that it is the cash that makes the difference
and gives the government the power to enforce the principles of
medicare.
If the cash has been restored, why do we have a crisis today?
Why is the Ottawa Hospital today making choices about urgent
surgery, not elective surgery, and choosing who shall have that
surgery?
The problem is that the cash has been cut and all we know is
that the government is preparing to put in a one time only
payment. On Monday will the cash be put back and will it stop—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the budget will be tabled on Monday.
The numbers speak for themselves as the Deputy Prime Minister
has said. The total value of the transfers to the provinces, all
of which can be used for health care, is higher now than it was
when we took office.
The opposition can quibble about numbers in the past but the
real question in front of Canadians is, how do we hang on to our
health care system for the future? How do we make sure it is
sustainable for our families and children in the years to come?
That is what we are focusing on. I am now working with people in
the provincial departments to make sure we reshape medicare for
the future.
* * *
1150
TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Department of Transport has become a profit centre at the
expense of the trucking industry and the people employed in it.
The government eliminated the Atlantic regional freight
transportation assistance program and the maritime freight rate
both of which allowed Atlantic truckers to equalize costs and
compete with other parts of the country.
Will the government meet with representatives of the trucking
industry and put together a plan with them to reduce costs for
the industry?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to
members of the House that there have been ongoing consultations
with all members of the industry. In the very near future we
will have before the House and before the members of the
transportation committee our recommendations to solve many of the
problems which the industry is facing right now.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government has done everything it can to
drive up operating costs for the trucking industry. The Liberals
increased the excise tax on diesel fuel. They eliminated federal
competitive assistance programs and have now allowed the
condition of our national highways to deteriorate.
The deputy premier of New Brunswick took the initiative to meet
with truckers and offer them help. Will the transport minister
give them the same courtesy and meet with them to work out a plan
to reduce their costs?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has already indicated that
work is under way and ongoing.
Let me just correct the record with respect to the excise tax.
The government has not increased the excise tax on diesel fuel.
In fact, that tax was imposed in the first place and then
increased by the previous Conservative government. It was four
cents when we came into office and it is four cents today.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, can
the Minister of Foreign Affairs assure the House that Canada will
decline the invitation to join the North American missile defence
system, one of the most insane ideas emanating from Washington
since Ronald Reagan's star wars proposal?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the hon. member that at
this point in time the United States government has not made a
final decision on this particular weapons system nor have we been
invited to participate. Any decision would be clearly premature.
I would like to underline that we do have a concern about the
proposal and the impact upon the ABM treaty which is a very
essential link in the broad arms control regime that we have. We
would therefore have to take that particular factor into very
serious account.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
$600,000 transitional jobs fund grant was awarded to MacNeils
Cove in Nova Scotia to build a boardwalk. However, the boardwalk
was built without any of the required permits and as a result
remains unfinished. A local resident calls it a monument to
human stupidity. I call it a monument to Liberal stupidity.
Why did the HRD minister spend $600,000 of taxpayers' money on a
boardwalk boondoggle that did not have the required permits?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
community to which the member refers, there were 405 displaced
workers from the fishery. HRDC sat down with the community to
identify appropriate intervention that might get these people
back to work. The project identified was twofold: building the
boardwalk and clearing up the waterfront area, which has now
turned it into a tourist attraction. There is evidence in the
file on this project that the landowners gave permission and a
building permit was issued. As a result, 164 fishers moved on to
long term employment.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the skyrocketing
prices of gasoline, fuel and diesel are a concern to consumers
and businesses, as they are increasingly affected by this
situation.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Now that
several provinces have announced their plans, what is the
government waiting for to announce its own action plan, within
its jurisdiction, to meet the public's concerns?
1155
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government's jurisdiction in this matter
relates to two areas. First, the competition policy, as the
Minister of Industry has already explained, has been investigated
and in appropriate circumstances the proper action has been
taken. Second, there are cases of national emergency, threatened
national security, but we are obviously not at that point.
Matters relating to the regulation of consumer prices are
entirely within provincial jurisdiction.
* * *
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there was a revelation in the House yesterday. We found
out that the minister for ACOA can read a Liberal press release
turned into an editorial.
I have an article from the Nova Scotia provincial election
stating that a worker at Scotia Rainbow said he could not believe
he had to put together Liberal election signs. Workers were
asked to nail signs together on company time and put them on
their front lawns. A lot of workers are feeling threatened.
Is it because of this connection to the Liberal government and
Scotia Rainbow that the minister continues to dance around this
issue?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ACOA did put in a million dollar loan into
this enterprise. HRDC put in $2 million. The provincial
government put in double that amount of money. The investors put
in double that amount of money. And by far, the largest amount
of money was put in by the chartered banks.
To slam the federal government for this huge expenditure by the
chartered banks and private individuals would be like blaming the
boy scouts for the gulf war.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, high fuel prices are causing a crisis not only for
trucking companies but for all Canadians. When will the
government show leadership and reduce fuel taxes or will it
continue to keep looking for excuses to justify doing absolutely
nothing about this crisis?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have explained in response to a previous question
from a member of the same party, the excise tax on diesel was a
tax invented by the Conservative Party. It was increased by the
Conservative Party.
It was four cents a litre when we came into office. It remains
at four cents a litre today. If the hon. member would like to
know the source of this problem, she might look in the mirror.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday tens of thousands of Albanians faced a crowd of Serbs
across the bridge that spans the Ibar River in the divided city
of Mitrovica. We know that Canadians bore the brunt of the
violent demonstrations.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Defence. What role did the Canadian forces play in
preventing the violence from escalating even further?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question.
In Mitrovica, inter-ethnic violence between Albanian Kosovars and
Serbs is an explosive situation. This is why 200 Canadian troops
were redeployed from Pristina to Mitrovica.
[English]
On Monday tens of thousands of Albanians faced a crowd of Serbs
across the bridge which spans the Ibar River in the divided city
of Mitrovica. The Canadian presence helped prevent the clash
between the Albanian and Serb residents from completely
deteriorating. The Canadians bore the brunt of this violent
demonstration—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian Aerospace Group International received a $1.3 million
TJF grant to allegedly create 500 jobs in North Bay, Ontario. The
project failed. The company was then given a $1.7 million
interest free loan to set up in Saint-Hubert, Quebec.
Since the project in North Bay never got off the ground, will
the boondoggle government be recovering the $1.3 million tax
dollars lost on that grant?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the biggest oxymoron around here
is Reform Party research. No money was given for the project in
Saint-Hubert.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is
there anyone in the government who can explain to us today how
it is that they are unable to confirm the facts that we have
brought to light?
1200
The Deputy Prime Minister spoke of suppositions, when it was a
deputy minister of Human Resources Development Canada who
herself called the member for Rosemont yesterday to pass on
these facts.
Why is no one in this government able to answer questions, when
we have the information from a deputy minister? Why is it that
a deputy minister is calling us, that the minister does not
know, that the Deputy Prime Minister does not know, and that the
parliamentary secretary does not know?
Something is wrong with this picture.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are very open to the hon. member when we are in a position to
confirm the facts.
He alluded to a conversation. I think it wise that we contact
the deputy minister and ask whether she is able to verify the
hon. member's allegations. We will check this out and get back
to the hon. member in due course.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
despite the platitudes from the Prime Minister for a good future
for young people, the only vision of the future for tens of
thousands of students is a massive debt wall.
It is undeniable that high student debt and skyrocketing tuition
fees are directly caused by the massive retreat in federal funds
for post-secondary education.
If the government is truly committed to education and
accessibility, will the government commit to the single most
important action needed, to restore funds to post-secondary
education?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we all appreciate the confidence of the hon.
member in the Liberal government. She is looking to the
government to do the right thing. The government will do the
right thing. I cannot say what the details will be or whether
they will cover this exact subject, but her vote of confidence is
appreciated.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is caught in the past,
but can the Minister of HRDC please explain why four companies,
owned or partly owned by three members of the executive of the
Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, received
$385,000 in HRDC grants for job creations in 1997?
Many of the companies which received over $2.5 million in
Kenora—Rainy River, courtesy of the overtaxed Canadian,
funnelled $16,000 back to the government member in political
donations.
If this is not blatant patronage, what is it?
The Speaker: I understand the question. It deals more
with party matters. I see the hon. Deputy Prime Minister on his
feet. If he wishes to respond, I will permit him to do so.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we cannot let anything stay on the record of the House
of Commons which is linked to the allegations of the hon. member
when he talks about money from the government being funnelled
back. Those are assertions for which he has provided no
foundation, as far as I am aware. We are all aware that there is
no foundation. If he took his job seriously he would get on his
feet and withdraw those unwarranted allegations.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 25
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour
to table, in both official languages and on behalf of the
Minister for International Cooperation, the list of companies
supported by CIDA between April 1, 1996 and March 31, 1999,
grouped by company, as requested in the House yesterday.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have
submitted an application for an emergency debate regarding an
international event which falls within the scope of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs. Because of the urgent nature of this matter,
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move immediately
past the daily routine of business directly to applications for
emergency debates.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The hon. member can revisit this matter at
the end of Routine Proceedings. We have received the
application.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I request through your
good graces that you use your office to facilitate the settlement
of a difficulty which is disrupting the work of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I know that you cannot intervene, Mr. Speaker—
The Speaker: You are correct. I cannot intervene unless
there is a report before the House. As far as I know, there is
no report before the House, so your point of order is out of
order.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to
table, in both official languages, the Canada Foundation for
Innovation annual report for 1998-99. Pursuant to Standing Order
32(5), this report will be referred to the Standing Committee on
Industry.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-20
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to
speak from my place in the House in this parliament and I am
tempted to make a speech. However, I will resist that urge
because it would be out of order.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order of reference of Thursday, February 10, 2000
your committee has considered Bill C-20, an act to give effect to
the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, and
has agreed, on Thursday, February 24, 2000, to report it without
amendments.
Some hon. members: Democracy, democracy.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on chapter 1 of the
April 1999 report by the Auditor General of Canada on
“Correctional Services of Canada: Reintegration of Offenders”.
[English]
I also present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts relating to the public accounts of Canada,
1998-99. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons
the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive
response to these two reports.
* * *
1210
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-437, an act to amend an act for the
recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have introduced
my property rights bill in the House.
The government has such disdain for any legislative protection
for property rights that thus far it has refused to make my
previous attempts votable, and it has refused all attempts to
even have my proposals reviewed by the standing committee.
Individual property rights need strengthening because they were
intentionally left out of the charter of rights and freedoms.
Recent court cases have proven that Canadians have no protection
whatsoever from the arbitrary taking of property by the federal
government.
My bill would make up for this mind-boggling omission from the
charter by strengthening the property rights provisions in the
Canadian bill of rights. My bill would also require a two-thirds
majority vote of the House whenever the government passes laws
that override fundamental property rights, like it did when it
passed the Firearms Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I sit on the subcommittee on Private Members' Business. That
member knows that it is a non-partisan committee. To accuse the
government of making that decision is just—
The Speaker: That is not a point of order.
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-438, an act to amend the Competition Act
(game of chance).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
a private member's bill at first reading. This bill deals with
printed material which conveys the general impression that the
recipient has won a prize, but in order to collect that prize a
fee must be paid.
The private member's bill would make it an offence under the
Competition Act to deliberately circulate material which conveys
the general impression that the recipient has won a prize;
however, for them to be able to collect that prize they must pay
money. Any individual or company which contravenes this
legislation will be guilty of a summary conviction and can be
fined up to $200,000 or sentenced to one year of imprisonment.
This is an important consumer issue. As members of parliament
we have an obligation to address this matter. Therefore, I am
pleased to bring this forward in legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-439, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (rights ceasing to accrue
after the end of 2000).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is simply
to provide that the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
shall cease to apply to service as a member after the end of
2000. Members will not be entitled to contribute or accrue any
benefits for service after December 31, 2000.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY ABORTION REFERENDUM ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-440, an act to provide for a referendum to
determine whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions
to be insured services under the Canada Health Act and to amend
the Referendum Act.
1215
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
provide for a referendum to be held on the question of whether
public funds should be used for medically unnecessary abortions.
If the electors agree that this should not be the case, an
amendment to the Canada Health Act would be brought into force
which would allow a reduction in fiscal transfers to provinces
that allow such funding.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-441, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of
offence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
require that a sentence for the commission of certain serious
offences be supplemented if a firearm is used.
The additional sentence is to be served concurrently to the
other sentence and is to be a further minimum punishment of 10
years imprisonment if the firearm is not discharged, 20 years if
it is discharged and 25 years if it is discharged and as a result
a person, other than an accomplice, is wounded, maimed or
disfigured.
The offences affected are those specified in the sections of
murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault causing bodily
harm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual
assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Tuesday, February 22, be
concurred in.
I appreciate my hon. colleague from Peace River seconding the
motion to concur in this report today. I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about
this very important issue, especially in light of the
announcement that was made as recently as yesterday by the
government. I am speaking about the agricultural crisis,
especially as it relates to western Canada and producers in all
four western provinces. As members will notice, I have included
my own province of British Columbia.
Not many people understand that in the northeast corner of
British Columbia, an area that I represent, there is an
agricultural sector that is very similar to the three prairie
provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is a very
important issue in my particular riding of Prince George—Peace
River and all across Canada, but especially on the prairies.
In the brief time that I have I must say that I feel the
government has failed miserably in properly and adequately
addressing the agricultural income crisis in Canada today. I say
today because the most recent opportunity to address this problem
in a very real way was as recent as yesterday and the government
failed.
The Liberals have failed once again. They have come forward with
some ad hoc funding but no plan to get that assistance to the
producers, especially the farmers who are beginning to prepare
for spring seeding. The uncertainty producers are facing is
whether they should even put a crop in the ground this spring.
This is something the government needs to address in a
comprehensive and very real way. It should not be done in some
photo-op by the minister saying “Well, we have listened, we have
heard the concerns emanating from western Canada and we intend to
address this by throwing in another $240 million”.
1220
This was another announcement just like the others we have seen
over the last year and a half.
Mr. Charlie Penson: It is the same money.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from
Peace River said, it is the same money. They just keep
announcing it over and over again.
Farmers are not fooled. One of the reasons that the official
opposition, the Reform Party of Canada, launched its own series
of grassroots agricultural meetings across western Canada was to
get input from farmers themselves at small townhall meetings, not
by blowing into Regina, Saskatoon or Calgary and talking to a
select group of witnesses who appear before the standing
committee. We wanted to go out and talk directly to the
producers who were most affected by the government's lack of
agricultural policy.
My colleagues, who are agricultural critics for the official
opposition, instituted a plan to travel across western Canada and
set up meetings called assistance for struggling agricultural
producers, ASAP. The acronym could also be “as soon as
possible”. As soon as possible we need to help farmers in
Canada. It is important for Canadians to ask themselves a very
serious question at this juncture of our history: Do we want to
have a viable agricultural industry in Canada? If the answer to
that is yes, and I suspect it is, we want a healthy and secure
supply of food in our nation, then we must give farmers the
support that is necessary and the certainty to conduct their
business.
We have been holding these meetings all across western Canada.
By the time they are done, around mid-March, my colleagues will
have conducted over 60 small townhall meetings scattered across
western Canada. In my riding we held one about half way through
the north and south Peace River agricultural regions in a small
little community called Farmington. I suspect this is one of the
few times members will hear that name in this place. It is not a
big community but it is a very important agricultural community
in my riding of Prince George—Peace River.
The meeting was held on January 11, a cold winter night with
blowing snow and blizzard conditions in the Peace River country
in northern British Columbia. We expected maybe a few dozen
farmers to show up. When my colleague and I went to the meeting
we were not sure just how many people would brave the cold, the
wind and the snow that night but over 100 farmers came out to
that meeting, these were men and women who realized their
livelihoods and the very security and future of their family
farms were at stake. Some of them travelled dozens of kilometres
and, in some cases well over 100 kilometres, to attend the
meeting that night.
My colleague from Peace River held similar meetings in his
riding of Peace River, Alberta, the adjoining riding just
immediately to the east of my riding. He held meetings in Grande
Prairie and Peace River and the response was the same. If we
lump the two meetings together, we had well over 150 individuals
show up to air their concerns.
1225
Following the meeting we had in Farmington, one of my
constituents undertook a unique journey. Nick Parsons, from
Farmington, a small community just north of the city of Dawson
Creek, at mile zero of the Alaska highway, took it upon himself
to undertake a combine odyssey to Ottawa. He decided to drive
his combine right here to Parliament Hill.
An hon. member: To send a message.
Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. He wanted to send a message and
he is sending a message. He is a little over halfway in his
journey, a journey of some 3,000 kilometres. I know this because
I have driven it, but I was not driving a combine. It took me
about four days by car as compared to his four to six weeks to
drive his combine down here.
Members would be amazed at the support this farmer has received
during his travels. When I was talking to him via his cell phone
the other day he told me that his journey is one of tears and
fears. The fears of Canadian farm families are being expressed
to him as he travels across western Canada; the fears that the
industry is dying and the fears that there is no hope.
Can anyone imagine being a farmer in western Canada today? The
reality is that the government has given them no hope for a
future. This is being expressed to Nick Parsons every day as he
continues his journey across western Canada. Every day
individuals stop Nick's combine and hand him $20, $10 or whatever
they can afford to assist him in his journey across western
Canada while he tries to draw attention to the plight of the farm
family and farms in Canada. He wants everyone to know that no
matter how hard the farmers have struggled, they cannot make ends
meet. No matter how efficient they have become over the last
number of decades, the reality is that they cannot make ends meet
because international subsidies have driven down the price of
their product to the point where they cannot pay their bills.
They are now on the verge of losing their farms and their homes.
I have to try to convey the tragedy that is occurring on farms
across western Canada to the urban public who perhaps might be
watching the proceedings today. What is happening is a national
tragedy.
Farmers are looking to the government for something more than
having money thrown at them, money that never reaches them. In
the last year or so I have often made the comment that no matter
how many announcements, how many photo opportunities the
government has to announce the same money over and over again,
all the money in the world sitting on the cabinet table does the
farmer and his family absolutely no good until it is on their
kitchen table.
Of the money that was announced, even before the most recent
announcement yesterday, around 25% has actually reached farmers
to help them. This is a tragedy.
It is unfortunate that my time is up because I could, on behalf
of farmers all across Canada, go on speaking about this all day.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the agriculture
committee report, which was just tabled as a result of hearings
held in December 1999. I note there was an earlier report in
December 1998. These two reports indicate that there is a
problem. Members of the agriculture committee understand there
is a problem and they want to do something about it.
After reading the report, I agree with much of the analysis and
much of the analysis has been provided by the member who just
spoke.
The New Democratic Party caucus disagrees strenuously with at
least one conclusion in the report. Our agriculture critic, the
member for Palliser, tabled a minority report, an addendum to the
report, in which he stated that the committee suggests that
Canada is so impoverished that it cannot afford to invest in our
grain farmers to the same extent as other countries.
1230
The report indicates that Canada cannot compete with the
treasuries of these countries. My hon. colleague, the member for
Palliser, says that Canada certainly has the financial resources
to compete on a comparative basis with the United States and
Europe. The problem is that the Canadian government has decided
it does not want to compete. We know that it has cut support to
farmers since 1993 by roughly 60%, so my colleague in this
minority report is saying that we in fact can compete.
We have been on to this issues, as has the Reform Party. The
NDP caucus has and will continue to support farmers in rural
communities in the ways that they are attempting to put bread on
their own tables in addition to putting it on ours.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the
New Democratic Party for his comments and his intervention. He
certainly raises a very valid point. What I was trying to drive
home during my brief remarks is that I think it is incumbent upon
all Canadians to look inside themselves at this juncture in our
history to decide what priority they place on our agriculture
industry.
The hon. member was referring to the level of support that other
countries give to their agricultural sector, whereas in Canada,
especially in the grain sector, we have seen a diminishing level
of support from the federal government over a number of years. We
could debate all day how much our national treasury can afford to
support an individual sector of the economy.
The member referred to his party's minority report on the report
of the standing committee. Our agricultural critics also put
forward a minority report in which we listed eight positive
things, other than just an ad hoc propping up of the sector, the
government could undertake to assist farmers.
The farm safety net programs must be reformed to ensure long
term stable protection. That was one of the things that we put
forward, something that a lot of farmers have advocated for a
long time. A lot of farmers have been involved through their
local producer organizations in promoting an expanded NISA
program, the Net Income Stabilization Act.
The federal government could lower the costs it imposes on
producers by giving general tax reductions, lowering user fees
charged by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and
reducing federal taxes charged on the manufacture, transportation
and sale of agricultural input such as fertilizer and especially
fuel.
We hear members raising the issue of the high cost of fuel in
the House every day. That is something the government could move
on. It could do something about that. It could bring down the
taxes on fuel. It would have a direct impact on the input costs
of farmers as they do their planning for this spring's seeding.
As well the government could further lower the costs of farmers
by enabling a competitive, commercially accountable grain
handling and transportation system. Many parliamentarians from
all parties have talked about changes to our transportation and
grain handling system, yet very little is being done.
The official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada, has
identified a whole raft of things in our minority report, as have
other parties, that the government could be doing to assist
farmers. Yet we see nothing but a photo op and government
members saying they will throw another couple of hundred million
dollars at it. Maybe it will eventually get to the farmers and
maybe it will not, but they will throw it at them in the hope
that it solves the problem. Farmers especially know darn well it
will not solve the problem.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I travelled with the committee as it made its tour of
the three prairie provinces, so essentially I will be reporting
on that.
I would like to acknowledge the fact that we cannot pin a label
on all the people on the other side. Some of them are willing to
step out of the mould. I would like to acknowledge especially
the fact that the member for Broadview—Greenwood in Toronto has
done his share in trying to profile the plight of prairie farmers
when he organized that rally.
Back in November the Reform had a supply day.
1235
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Bob was also there.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, there were more members, but I
acknowledged the member for Broadview—Greenwood because he
helped organize it. The point I am trying to make is that the
more we can get people from the other side joining together with
us to show this is a non-partisan issue and to communicate to the
people in the cities the plight of farmers, the better off we
will all be.
There are some real issues we have to deal with in this place
and it is very difficult sometimes not to be partisan. It is
great to see members on the other side helping us because they do
not have elected people on the prairies and in rural ridings to
help communicate that message to the cities. There is one
cabinet minister from Regina who is strangely silent on the
issue, but I am glad to see other members trying to do their
best.
As I mentioned, I have been travelling with the committee.
Yesterday the Prime Minister made quite a big deal of the fact
that $1 billion were being made available to farmers in
Saskatchewan. I need to clarify the fact that it was not $1
billion in new money. I hope he does not think farmers are not
smart enough to know what has been going on.
We have used the words billion dollar boondoggle in referring to
the mismanagement of the jobs fund under HRD. I used the words
billion dollar boondoggle to describe the gun registry because in
a few years a billion dollars will have been wasted going after
the good guys rather than dealing with the real problem in Canada
in that regard. We could talk about the billion dollar
boondoggle in aboriginal affairs, and I suppose there are other
areas. Here we have a billion dollar boondoggle. When we look
at all the things that are going on, we are going to be talking
real money soon. Why do I call it a boondoggle? It is because
the money is not getting to farmers.
The programs are announced. When we listen to the media it
sounds like some grand thing has been done. I suppose the
impression created in Toronto is that farmers are getting this
money. If we listen carefully and we read the fine print, it
says that we will know by the end of March how the funds will be
disbursed. The farmers need the money. As my colleague from
Prince George—Peace River said, it has to be on the kitchen
table.
Two years ago Reform said something needed to be done about the
crisis developing in agriculture. The Prime Minister said
“These things take time to develop”. What have the bureaucracy
and the government being doing for the last two years? The Prime
Minister went on to say “You know me. I have to do my homework
first”. What was announced yesterday clearly shows that he has
not done his homework.
This is only a small fraction of what farmers pay in tax.
Farmers are taxed to the max. Some of their input costs may be
as much as 50% tax. People in the cities do not realize that
farmers only get back a small fraction of the money they send to
Ottawa back.
Yesterday I had with me a box of shirts from the backs of a few
farmers. They want me to make the point with the people here and
across Canada that the government has literally taken the shirts
off their backs. I wanted to present those shirts to the Prime
Minister and the finance minister on behalf of farmers in
Saskatchewan, and they would not accept them. Then I went to the
agricultural minister who said he would not take them to the
Prime Minister. I still have the shirts that the government has
taken right off the backs of farmers.
Many points need to be made in this regard. Reform has
suggested a lot of good things. I want to let people who are
watching know that they can access a minority report on the
Reform's position on the Internet.
We are limited in time in the House so I cannot go into all the
details, but I will briefly summarize what Reform is saying.
Canada must aggressively attack international subsidies and trade
barriers so that farmers do not have to compete with all the
grain being dumped on the international marketplace that forces
farmers to sell their product below the cost of production.
1240
Mr. Charlie Penson: It sounds like the Boy Scouts to me.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Exactly. My colleague from Peace
River has just made the point that we have tended to be the Boy
Scouts at the bargaining table. It is about time we got tough.
Our competitors are tough.
What does that do for prices within Canada? Because farmers are
caught in the international marketplace they are actually
subsidizing the food being eaten in Toronto. People do not know
that farmers are being forced to sell below the cost of
production and people within Canada are benefiting from that
fact. Whatever happens in the international marketplace happens
here. That is why our government has to come to the rescue in
the short term and reduce taxes.
The government must immediately reduce the burden it places on
farmers. Farmers pay an inordinate amount of tax, everything
from an excise tax on fuel to user fees. What are user fees? For
people watching in the cities, user fees such as grain inspection
fees amount to $138 million annually for prairie farmers.
Farmers are compelled to pay the cost of agencies that benefit
all sectors of society. A good quality safe food supply helps
everybody but the farmer has to pay the whole shot. That is not
fair. Those fees should be reduced, and Reform is asking for
that to take place.
The government should give grain farmers the freedom to market
their own grain independent of the wheat board. One may often
hear or be given the impression, especially by the minister
responsible for the wheat board, that because the wheat board has
a monopoly and farmers are not allowed to sell outside it is
somehow great for farmers.
The point is that farmers are not even allowed to process their
durum wheat into pasta and put it on the store shelf for sale.
The wheat board makes them sell their own grain to the wheat
board and buy it back before they can process it. Of course
there is a big handling fee and they have to buy it back at a
higher price and the profit is diminished.
I hope at some future point I will be able to address this
problem even more. We need to debate agriculture a lot more in
the House. At this point I would like to move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The request for the
House to adjourn is not receivable by the Chair because the House
is now under special order on time allocation and the vote on
Bill C-2 must be and will be put today at 2.15 p.m. We are still
on questions and comments.
1245
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, one of
the difficulties with discussing agriculture in Ottawa is that
there is a pervasive feeling with the Liberals and I believe
sometimes with the Reform Party that if it is not grown in the
west, it is not agriculture.
The fact is the agricultural crisis and issues which face all
Canadian farmers are not western centred. There are significant
issues and indeed a crisis in western agriculture, but there are
also agricultural crises in other parts of the country.
My riding which represents 50% of the agricultural product from
Atlantic Canada, a greater level of agricultural output than all
of Prince Edward Island, is in an agricultural crisis. We have
had four years of unprecedented levels of drought and
destruction. For instance the fruit growers have been virtually
pummelled by this.
I am concerned with—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Kings—Hants will forgive me, I must correct a statement I
made just a moment ago. I want to put people at ease. I said
that the vote would be taken at 2.15 p.m. I was in error. The
vote will be at 1.15 p.m. We will go into Private Members'
Business at 1.30 p.m. Therefore, to be clear, we are under time
allocation and time allocation means that the vote will be taken
today at 1.15 p.m.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
ask for further clarification on that.
It is my understanding that the motion to adjourn the House put
forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville is in order.
The reason it is in order is that the House was considering Bill
C-2 this morning during the hour of debate from 10 o'clock to 11
o'clock. The House went to Routine Proceedings following
question period and we are now on motions.
We are not considering Bill C-2 any longer. We have no way of
knowing when we return to orders of the day following Routine
Proceedings whether the government will call Bill C-13 or another
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek further clarification and
a further ruling on this because my understanding is that we are
not currently under time allocation that has been imposed on Bill
C-2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will be happy to
consult with the table and we will make sure that we are doing
exactly the right thing.
As members can see the Chair benefits by having a lot of good
professional advice at his beck and call. At page 9, chapter III,
sittings of the House, Standing Order 25 states:
When it is provided in any Standing or Special Order of this
House that any business specified by such Order shall be
continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting,
the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have
been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by
a Minister of the Crown.
Unless a minister of the crown makes the proposal that the House
adjourn, the House will not adjourn and we are still under the
provisions of the standing order.
The ruling was correct. We are in debate. We are in questions
and comments and we will start the questions and comments period
from the beginning. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry
is in a crisis across Canada and for very different reasons.
Frankly a solution that may work in one region will certainly not
address issues in other regions. Geographically Atlantic
Canadian agriculture faces very different issues from those of
western Canadian agriculture. That is common sense.
1250
The Liberal government changed the EI rules in 1995. It had an
extremely deleterious impact on agriculture in Atlantic Canada to
the extent that Atlantic Canada farmers in my riding last year
lost about 30% of their crops because of the difficulty in
attracting seasonal workers.
With the short growing season in Atlantic Canada, seasonal work
issues are more important than they are in other regions. It is
a growing season issue. The government may have thought that if
the rules were changed those people would go from seasonal work
to full time work. It did not work that way. Many of those
seasonal workers are now on provincial welfare rolls because of
this misdirected policy.
The Reform Party is positing some solutions for agriculture in
western Canada. As a party that purports to be a national party,
I would be interested in its recommendations for the seasonal
work issue facing farmers in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply
to this question because I spent quite a bit of time visiting
farms in that member's riding. I heard firsthand the concerns of
those farmers. Perhaps a point that could be made here is that
some of the members of parliament from that area should be
representing those people so I would not have to be going there.
In order to develop our policy we spent time on the farms in
that area. It is interesting to note that the farmers there have
concerns that are very similar to the concerns in the west. One
is that the federal government does not have an agricultural
policy which deals with concerns right across Canada. It is time
we developed a comprehensive agricultural policy.
The member says that some of the problems faced by people in his
riding are not the same as those in the west. Of course there
are individual characteristics but there are common
characteristics. One of the things I am finding that farmers and
also small businesses face right across the country is that
people bear a huge tax burden which they can do nothing about it.
Built right into the farmers' input cost, be they on the
prairies or in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, is a high level of
tax that farmers cannot avoid when the federal government uses
employment insurance premiums as a cash cow that is built right
into the product. They are pyramided. Whenever the farmer has
to buy something he is caught paying that tax and he cannot pass
it on. That is just one example.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to say that we in the Bloc Quebecois also
oppose this report, because, once again, the policies included
in this—
An hon. member: Question, question.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. Could my
colleague opposite respect that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lotbinière, on questions and comments.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, it is such a complicated
business, asking a question of those people over there, that one
has to start with a brief preamble so that they will be able to
grasp what it is all about, and get back on track with reality.
They need something concrete.
What I wanted to say, first of all, is that I was against this
report that has been made public. In committee, I stated that I
had a great deal of difficulty understanding the title's
reference to urgency, when all the decisions reached by the
government do not reflect urgency or crisis.
I would like to know whether my Reform colleague shares my
opinion. Does he agree also that the inertia of this government
needs to be condemned?
1255
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I can put my response
in just a few words. Yes it is a crisis. I agree with my hon.
colleague from Quebec. It is a genuine crisis. It has developed
very quickly because of the drop in commodity prices. However,
the farmers would be able to survive if their input costs were
reduced. The government could do much to reduce those input
costs but it has done nothing, such as tax reduction. Yes there
is a huge crisis out there and something needs to be done in the
next month.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. Just before we get to the
hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood, the hon. member for St.
Albert on a point of order.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is a rather
unusual proceeding. The clerk has just filled me in on the
proceedings of the proceeding, so I will fill the House in on the
proceedings of the proceeding as well.
What happened was that I recognized the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood on debate. At the same time the hon. member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was on his feet. It is the purview
of the Chair to recognize whomever the Chair chooses to
recognize. The only way a member has to challenge the Chair's
decision on who has been recognized is to move that another
member be recognized.
That is where we are now because the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood had not begun to speak. Had the member for
Broadview—Greenwood begun to speak, it would have been game over
and the point of order would not have been receivable. But
because the member had not begun to speak, another member rose on
a point of order. That is where we are.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In the spirit of co-operating with the member from the
Reform Party, I have no problem in deferring and allowing the
member to proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is really
generous but I still have to put the motion. Interestingly, a
while ago we discussed whether a point of order is in fact a
point of order and can be raised if there is another point of
order on the floor. If the hon. member cares to go back to
Hansard, I will not get into that again.
Right now we will put the question. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1315
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.15 p.m.,
pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, February 21, it is my duty
to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-2.
Accordingly, the motion moved by the member for St. Albert is
null and void and the demanded division is no longer necessary.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would point out to you that what should be null and void is the
government's heavy handed use of time allocation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an
act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons,
repealing other acts relating to elections and making
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third
time and passed, and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment.
1320
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
February 28, 2000 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Again, with respect to my application for an emergency debate, I
would beg the brief indulgence of the House to explain the
application so I can seek unanimous consent to move to that now.
The situation is that three Canadian children are being held
hostage by the child protection services agency in California.
They have been there for six months, separated from their
parents. It is a violation of their rights and the rights of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me. We need
to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to hear your
justification for an application for an emergency debate.
Does the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt have the consent of
the House to put forth his reasons for the application for an
emergency debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have a question on procedure. I do not believe that
when an hon. member is requesting an emergency debate he or she
needs unanimous consent to outline it, according to my
understanding.
1325
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville is quite correct. That would be the case if we
were in Routine Proceedings; however, the House is not in Routine
Proceedings, under which the Speaker would normally consider
applications for emergency debates. Therefore, an application
for an emergency debate would require unanimous consent.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when we
were interrupted for the vote we were in fact dealing with a
motion which was under Routine Proceedings, so we are still in
Routine Proceedings.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When we were
interrupted for the vote we were governed by an earlier order,
which was the procedure having to do with time allocation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, concerning the request for an
emergency debate by our Reform colleague, I take it that some
children are involved.
Before we reach a decision in this House, I would like our
colleague to explain to us how this affects Canadian children,
and how we could help him.
I believe that, because children are involved, we need to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Perhaps the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve could ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to allow the member to conclude his explanation.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, what we want is the unanimous
consent of the House to get additional information, so that our
colleague can tell us about the urgency of this matter, about
how we can help him and about how Canadian children are
involved.
We should at least listen to the member to get additional
information. Government members are nodding, which means they
are prepared to entertain his request.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its consent to proceed as suggested by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, as you just pointed out,
the recorded division on the amendment to Bill C-2 at third
reading stands deferred until next week.
I simply wish to draw the attention of the Chair, of all the
members of this House and of those who are watching us on
television that, because of the gag order at third reading, Bill
C-2, the Canada Elections Act, which is a fundamental law in any
democracy, has only been debated by two parties in this House,
namely the Reform Party and the government party, while the
other three opposition parties were gagged.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order. The Chair will accept a motion to see the clock at
1.30 p.m.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, since it appears that we
will not be able to hear the application for an emergency debate,
I wonder if the members who declined that request would be
willing to discuss it with the parents involved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair sees the
clock at 1.30 p.m. The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
The House resumed from November 4, 1999 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First
Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to
administrative and communication problems between members of
First Nations communities and their First Nation and between
First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration
and allegations of electoral irregularities, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this private member's bill deals with accountability for
native people. Accountability is something that everybody claims
we should have. There are many people on the government side who
do their very best to ensure that many do not. Nowhere is the
lack of accountability any more blatant than in the case of
Canada's aboriginal people.
The two biggest problems that governments generally have foisted
upon native people are the reserve system and the Indian Act.
I had occasion to be present at a service club where a native
woman was the speaker for the evening. She was university
educated and married to a Vancouver city police officer who was
non-native. She was a very articulate woman. She pointed out
that under the Indian Act, should she die, she is not even
allowed to leave her estate to her husband or her children
because the Indian Act makes her a ward of the government, a ward
of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
1330
Another problem is the reserve system. It is nothing more than
the ghettoizing of Canada's native population. In my riding I
have the largest concentration of Russian Doukhobor people in the
world, bar none. Not even Russia. It was the Doukhobor people's
custom to live in a communal lifestyle when they came to Canada.
That is the way they established themselves. Over time they have
chosen to integrate into society, to have regular jobs, to have
homes and to participate in all the benefits and responsibilities
of being Canadian. A few have chosen not to do that and have
stayed in a communal lifestyle. The operative word is chosen.
That is something that is being taken away from Canada's native
people. There are things being done that virtually force them or
at least put a tremendous amount of pressure on them to stay on
reserves. The money that goes to the various reserves is done on
the basis of the population of the reserve. It is incumbent upon
native leaders to find ways to encourage native people to remain
on reserve. For people who are not already on reserve they try
to force them, in one manner or another, to become residents of
the reserve. It is nothing more than a feudal system.
One of the big problems is elections and how people are
democratically elected. When I was talking about the Nisga'a
treaty and some of the problems of potential autocratic
leadership, some people asked if the leaders were not elected in
most cases. The answer is that they are. As I pointed out to
them, I am elected. I am the member of parliament for my riding.
I am elected by the people of my riding to represent them. If I
do not do a good job, they are entitled to write to a newspaper,
go on radio, stand on the street corner and rail against me, and
run against me in the next election. If they beat me, fine. If
they do not, life goes on.
What if I owned all their houses, owned their bank accounts and
controlled where they worked? What kind of accountability would
people have if they became leaders with that incredible kind of
power or if someone ran against them and was not successful? When
the same people was back into power, what kind or retribution
would they force upon the people who had the temerity to run
against them and to speak out against them? What is holding those
leaders accountable to native people when such things happen?
We have documented case after case of situations where that has
happened. That is not to say that some native bands cannot act
benevolently on behalf of their people. We have some excellent
cases of that. The Sechelt band operates very effectively with a
municipal style native government.
We have other examples. I mentioned the Nisga'a so I will start
with them. Many Nisga'a people live in poverty on reserves, in
very oppressive conditions, but there are only 1,700 native
people on Nisga'a lands at this point in time. Yet $29 million a
year go into their treasury from the provincial and federal
governments for 1,700 people. Of course there are individual
incomes. How come so many of them are living in such poverty if
they have $29 million a year?
If that is not bad enough, we have the Stoney just across the
B.C. border in Alberta. They total 3,300 people and have $50
million a year in income. Yet again many of them live in
poverty, some to the point of living in basements of condemned
homes. What happens to that money and where is the
accountability?
1335
Who speaks on behalf of native people who are looking for help
and looking for better living conditions on reserves with the
money coming in that is supposed to be theirs in part and
supposed to be handled by the leaders on their behalf? Somehow
magically it disappears and they are not getting help.
We have many other examples. The 5,500 Samson Cree have an
income of $92 million a year and yet many people on those
reserves are living in very trying conditions.
The government reluctantly agreed under pressure from us to the
Nisga'a committee travelling. It made a procedural mistake in
the House and had no choice but to agree to it in spite of the
fact that it publicly stated it did not want to be there. The
government rigged, and I use that word without any hesitation,
the witness list to ensure that people who had something to say
were not allowed to do so.
We held an additional day of hearings for people who were frozen
out by the Liberal list. We heard from members of the Squamish
band who own a great deal of very valuable, very expensive
commercial real estate in West Vancouver. They get tremendous
royalties and revenues from that as well as the usual provincial
and federal government payments. They told us that they
received an income of $900 a year from the band in terms of help.
We heard cases of people living in rat infested, rusted out
trailers. That was the housing provided by the band. There is
no accountability, none at all.
Welfare or social assistance is not paid directly to natives who
live on reservations. It is paid to the band council. When that
money is paid, the government looks upon the council to fairly
distribute it to people in need.
One of the four tribal councils of the Nisga'a is under
investigation for welfare fraud. The money that has been going
to aid people in need on reservations has in fact not been
reaching them. The preliminary investigation indicates that
tribal council members' wives and children have been placed on
the rolls to receive the money themselves.
What are the solutions? One of the first problems we always
encounter is getting the government to admit there is a problem.
It seems it has at least done that. A letter was written to a
constituent by the then parliamentary secretary. I believe he
still is the parliamentary secretary. There is much that can be
said on the issue, but my time is coming to an end. We think the
government should be held accountable. It was acknowledged in
the letter which I do not have time to read now that there was a
need for accountability. An article in the paper indicated that
funding was going to leaders of various special boards to assist
people but that it was not getting to them at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is indicating that I should be cut off.
I can well understand why he would want me to be cut off. The
Liberals do not want the truth to get out, but it will get out
through newspapers, through us and through native people speaking
out.
When will the government start listening and start helping
people instead of shovelling money at the people who support
them? When will it be accountable and start dealing with the
real problems of native people instead of trying to buy them off
through their leaders?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the hon. member in his predictable rather silly,
non-factual, inaccurate, exaggerated speech that I have heard 20
to 30 times in the House refers to facts in newspaper articles.
I found it quite intriguing when I read in the National
Post that it may have been his riding which received millions
of dollars in grants from HRDC. At the same time this fellow is
standing in his place very puffed up and self-righteous about how
awful it is that we are doing this in Canada. It is quite
interesting.
1340
On a brighter note and more focused on the debate I will address
Bill C-222 put forward by the member for Wild Rose for whom I
have great respect. He is a decent and good man. He believes
very deeply in these issues although he is always wrong. However,
we have to be compelled somewhat by his own deep feelings and
belief in this regard. That is charming in itself. It is
important to the member and we are equally passionate and
committed to accountability and the other issues as well.
The plan we have put forward is about giving aboriginal peoples
the tools they need to become self-sufficient, self-supporting,
and contributing members of the Canadian family. I think all of
us in the House and indeed all Canadians believe our ultimate
goal is to have first nations people participate fully in
Canadian society.
The bill would require the federal government to appoint an
ombudsman empowered with certain quasi-judicial authority to
oversee and investigate operations and elections of first
nations, as the member alluded to. The proposed legislation
would make it possible for this person, he or she, to propose
changes to first nation policies and practices. If a first
nation does not make the changes suggested, the ombudsman would
make a report to the House of Commons.
It is not surprising coming from the Reform Party that it
hearkens back to the turn of the century when the Government of
Canada dispatched officers of the department who were in a sense
officers of the court. They had those certain powers to dispatch
moneys and work with the native people. They were in fact less
bureaucratic and more quasi-police people who policed the
reserves. We find it quite unacceptable. Indeed it does not
help the situation at all. Not least of which, it does not help
first nations people in their communities.
The bill deals with two main areas relating to accountability:
band elections and financial management. I point out some
specific problems with the bill. It is incongruent with the
Indian Act, I say to the member and his research staff, those
great folk in the Reform Party research staff from whom I hear
from time to time. These two pieces of legislation could not
operate together. The member in constructing the bill missed
half the equation.
Members of the House should note that an election appeals
process already exists in the Indian Act under the Indian band
election regulations. These election processes, or for that
matter any irregularities and complaints, fall within the mandate
of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The
bill is in direct conflict not only with the act as a whole but
with the appeal process generally and more specifically. It is
very incongruent. No attempt is made by the member to reconcile
the conflict in existing laws.
The bill also fails to make a distinction between the various
ways first nations elect their leaders. There are 610 bands in
Canada. Of them 273 conduct their elections pursuant to the
electoral provisions of the Indian Act. As already pointed out,
the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs investigates
alleged violations of the Indian Act. These might include
ineligible voters, ineligible candidates or secrecy violations.
The bill fails to recognize that another 320 of Canada's first
nations elect their leadership through traditional practices
based on traditional electoral systems.
I do not find that at all surprising. Again, again and again in
the House it has been well established and now will be come
social fact and a part of Canadian history that the Reform Party
does not care about first nations people and has no interest in
recognizing their culture, their history and their development as
a people in this country, to say nothing of the fact that they
were the first people here.
It does not as well research this project sufficiently to take
into account that 17 other first nations have negotiated modern
self-government legislation. The legislation governs the manner
in which these communities elect their leadership.
1345
Once this legislation were in place the federal government would
have no role to play in the leadership selection process. Given
that Bill C-222 would likely infringe on the aboriginal treaty
rights or other rights, consultation is required. What would
happen if this bill were brought in?
The auditor general and others have compelled the Government of
Canada or the minister not to litigate but to negotiate, in other
words to stay out of the courts. It ties up these matters for
years and years. It makes for rich lawyers but bad policy, bad
outcomes and even more bad situations for first nations people.
That has not been thought about at all. The bill does not
contemplate that at all. Rather, it takes a confrontational
approach once again to a complex problem.
In short, adopting this bill is not a simple process. I stress
that it would require the House to repeal or amend several other
pieces of legislation in order to consider passage of this bill.
Given that it would likely infringe treaty rights, more
consultation and work would obviously have to occur.
More important, this bill was not developed in consultation with
any first nations people, notwithstanding the member's visits. I
say quite honestly that on many occasions the member has visited
first nations in his communities. He has tried to do something
constructive.
On financial accountability, we need to work closely with first
nations communities. The idea of having a policeman of sorts
scowling through the books and backyards of first nations
communities is not one that is particularly palatable for most
reasonable Canadians. Canadians are very fair minded about these
issues and would frown quite quickly on the notion of these kinds
of practices which are endemic and systemic to the Reform Party.
It seems to delight in these kinds of things.
On the whole question of accountability, two weeks ago in
Winnipeg I had the privilege to meet with the Auditor General of
Canada, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil
Fontaine, and some 300 first nations people from across the
country. We discussed the question of accountability within the
first nations communities. I can tell the Reform Party and other
members that I was absolutely delighted with that meeting and
with discussions with the auditor general. The grand chief and
the first nations people were there, many of them women.
They have a genuine interest in resolving the administrative
problems and practices that may be occurring on their reserves.
They are not running away from those problems. Many first
nations are bringing them forward in their own communities and
challenging their leaders to come forward with suggestions to
make them more accountable to the members themselves. This is
what we cheer on and support. It facilitates government to
government relations. It builds a better Canadian society and a
better future for first nations people. This is what the
government is trying to do.
I ask the Reform Party in bringing forward these kinds of
measures not to fan the flames of discontent and irritability
which sometimes exist between first nations and other Canadians
but look very deeply into these matters. Look at them clearly
and soberly. Bring forward to the House of Commons some good
suggestions that we might debate and include in our legislation
in order to make the country an even better place in which to
live.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and the opportunity
to speak in the House and to inform the hon. members. I still am
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, at least, I understand, until July 15.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to the bill put
forward by the hon. member for Wild Rose.
1350
I should say from the outset, if we are to lay our cards on the
table right away, that the Bloc Quebecois is going to oppose the
hon. member's bill, for various reasons.
We feel that the bill is extremely paternalistic. I looked up
the definition of ombudsman for my personal interest and I would
like to share it with everyone. An ombudsman is someone
responsible for defending the rights of citizens in their
dealings with public authorities. The Reform Party sees an
ombudsman as someone who will defend the rights of citizens in
their dealings with their own elected representatives. I find
this extremely paternalistic, and aboriginal peoples need no
more of the paternalism that has always plagued them.
The Indian Act, which has been in force since 1876, is an
extremely paternalistic statute that leaves people completely
powerless. Every time they try to escape from the dependence in
which they are trapped, they must seek the minister's
permission. Whether it is a question of selling grain, buying
livestock or trying to expand their band council office, they
are always forced to ask for additional funds or seek the
minister's permission. This bill is more of the same and, in my
view, is very paternalistic. I think that we must trust
aboriginals to resolve these issues.
The government may support them when they have specific needs,
but that is a far cry from having the House of Commons establish
the office of ombudsman to sort out all these issues. For one
thing, I do not believe in it, and for another, I believe it is
extremely paternalistic.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been proud to consult aboriginal
people before taking a position. I am sure aboriginal people are
not interested in having an ombudsman who will interfere in
their lives and settle disputes. There are always disputes in
society and we cannot always have someone like King Solomon to
settle them. Discussion, consultation and mediation are the key
to settling any dispute. We do not think that creating the
office of ombudsman is the solution to all problems.
The proposal made by my colleague refers to two problems in
particular that he would like to see solved by the ombudsman,
namely improper financial administration and electoral
irregularities. It is easy to say “we will appoint someone who
will settle all this”, but I do not think this is a constructive
solution.
As I was saying earlier, problems are solved through discussion,
consultation, mediation and work in the field. It is not up to
people in Ottawa to settle these issues once and for all. This
is not a way out for first nations, nor is it the way of the
future.
The Reform Party also has a strong tendency to generalize. No
one denies that there are problems within aboriginal
communities. The auditor general has documented that fact.
However, the Reform Party has a tendency to generalize when it
discovers short term or very specific problems. Fortunately, the
situation is not the same everywhere.
I regularly visit aboriginal communities. They usually are under
very good administration.
Certainly there are some that are poorly administered, but it is
not fair to the aboriginal people to say that this is
generalized, that aboriginal people are not good administrators,
that they commit election fraud. It is a dangerous trend, one
that contributes to narrow-mindedness, to imply that the
aboriginal people have always been catered to, hand and foot,
and that everything has always been paid for.
I wish to point out that the social contract of the time, and
yet they were here first, informed them “We are going to put you
into some small areas. There are 600 such small areas
throughout Canada, 600 small communities”.
1355
We told them “We are going to settle you there, and we will pay
your bills. Meanwhile, we will take over all the natural
resources and everything that you had, because you were the
first inhabitants, but now it is all ours”.
Generalizing in this way, saying that administration is bad on
all reserves, is a disservice to aboriginal people, and to the
white population as well.
What is needed is perspicacity and discernment. That is why we
are going to vote against the bill.
As far as inappropriate financial administration is concerned, I
have just said it was not generalized.
Things are new. With the agreements on land claims and
self-government, more and more money is returning to the native
peoples, who are now being invited to administer it.
We have to put ourselves in the shoes of people who, for 325
years, have administered nothing. The Minister of Indian
Affairs has administered everything for them. It is
understandable that there are certain problems at times. These
people must be given the benefit of the doubt. We must not
condemn them out of hand, saying they are worthless, will never
manage and will always have to be supervised. Earlier, it was
said that the first criticism of this bill was its paternalism.
Things have to be seen differently.
The auditor general has indicated a number of problems, and they
have to be resolved other than through an ombudsman.
One of the ways proposed, which we wholeheartedly support,
involves some support from Canada's chartered accountants. They
said they are prepared to lend a hand, to help those communities
needing their expertise or to make it available to them at a
reasonable price in order to set things up and try to reconcile
rigid and responsible administration with the fact that nothing
like this has happened for 125 years. This is another way out.
We also support everything that involves round tables. The
native people discuss and settle their problems in a circle.
This approach is totally in keeping with native tradition and
culture. One way around things would be for the native peoples
to meet with specialists in the matter and discuss things until
solutions are reached.
This should not be left up to someone in Ottawa, who will decide
what is right. This is the wrong approach.
As for electoral irregularities, everyone knows that the Indian
Act provides a mechanism. This statute has not always been very
sensitive to native traditions. In addition, there have been
amendments, with the result that aboriginals may now have their
own electoral system, subject to the minister's approval of
course. At least now aboriginals can benefit from electoral
legislation more in tune with their traditions and culture.
We would like to see more trust placed in aboriginals. We trust
them to sort out their own affairs.
When we have bills that affect them, we should consult them.
They too have a great desire to end their longstanding
dependence on the federal government. When I say end, I do not
mean to go their own way completely and do whatever they wish.
They must be allowed to manage their future in a manner
respecting their traditions and their culture, which are very
different from ours.
For all these reasons, and particularly because we trust
aboriginals to resolve their own problems, the Bloc Quebecois
will oppose Bill C-222 put forward by the member for Wild Rose.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House to speak to Bill C-222 introduced by the member for
Wild Rose. This bill, the first nations ombudsman act, would
establish the office of an ombudsman to investigate complaints of
an administrative, financial or electoral nature concerning first
nations people.
We have all read in the papers about mismanagement on first
nations in Canada and how more than $4 billion provided to first
nations in transfer payments did not always reach the intended
recipients.
1400
The problem with this is that it has given some people the false
sense that all first nations are poorly managed, when in fact
many first nations manage themselves extremely well. It is the
examples of mismanagement and misconduct that make the news and
malign the efforts of other first nations.
This does not mean however that an ombudsman's office is not a
good idea. On the contrary, this suggestion has a great deal of
merit.
The member for Provencher was stating that he did not think this
was a good idea and that he did not believe the government would
go along with this because somehow it would mysteriously change
the way we do business. Yet our own government has an
ombudsman's office and should have an ombudsman's office.
Many organizations, including governments, make use of similar
offices to provide people with an avenue by which they can lodge
a complaint and feel that their concerns are being addressed.
As members of parliament, all of us have had occasions where we
have either advised constituents of the presence of an
ombudsman's office or, as a last resort, when a constituent feels
that an ombudsman still has not responded satisfactorily to the
problem, we have sent him or her to a higher office. Every
member of parliament in the House, I am sure at one time or
another, has used an ombudsman's office or has suggested that a
constituent use an ombudsman's office.
The establishment of a similar office for first nations would be
an effective and useful means of addressing concerns of
aboriginal people, whether it be matters resulting from alleged
unfair election practices or financial or administrative
problems.
As the PC Party's critic for Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, I had heard from aboriginal people on numerous
occasions who have expressed their frustration with the lack of
options available to them when they question the procedures or
processes of the band chief and council. An independent
ombudsman's office would provide a possible solution and would be
in a position to assess information and respond to complaints.
Furthermore, it would allow aboriginal people to air their
grievances when they feel they have been ignored by the chief and
council or are unwilling to discuss it in a more public format.
In some cases ombudsman's offices will only investigate an issue
if all other avenues have been explored. In the case of first
nations, however, it would be more effective if the ombudsman's
office could be contacted at any stage or whenever a problem
arises. It is my understanding that this bill would not limit
access to the ombudsman's office.
In addition, the bill would allow any member of a first nation
community to avail himself or herself of this service whether
they live on or off reserve.
Under the provisions of the bill, the ombudsman would be
appointed for a term of five years with the governor in council
making the appointment on the recommendation of the minister.
First nations would be involved in this process by making
representations to the committee that would then report to the
minister. It is important to ensure the impartiality of the
ombudsman and this process would distance the first nations from
the appointment of that ombudsman, otherwise the effectiveness
and objectiveness of this office would be jeopardized.
In places where there have been questions about the legality of
election processes or allegations of inappropriate use of band
funds, there is currently little opportunity for aboriginal
people to lodge a complaint except with the people who are often
implicated in that same complaint.
Obviously this is not an ideal situation and does little to
alleviate the problem. The only other course of action available
is to complain to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development or to members of parliament, particularly those in
the critic area or with in whose constituency the first nation
falls.
The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
aboriginal people and has the obligation to work on behalf of
aboriginal people to protect their rights. This is an onerous
responsibility that is sometimes misunderstood. The bill would
acknowledge that first nations people also have to rely upon
themselves and their organizations and elected bodies to protect
their rights and access to services. Instead of having to
outline their complaints to the minister of Indian affairs, they
would have an independent ombudsman's office that would address
their concerns. With the input of first nations, this process
has the potential to help first nations people assume greater
responsibility and accountability for their actions.
In some cases band members are not able to access the
information that would help them prove their allegations. The
bill would provide an ombudsman with the power and authority to
access such records. At the same time, it would be at the
discretion of the ombudsman as to what constitutes reasonable
grounds for an investigation.
1405
As I said earlier, I feel the bill has a lot of merit. There
are always misunderstandings or misdemeanours that can easily be
addressed if the proper process is put in place. The
establishment of an ombudsman's office is one solution that could
help first nations better serve their communities and, in the
long term, provide better service, more transparency and
accountability.
These are objectives that all governments and institutions
strive to achieve with varying degrees of success. It is always a
good idea to explore new options and possibilities for
improvement.
The bill is a worthy proposal. It is not without some problems
but the idea of an ombudsman's office should be embraced by the
government and by all members of parliament. It would seem only
natural that there be someone to whom ordinary citizens of Canada
could turn to when they have questions or when they feel they
have not been treated fairly by the authorities. All other
segments of Canadian society have an ombudsman's office somewhere
that they can turn to. Why should we exclude the ombudsman's
office from first nations communities?
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-222, the first nations ombudsman bill, was proposed by my
seatmate and friend, the hon. member for Wild Rose. I would like
to thank and congratulate him for this initiative.
I was listening as the parliamentary secretary passed judgment
on the bill and I have a couple of comments to make before I
start into the main part of my speech.
He said that the Indian Act is incongruent with this proposal.
That may well be, but the minister, I understand, wants the
standing committee to look at amendments to the Indian Act and,
of course, we can always make amendments to accommodate this
proposal.
When I travelled with the Indian affairs committee, I spoke to a
chief who told me how their traditional electoral practices
worked. I will explain this process so that people can hear
about the kinds of things that can happen when we go traditional.
When all the candidates for a particular office, let us say the
chief, get into a large room they are all sent into different
corners. While they are waiting there, all the voters gather in
the middle of the large room and begin moving toward their
various candidates. One can well imagine the intimidation one
would feel. This is not to say that anyone is being intimidated,
but members can just imagine how lonely we would feel all alone
in a corner and then finding out that our jobs had been on the
line. There is no secrecy in a situation like that. If someone
had found that his or her job or some benefits he or she had
accrued as a member of the band were lost as a result of this
process, he or she may want to bring that to the attention of an
ombudsman.
The parliamentary secretary said “stay out of the courts”. In
response to that, I must say that his government is so frequently
in the courts with different bands and first nations that it is
almost impossible to write it all down. We know there are
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of claims pending against
the government.
If there are flaws, we accept that. There is probably no piece
of legislation the Liberals have ever introduced that has been
perfect. What do we do when we get a bill? We pass it and send
it to a committee for review. We could invite the band
leadership to the committee to pass judgment, give their advice
on how to improve it or just tell us what they think. Why would
we kill it here? The initiative did not come from the House. It
came from the grassroots people.
Reports of mismanagement are downplayed but they come from
across Canada. I was reading newspaper reports last year about
east coast chiefs and councillors holding and doling out high
paying jobs. Judge Reilly in Alberta caused an uproar when he
slammed the Indian leadership for problems that contributed to a
number of suicides on the Samson Cree Nation Reserve at Hobbema.
Nothing was happening until he issued his report.
1410
The Squamish band members in B.C. have asked the RCMP to
investigate band finances. They have appealed to Indian affairs
for help and were told that the department was only a funding
agency, that it was not an investigative body, which is true. It
is only a funding agency but it is also supposed to be a
legislative agency.
Last year the National Post ran an entire series of
articles detailing the squalor and corruption on some reserves
and the helplessness of band members to effect change. The need
for such an officer became apparent to participants at grassroots
meetings of aboriginals sponsored by the Reform MPs in the summer
of 1998 and 1999. I was there and I would not have believed it
if I had not seen it.
These meetings were held across Canada with a significant cross
section of people attending. The idea of an aboriginal ombudsman
came out of those meetings. One of its strongest supporters was
Leona Freed who has emerged as the leader of a new group called
First Nations Accountability Coalition. These people are calling
for this, not us because we think we have all the solutions. We
think that the people who are affected by legislation might also
have some solutions.
Participants at these meetings charged band leadership with
questionable allocation of band funds: refusals to conduct
forensic audits when requested; jobs changing hands after band
elections; nepotism, favouritism, cronyism; housing allocations
to families and friends of chiefs and councillors; band leaders
flying high on expense accounts, going all over the world to
meetings and whatever; third world living conditions on wealthy
reserves; misuse of dedicated funds meant for training, health,
housing and land purchases; and any number of things. The
government denies all of this, but from time to time it has to
admit the facts in individual cases. However, it refuses to see
a cause and effect relationship or to believe that anything can
be done to improve the situation.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has been of little
or no use. Letters written in confidence to the minister have
fallen into the wrong hands. What has been done? Allegation
co-ordinators have been established to help with the work of
co-ordinating allegations made, but they have no teeth, no
authority to act and no investigative powers. What use they are
is up in the air.
In 1997 several elders, led by Greg Twoyoungmen from Alberta,
came to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development to talk about the problems on their
reserves. What did they get from the minister? They got a
closed door. The minister would not meet with them. The only
people who would meet with them were the Reform Party critic and
deputy critic for Indian affairs. Much of what we hear came from
there as well.
Who do these people turn to when all the doors are closed? The
department of Indian affairs sends people back to their reserve
leaders. The RCMP need significant proof before they can move.
They cannot go to the courts for lengthy and expensive court
battles on a civil basis because they simply do not have the
funds available to them.
It was the grassroots Indians themselves who proposed the office
of aboriginal ombudsman as an independent watchdog. They are
convinced that an ombudsman will enable band members to exercise
oversight into the affairs of bands in a way that is out of their
grasp right now.
One of the better parts of this proposal is that the ombudsman
would not serve at the pleasure of bands but would serve a fixed
term of five years and not more than two terms. The ombudsman's
pay cheque would not come from a band so his or her independence
would be assured and he or she could not be called into question.
The ombudsman would get assistance from the Chief Electoral
Officer when needed to help settle disputes and would report to
parliament annually.
The need for such legislation is clear. The bill is worthy of
support by members of the House. I encourage every member to
vote in favour of it, send it to committee and let the first
nations leadership meet with the committee and give their views
on it.
It would be a mistake to let some of the assertions from the
other parties that have opposed this legislation, that what the
Reform Party is saying is that all band membership is illegal and
that is why this is needed, to go unanswered.
That is not so. For the times it does, it hurts individuals.
Many bands conduct their affairs in an open and businesslike way.
They have nothing to fear from any legislation that is designed
to protect individuals. Individuals are often hurt by that type
of thing.
1415
The critic for the Bloc characterized Indians as different from
other people, that they sit around in circles and talk. When
three or four people come to my office, we sit in a circle around
my coffee table and we have a ceremonial drink. We call it
coffee. We are pretty much alike when it comes to that type of
thing. We gather in a circle, face one another and hash out the
problems.
That is not the issue at all. The issue is protection of
individual people who run afoul of a large bureaucratic
organization that has economic, political and judicial power on
its side. The people need an aboriginal ombudsman to protect
them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for introducing this
critically important bill.
One profound tragedy in our country today is the existing
situation for aboriginal people on and off reserve. The present
government, previous governments and all Canadians have created
an institutionalized welfare system in aboriginal communities.
Through legislation we have put our heels on the necks of those
people and have prevented them from having the same rights,
responsibilities and obligations as other Canadians.
It is an insult to them that the government and previous
governments have pursued these policies for such a long time. It
will lead to the balkanization of our country. It will do
nothing to address the fundamental problem of grassroots
aboriginal people being dislocated from the wealth, the hope, the
possibilities and prosperity that this country has to offer.
The government is empowering, albeit with honest intentions, the
leadership of aboriginal people to rule. It is doing nothing to
ensure that grassroots aboriginal people generate the control,
responsibility and power to stand on their own two feet. That is
why this bill is so important. It is important to have an
ombudsman to ensure that grassroots aboriginal people are heard.
I have some true stories to tell. I have worked with
aboriginals for a long time on and off reserve and in emergency
rooms. I have seen firsthand the devastation brought on by fetal
alcohol syndrome, child abuse, sexual abuse and gross poverty. I
have not seen this type of situation since I worked in Africa.
There have been medical problems that I have not seen since I
worked in the third world. It is going on in our country today.
I implore the media to investigate what is happening in Nunavut,
in northern Ontario, in northern Quebec, in Vancouver East and in
northern British Columbia. This is not to say that all reserves
or all aboriginal people are suffering from the same maladies.
The incidence of poverty, medical problems and disempowered
aboriginals is epidemic. We are ensuring that continues by virtue
of the policies that are implemented in the House.
We want to empower grassroots people, but through the Nisga'a
treaty and others we have done the exact opposite. We have
empowered the people at the top. Time and time again grassroots
aboriginal people have come to me saying they would like to send
their children to school. But a lot of the money that is to go
to the school to pay for books and teachers and to ensure that
the kids get an education does not get there.
The elders in the aboriginal communities are saying that they
would like to teach their people their traditional ways. Money
has been allocated for that but it does not get to them. It
disappears. Yet the chief and band council members drive
expensive cars, live in expensive homes and go on expensive
vacations while their people live in abject poverty.
1420
If we were successful and if proposals made by the government
and previous governments and the Conservative Party had worked,
why is it that aboriginal communities have some of the highest
rates of violence and sexual abuse? Their mortality figures are
the highest. Maternal deaths are the highest. Infant mortality
figures are well beyond anything in the non-aboriginal community.
Why is it that their diabetes rates are four times higher than
non-aboriginal communities? I could go on.
Individual grassroots aboriginal people are not empowered to
stand on their own two feet. We are not giving them the same
resources and legal tools which enable us to produce for
ourselves, our families and our communities. By doing so we get
self-respect. It is a myth to say that we can give people
self-respect. People only get self-respect by taking it. We only
get it by being able to support ourselves, our families and our
communities.
It is up to the aboriginal leaders to take a different tack and
control themselves. How can they ensure that their people are
going to have the power to represent themselves as opposed to the
present situation where a small cabal of people at the top
controls the situation.
Some aboriginal reserves work well under these conditions, the
ones on the west coast in the Charlottes for example. There is
responsible governance on the part of the people. They have
invested the money the government has given them in ways which
the people earn revenue. They have invested in the tools which
give aboriginal people the education and the power to generate
funds and work. They have healthy communities and live in
congruence with their environment. This is what is taking place
in some communities but unfortunately in many communities across
the country that is not the case.
I can only plead with the government for an ombudsman to ensure
that aboriginal people are heard.
When the current HRD minister was minister of Indian affairs, I
went to her about situations in my riding. Children were falling
into open sewers. Health Canada determined it to be a health
hazard to the people living in the area. Yet it took years to get
the money to the people so they could fix the problem. In part
the leadership was not prepared to deal with these people in an
honest way. This is what is happening.
The regional director could not intervene on behalf of the
grassroots aboriginal people because the leadership in the
community said no. The leadership in the community was
compromising—and I am saying that nicely—the ability of the
grassroots people to fix the problems on the reserve. If their
own leadership will not speak for them, who will? The leadership,
the director and the minister will not speak for them. If the
minister just turns her face away and says that is the way it is,
who will speak for these people? No one.
If non-aboriginal people suffered from the same type of nonsense
that aboriginal people suffer from, they would not tolerate it
because it would violate their basic rights. The basic rights of
aboriginal people are being violated across Canada. As a result
they are suffering from health problems and poverty.
To merely give them money will not work. It will not work to
engage in a process of land claims that will balkanize the
provinces. It is going to compromise the tax base of a province
and its ability to work with people to provide resources for
everybody. We are going to compromise the economy of those
provinces for everybody.
The only people who will benefit from this are the people at the
top in aboriginal communities. That is what is happening.
The fact that the government is prepared to turn a blind eye and
stick its head in the sand is one of the greatest tragedies of
this country today. It is truly profound.
1425
When members of parliament visit an aboriginal reserve they will
not see what is going on behind the scenes. They will fete us
around to look at the nice things that are happening on the
reserve. We will not go into people's homes to see them lying
drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning on soiled mattresses, 10 to a
room. We will not see the children with gross infections on
their faces, sitting among adults, looking for basic parenting,
looking for the basic care which all children deserve. They do
not receive that care.
Understandably, their societies are ill. If any of us were put
in that environment, whether we were aboriginal or
non-aboriginal, we would do the same thing. If we give people
things all the time we create an institutionalized welfare state
which takes the souls from human beings. It cuts away at the
souls of the people. It destroys them from inside. That is why
these people simply cannot get on their own feet, given the
current situation and given the current legal tools which this
government and previous governments have followed.
If this way of doing things were successful, then we would have
seen a dramatic improvement in the health and welfare of
aboriginal people. Have we? The answer is an obvious no. The
longer we continue doing what we are doing, the longer this will
continue.
Members from all political parties find the situation to be
appalling. I know that all members of parliament want to do
something about it. I know that all members want to work with
aboriginal people to ensure that there is change. For God's
sake, give those people the same rights and responsibilities that
we have. They will flourish. They will teach us a great deal.
In 1967 former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau created a superb
white paper. He recognized at that time that the way to
aboriginal emancipation was through integration, not
assimilation. Those were wise words then and they are wise words
today. I can only implore the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Prime Minister to hearken back to
that document which was created by Mr. Trudeau, read it again and
listen to what he said. Within the context of that document is,
in my view, in our view and I think in the heart of the Prime
Minister, the way to ensure that aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people will come together, respecting their differences, ensuring
that the respective cultures and languages will flourish and
ensuring that all people in this beautiful country will be
empowered to be the best they can become.
The failure to acknowledge that, the failure to change the
present course, which is a course of separation, a course of
balkanization, will hurt not only aboriginal people but
non-aboriginal people. That is something that all of us will
have to live with for the rest of our lives. We can strive for
something better.
We must work with grassroots aboriginal people, not necessarily
the leadership. Normally these questions are dealt with by the
leadership of aboriginal groups and parliamentarians. The
discussion does not get to the people on the ground, who want the
same things which we have. They want safety, they want hope,
they want prosperity and they want a future. They want to live.
They want their culture and language to survive in perpetuity.
We want that and they want that. We would all benefit.
We cannot tolerate the present situation. It will ensure the
ultimate cultural and social genocide of these people. That is
something for which we as Canadians should never be proud.
I hope that 20 years from now we will see that the Nisga'a
treaty was a success. I truly hope for that. However, it is our
view that it will not be the case.
I hope that the government will see fit to work with us and to
implement the solutions found in the document of former Prime
Minister Trudeau for the sake of all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)