TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, October 21, 1994
Bill C-55. Motion for second reading 7021
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7028
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 7029
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7030
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7030
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7031
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7031
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7031
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7031
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7032
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7032
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7033
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7033
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7034
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7034
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7034
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7034
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7034
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7035
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7035
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7035
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7037
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7037
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 7038
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7039
Motion for concurrence in 41st report 7041
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 7041
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7042
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 7049
(Amendment agreed to.) 7053
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7058
7021
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 21, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-55, an act to establish a
board having jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting
surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon territory and to
amend other acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on Bill
C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.
My hon. colleagues are very familiar with the issues relating
to Yukon, particularly to the rest of the native peoples of Yukon.
The House passed legislative initiatives in June that will shape
the political and economic future of the territory today. We are
being asked at this time to ensure that those efforts were not in
vain by putting in place the final legislative building block to
allow implementation of the land claims settlement in the
Yukon.
(1005)
Just before the House recessed this summer we dealt with two
important pieces of legislation: the Yukon First Nations Land
Claims Settlement Act and the Yukon First Nations
Self-Government Act.
Hon. members will recall that the first act when proclaimed
into force will establish a territory wide framework for the
implementation of land claim settlement agreements with each
of the 14 Yukon First Nations. It will give effect to four final
agreements under the framework.
The second act will give effect to the Yukon First Nations
self-government agreements which are successfully negotiated.
Self-government agreements have been negotiated with four
First Nations for final land claims agreements: the Vuntut
Gwich'in First Nation; the First Nation of Na-cho-ny'a'k-dun;
the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations; and the Teslin
Tlingit Council.
Those two bills were approved by Parliament. They have
received royal assent and are now awaiting proclamation into
force. Before that can occur however and before Yukon residents
can begin to benefit from the certainty their land claims
agreement will bring, the government must establish a new
surface rights regime in the territory which is what we are doing
today. Bill C-55 will do that.
With the new surface rights bill, Canada is delivering on its
commitment set out in the land claims settlement agreements
which as hon. members know were signed by the federal and
territorial governments and the Council for Yukon Indians in
May 1993. That is after 21 years of negotiations.
The umbrella final agreement as it was called required
separate legislation to enact a new surface rights regime which
is why Bill C-55 is now before the House. Separate legislation
will also be required within two years to establish the Yukon
development assessment act which will evaluate the
environmental impact of development proposals.
It is important for the House to be mindful of the changes that
are occurring in the Yukon in order to fully appreciate the need
for a new surface rights regime.
Over the coming months and years large tracts of lands in the
Yukon will be confirmed as lands held exclusively by individual
First Nations as their final agreements are implemented. This
will signal a significant change for the territory and its residents
as most land is currently held by the crown. In future the
Government of Canada will no longer be calling the shots or
laying out the ground rules for use of land throughout Yukon.
More and more crown land in Yukon will become private land
owned by either Yukon First Nations or by private citizens as is
the common situation in much of Canada.
Under the land claims agreement Yukon First Nations will
have title to both the surface and subsurface mines and minerals
on some of their settlement lands known as category A lands. On
category B lands the First Nations will own the surface but the
crown will retain its interest in the subsurface. However, to get
at minerals below the surface, companies will require access
over the surface.
As hon. colleagues know from our debate on the Land Claims
Settlement Act, we anticipate that mining and petroleum
companies will be eager to begin developing Yukon subsurface
resources. In fact the desire to establish certainty of land
7022
ownership and rights so that resource developments can go
forward is one of the driving forces behind the land claims
settlement agreement.
The government must do everything in its power to support
economic development while respecting and protecting the
rights and interests of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal
Yukoners. That means looking ahead, preparing for change and
working with the various parties to ensure fair and reasonable
treatment.
Years of uncertainty concerning land title in Yukon will now
end with the completion of the land claim. The surface rights bill
concludes the package necessary to bring the land claim
agreement into effect.
The bill will require people to attempt to negotiate
agreements before bringing a dispute before the board. It will
also establish a process to obtain access to private and public
lands that will put in place a mechanism to deal efficiently with
disputes between the surface owners of the land and the owners
of the subsurface resource.
(1010)
The bill is important. It is procedural but it is important
because without this bill the other two bills will not come into
play. It is our responsibility not only to do the first two bills but
to ensure that all the bills we undertook to bring in are brought
before the House.
The Yukon First Nations land claims have been discussed in
Yukon for over 21 years and it is going to take me another year to
get all these bills through. The Council for Yukon Indians
submitted its claim in 1973.
The bill in particular is the result of extensive consultations
with representatives of the First Nations, the territorial
government, the mining industry, including the Chamber of
Mines and the Klondike Placer Miners Association.
Sometimes I think all they do in Yukon is discuss these bills. I
keep referring to the same people. If they are watching on
television they must be getting a chuckle out of this.
Consultations have taken place for more than a year and many of
these parties have been directly involved in drafting this
legislation.
Under Bill C-55 the surface rights board will be given a range
of powers, including the power to establish terms and conditions
of access on both settlement and non-settlement land, and the
power to award compensation for access and for damage
resulting from that access.
There are a number of instances in which the surface rights
boards might become involved in dispute resolution. For
example, if a new mineral rights owner and a First Nation or
surface rights holder cannot reach a negotiated agreement-and
there must be an attempt at negotiation or they cannot get to the
board-permitting access to the land and minerals, the operator
can apply to the Yukon surface rights board for a right of entry
order. In such a case the board might issue an interim access
order while compensation and other issues are addressed either
by the parties or by the board.
The board could also award partial compensation when
issuing an interim access order. It would establish an entry fee to
be paid to the Yukon First Nation on settlement land before the
access order could be finalized. There could be no entry fee for
access to non-settlement land.
Bill C-55 will provide that an order of the surface rights board
will be enforceable through the Supreme Court of the Yukon
territory. The board may review its own decisions if it believes
there has been a change in the facts or circumstances.
Decisions made by the board may be appealed to the Supreme
Court of Yukon on limited grounds such as bias or a lack of
procedural fairness, much the same grounds that are prevalent
on any board. It is a procedural appeal on bias, fairness or lack of
cross-examination, those types of appeals, but not on fact
finding or things of that nature. Our objective is to keep surface
rights issues out of the courts as much as possible. Litigation is
costly and time consuming for all parties.
Hon. members should also be aware that resolving disputes
through the surface rights boards will be used only as a last
resort. People will be required to attempt to negotiate
agreements and possibly to seek mediation before bringing a
dispute before the board.
The surface rights board is not adding another layer of
government in Yukon; in fact the opposite is true. In other
words, we are not creating more government; we are helping to
build better government. We are ensuring that all sectors of
Yukon society will have a respected voice and direct
participation in the decision making process that in the past has
been exercised by government alone.
This is clearly a time of change in Yukon, but change that is
properly planned and managed. Bill C-55 is part of the process
of managing change. I am confident that the surface rights
regime will work to the benefit of all Yukoners.
It is time, as has been pointed out in the red book, that we
devolve jurisdiction to Yukon. This was our commitment; this is
what the Prime Minister said. There is a series of initiatives and
legislation that will come before the House this fall. Hopefully
within the term of this government Yukon will have all the
powers that a normal province would have.
(1015 )
The leader of Yukon wants to proceed. I talk to him on a fairly
regular basis. He really has an idea of where he wants to go. With
the DIAND employees he wants to be fair. He is trying to befair with us, dealing with the federal government, even though
we do not have the same political stripe. He is a very fair
7023
leader. Within three or four years this will be done and Yukon
will fulfil its destiny.
We hear so much about Yukon. We read so much about Yukon.
We run Yukon from Ottawa. I do not think it is right and I do not
think it is something that we want. This is one more building
block to do exactly what the Prime Minister and the party said in
its red book, to evolve Yukon and let it take its destiny into its
own hands.
The Government of Yukon, the First Nations of Yukon, the
Chamber of Commerce in Yukon and the rest of them we are
consulting with on a regular basis.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition to speak
to Bill C-55, to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning
disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon
Territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto.
This bill was introduced after two other pieces of legislation,
namely the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and the
Land Claims Settlement Act, were passed by this House last
June.
Before getting into my analysis of Bill C-55, I would like to
describe these two acts to show how important they are and,
because of its connection with these acts, how important it is
that the bill before us this morning be passed, even if it means
making appropriate amendments, which we will consider in
committee.
All bills concerning Yukon Indians arise from an extensive
process started in Canada, and in Quebec, in particular, two
decades ago, when the government of Quebec signed with the
James Bay Cree an agreement that came to be known as the
James Bay Agreement. This agreement resulted at the time from
negotiations conducted in good faith. The Cree were happy, the
government of Quebec was happy, Hydro-Québec was happy
and the federal Parliament had assented to the enabling
legislation for the James Bay Agreement.
I want to make it quite clear that what is going on in the
Yukon, as well as what happened in the Northwest Territories
and is happening in several parts of Canada in terms of
negotiations with native communities, is nothing new. It is not
to be dreaded. We are not breaking new ground here. This is a
process that was initiated a while back. Certain experience was
gained, especially in Quebec, and I would think that it was a
pleasant one in the case of Quebec.
In June, we passed two acts concerning Yukon Indians. The
first one was designed to provide certain guidelines regarding
self-government. It is a self-administration agreement. Some
areas of the Yukon have been inhabited from time immemorial
by Native peoples. Over the years, these peoples have seen the
south expand onto their lands. Mining companies came, trappers
came and people from abroad came to the Yukon. The natives
saw this happening and thought to themselves: ``These people
are on our land''. I think that it was legitimate for them to want
to be masters in their own house so to speak. So, negotiations
commenced and from these negotiations arose, among other
things, an agreement respecting self-government for first
nations. I think it is important to point this out.
(1020)
The first nations have their own personality, existence and
cultural identity, and I think no one here questions the existence
of an Aboriginal, Indian and Inuit identity in Canada, which is
destined to grow and assert itself.
The agreement on self-government would allow Aboriginal
people to make decisions in a number of areas concerning them.
They were given-I will go over this quickly as it is not
necessarily the subject matter of the bill before us but I think it is
important because it is related-some legislative powers, for
example for local and private laws relating to social programs
and services. It is very important for Native people to be able to
set up social services meeting their needs.
I read in this morning's newspapers that Mohawks in Quebec
have been given responsibility for job training, which is one of
Quebec's traditional demands. We in Quebec have always said
that, as a people, we wanted to develop our own workforce, and
we see in this morning's newspapers that the federal government
will examine how it will be done and the objectives it is
pursuing, at least in the case of Quebec's Native people. At the
outset, however, we note that the federal government agreed that
it is important for a nation, a people to control some aspects of
its workforce and social programs.
Mohawks in Quebec will have responsibilities in this area,
similar to those given in the agreement on Yukon Indians. I say
given because, if we look at what is happening with Canada's
Native peoples, I think that in the last century and the first part
of this one the federal government put itself in the position to
give such responsibilities to the people. Even the Indian Act is
very clear on this.
The Yukon Aboriginal people were given some elements of
self-government such as responsibility for social programs and
citizen services and the power to impose fees and to collect
certain taxes. In addition to all this, each first nation will have
its own constitution and citizenship code. Each will be able to
have authority in the administration of justice.
You can see how all this was done: peoples with their own
identity were given certain tools to ensure their autonomy. This
House should be congratulated for having passed Bill C-34 last
June. It is all very well to have some self-government, to have
responsibilities, but you also need a territory on which to
exercise those responsibilities and over the past 20 years, the
7024
Yukon Indians, as the minister said, negotiated to reach a land
claims agreement.
This agreement was the subject of Bill C-33, which this
House passed in June. It is a framework for 14 Yukon First
Nations-the Yukon Indians are divided into 14 First Nations
with a population of 8,000 or 9,000. The agreement provided for
a certain division of lands. Yukon is a vast territory covering
over 41,000 square kilometres. On some of the land, the native
peoples were granted ownership of the surface and sub-surface,
or should I say that their ownership was recognized.
On other parts of the territory, they have only surface rights.
This means that the jurisdiction they obtained in the
self-government agreement can be exercised on certain
territories.
(1025)
The land claims settlement gives the native peoples some
other benefits; for example, Canada conceded $242 million in
compensation divided among the 14 nations for a certain
number of years. They also obtained rights to exploit the
wildlife for purposes of subsistence within the territory. They
obtained exclusive hunting rights within other territories.
That law gave them a territory and clarified the question of
surface and sub-surface rights. That is important because for
many years Southerners like me thought that the North was a
place where very little happened. There was snow and nothing
else. We did not know that it was the homeland of native peoples
who had been living there since time immemorial.
But the North became topical, in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada, when natural resource development attracted
individuals and companies interested in oil or hydro-electricity.
From that point on, it was necessary to define who was entitled
to what territory and who could do what within it. I think that we
are well on the way to determining that with the two laws on
self-government and land claims.
It is important in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and
everywhere in Canada to reach a sort of friendly agreement
among the various population groups on how the land will be
occupied. Groups which have their own identity must be able to
maintain and affirm that identity without interfering with the
activities or identity of other Canadian communities.
Whether in Canada or in Quebec, and this is particularly true
in the case of the aboriginal issue, I think everyone will agree
that there is good will on both sides and that a satisfactory
agreement for all concerned will be reached.
I referred to agreements regarding self-government. I also
said that Yukon first nations had obtained rights regarding the
definition of territory. However, once certain rights are
recognized, there may still be disputes and controversies. At
some point, certain issues will have to be settled, whether these
concern some corporations from the South interested in
promoting northern development or Canadians wishing to do
things in the Yukon. Someone will have to make decisions
regarding the rights of everyone concerned. As is always the
case, laws and regulations are passed, but there has to be a court
of law or an administrative tribunal to render decisions,
otherwise things simply do not work.
Let me give you an example. In recent weeks, the Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development looked at what
happened in Manitoba when Hydro Manitoba tried to build a
number of dams to generate hydroelectric power on the
Churchill and Nelson Rivers. The committee found that an
agreement existed but had not been implemented. I hope to have
the opportunity to provide more details to the House on this
issue when we will look at Bill C-36, which deals with the Split
Lake agreement, in northern Manitoba. The problem with
hydroelectric development on the Churchill and Nelson rivers in
northern Manitoba is that a rather vague agreement was reached
but never implemented. The result is that, almost 20 years later,
the issue has to go back before Parliament and new agreements
must be reached so that the original one from 1977 can be
implemented.
(1030)
As you can see, it is important, when establishing new
definitions of territory and rights, to make it very clear that a
body is also created to settle disputes.
This is exactly what Bill C-55 does by establishing the Yukon
Surface Rights Board. As its name indicates, the board will have
jurisdiction over surface rights. In other words, it will be
established to settle any discussion, dispute or argument
individuals or corporations may have on this issue.
The board members will be designated by the federal
government. The bill provides for up to eleven members to be
appointed, one half on the recommendation of the Yukon First
Nations. I think this is very important, because the disputes the
board will have to settle directly affect the Natives, the first
people of the Yukon.
So, I think it is important for the Yukon residents, as well as
for the people of Canada and of Quebec, to know that, when such
disputes will arise, there will be some members on this tribunal,
which is not really tribunal, but a board authorized to arbitrate in
this type of disputes, who will know what life is for Natives.
This is important, because those who pass judgment on a justice
issue or any other matter must understand the point of view of
the various people from different backgrounds appearing before
them.
7025
Fortunately, this bill provides for half of the board members
to be appointed on the recommendation of the Native people.
I would have expected nothing less but I would hope that the
Yukon First Nations will recommend people from their own
communities.
However, one section of the bill says that board members do
not necessarily have to come from Yukon. Does that mean that
somebody from Montreal, Ottawa or Saskatoon, for example,
could sit on this tribunal? It makes you wonder. Surely, there are
in Canada people who are quite competent to rule on the issues
that will be put before the Board. But I, for one, would prefer to
see Yukon residents on this board, as they are in a position to
make a judgment on the facts they are presented with in the
light, again, of the cultural point of view of aboriginal people, of
the first nations who will ask the board to make a decision.
As I said, this bill essentially provides for the creation of the
board and stipulates how it will be set up, how it will work. It
defines its responsibilities, its jurisdiction and its funding. The
federal government will take care of its funding.
(1035)
Maybe this issue will be discussed further in committee
because, when we talk about costs these days in Canada, people
become nervous. They have the impression that the
government's main objective is to cut spending. But we know
that, in reality, all the money that the government collects is
used to provide adequate services to Canadians. After all, the
important thing is to make the people happy, and not necessarily
to make bankers, creditors and financiers happy. As politicians,
we have to consider what is best for Canadians. But I am getting
away from the issue here.
When we study this bill in committee, some people may
wonder how come the government is paying for this board. I
think it is quite normal that the government should pay for this
board, the same way it pays for the courts and for a number of
other agencies which have to be financially independent to be
able to exercise their jurisdiction. I do not think that it would
serve the interests of Canada, Quebec or the Yukon first nations
if the board established under Bill C-55 were ineffective
because of inadequate funding.
You certainly can infer from my remarks that my party
supports the adoption of Bill C-55. Obviously, we will examine
a number of its provisions more closely in committee. After all,
it is a complex piece of legislation. In all these situations, the
average Canadian who looks at the issue wants justice to be
served. The average Canadian agrees that aboriginal people
should get all the guarantees they need for their collective
survival and development. The importance of that has been well
understood in Quebec.
The Quebec government did recognize the first nations in its
jurisdiction through a motion passed by the National Assembly.
There have also been new developments since the election of
the Parti Quebecois. Proposals have been made, and, despite
radical positions by first nations in Quebec that may be more
negotiating positions or posturing for the media that anything
else, a new spirit has emerged. The Quebec government has
made firm proposals, and there will be more.
People in Quebec are open to the concept of making new
proposals, and Canadians would also like to find a basis of
agreement that would be acceptable to all peoples in Canada,
whether it is the Quebec people, the Indian peoples or nations, or
all other groups in Canada.
The bill should be examined closely in committee so that
Canadians can be sure that their federal Parliament did its
homework and that the content of the act is reasonable. In
matters such as self-government and land claims, it is all too
easy to be destructive. Passion and prejudice can come into play,
and there is always a risk of disinformation.
Since I became a member of the Aboriginal Affairs
Committee, I have a better understanding of the status of
aboriginal nations in Canada, although like many Quebecers and
Canadians, I was already very sympathetic and very receptive to
certain aboriginal claims. Recommendations and requests
submitted to the committee were linked with the very survival of
these nations as such.
(1040)
As a Quebecer, I am on very familiar ground when people talk
about self-government, nations, territory and rights, because in
Quebec, ever since I became aware of the political situation, at
least since the early sixties, that is the kind of language we have
heard. It is a language I understand, and these positions are ones
I have taken myself. I think it is important for nations to keep
their identity, to survive and develop their potential.
When a nation disappears, when a culture disappears and
when an identity disappears, this weakens us all, because in
today's world we must realize that uniformity and levelling
differences are not the answer to our problems. The futur
belongs to those who recognize the rights of others and that all
nations, languages and cultures should be allowed to live and
thrive.
When we consider this kind of legislation and discuss it in the
House and in committee, we should carefully examine what is at
stake. Obviously, all committees, whether we are talking about
the Committee on Human Resources or the Defence Committee,
are expected to do a good job, but when we are talking about
aboriginal issues in Canada, I think it is very important for
parliamentarians to proceed carefully in order to make the right
decisions and do a good job of informing the public.
7026
In fact, there are a lot of rumours and a lot of biased
information going around. When I mentioned to my
constituents that we had a land claim settlement agreement
involving fourteen Yukon nations, they said: ``What is going
on? Are you splitting up the country, are you giving Canada and
part of our taxes to aboriginal nations?'' I told them: ``Of
course not''.
Then you explain the situation. There are aboriginal nations in
Canada who have certain rights. There are territories, and these
territories must be shared. We have to live together, so we have
to decide how and this means negotiating agreements, which is
what happened in the Yukon. An agreement was negotiated and
will now be ratified by the Parliament of Canada. We had the
same procedure for James Bay. Today, agreements are being
negotiated in Northern Quebec and with other aboriginal nations
in Quebec.
In my region we have a Montagnais nation, the
Lac-Saint-Jean Montagnais, who are negotiating a land claim
settlement. Last year, they concluded an agreement with
Hydro-Québec on payments in connection with power
transmission. I think we are moving slowly toward a mutually
acceptable way of life which will benefit all Canadians.
However, I feel we should keep people informed so that they
can understand fully what is going on, what our goals are and
within what framework we are going to proceed. Otherwise,
people harden their position and oppose everything. They then
set conditions which virtually amount to outright rejection. And
so I think it is important to establish a framework, as we are
doing in Quebec, especially on the issue of border immutability.
I believe my party, the Bloc Quebecois, said it quite clearly
recently. The Parti Quebecois also said it. The issue of
negotiations with the native people is open, but when it comes to
Quebec's territory and the future of its borders, that is not
negotiable.
(1045)
I trust that, just as an agreement has been reached with the
native people regarding the Yukon, Nunavut and other regions of
Canada, Quebecers will reach agreements with native peoples in
Quebec, because we share a territory. Quebecers have lived
there for over 350 years. Personally, my ancestors came to
Canada in 1636. I do not come from France or anywhere else. I
come from Quebec. I cannot imagine that I could live anywhere
else or that I could not live on this land, which is mine.
I consider Quebec as my homeland, but I know perfectly well
that some people in Quebec consider parts of that territory to be
their own. Since we are together and we must live together, we
must negotiate and come to an agreement.
I have every confidence that, throughout Canada we will
reach agreements similar to the one that came about in Yukon.
We will do the same thing in Quebec and we will finally find
common ground. But in order to do so, we must express clear
objectives and the agreements must be examined closely, and
everything must be explained thoroughly. That is why we will
study the bill carefully in committee. Many questions come to
my mind and I certainly do not want to debate in this House
topics that will be discussed in committee. We will want to
clarify a few points; for example, we will want to know why one
clause specifies that, if board members were in a major conflict
of interest situation, they could not vote on a given issue. I feel
that when you are in a conflict of interest, you should not rule on
any matter whatsoever.
The Bloc Quebecois still supports the substance of this bill,
because it will create an organization which will resolve or
alleviate problems in the implementation of agreements that
were reached on self-government and land claims. I think that it
is important to create an organization which will be able to
operate in the best interest of everyone.
That is what we will be examining in committee. We will ask
some questions. From what I can see, first of all, we will
possibly move some amendments so that the board can function
in the best way possible. We do not want to use opposition to the
bill, or to some of its clauses, as an excuse to indirectly cause the
failure of the agreements that were reached in the Yukon. These
agreements must be implemented. That is absolutely necessary.
We do not have the right to disappoint some people, the Indian
nations, to disappoint the people of Yukon who were expecting
these agreements.
Let us keep in mind what happened on the Nelson and
Churchill Rivers in Manitoba. I think that situations such as the
ones that happened there should not occur elsewhere. That is
why there must be some organizations that are able to rule on the
implementation of agreements. And the bill before us is aimed
at defining an organization such as these.
Rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will do everything that
is possible and imaginable to make that organization as
functional as possible, as efficient as possible, so that the
agreements that were reached in good faith between the
government of Canada, the government of Yukon and the
nations of Yukon are implemented to the benefit of the people of
Yukon, of the nations of Yukon, of the people of Canada and of
the people of Quebec.
(1050)
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to begin second reading debate on Bill
C-55 on behalf of the Reform Party. It is important to recognize
the importance of the mining industry to Yukon. It is a major,
7027
non-government industry in a jurisdiction that is more than 70
per cent dependent on federal government spending.
In some ways one could look on debate of Bill C-55 as the
end, the resolution, and the confirmation of the principles
contained in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34.
The mining industry has a current campaigned called ``Keep
Mining in Canada''. Governments have tended to take the
industry for granted in many jurisdictions where it has made
operations very difficult, expensive, time consuming and
uncertain. Also we have a Canadian tax regime that can be
considered unfriendly in international terms.
Within my riding there are several operating mines. The BHP
Utah mine, the Westmin mine, Texada mines and Quinsum Coal.
Quinsum Coal has 25 employees who previously worked at the
Westray mine in Nova Scotia. We all know Westray is where
they had the disaster. These people feel very abused by actions
of government.
I understand, accept and realize that there is pent up
investment in the Yukon waiting for the uncertainty of Bills
C-33, C-34 and C-55 to be over and done with so that
investment can take place. This is a situation where the
bureaucracy knows best.
In Whitehorse, to my surprise, the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development vehicles say Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada. There is a tendency within the
bureaucracy toward the native affairs side rather than the
northern development side. The focus is changing from one of
servicing mining industry needs to other priorities. I see this
symbolized. The rationale is that it translates better into the
French. I do not view that as reason enough. I have viewed this
in a previous life in Parks Canada where I always had an
understanding that Canadian parks were set up for Canadian
taxpayers to enjoy a park like setting.
Within the parks service, the group primarily oriented to
servicing the public was the park warden service. What we
viewed within the bureaucracy was competition between the
park wardens and the naturalists. The naturalists have won those
competing agendas. If we want to progress within that
bureaucracy our opportunities are much higher if we come from
the naturalists side. That has now impacted on the mission
statements of Parks Canada in many ways.
This has been foisted on the Canadian public without their full
knowledge. One could ask the question: Why does the Minister
of Natural Resources have the mandate for the Metis in Canada
and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
have the mandate for mining north of 60 degrees, in other words,
the territories. The north is already suffering because it is the
playground of the federal government and the federal
bureaucracy. I recommend that we do not reinforce this by
making it one minister's playground.
(1055)
Yukon has only 28,000 people. I am sure they will make bad
rules work. I understand last year the Yukon economy dropped
by 19 per cent due to the closure of one major operating mine,
the Faro mine. I also understand that the economy of the
Northwest Territories shrank.
Bill C-55 is meant to fulfil commitments to implement the
constitutionally protected final land claim settlement agreement
known as Bill C-33. Bill C-55 may confirm the principles
contained in Bills C-33 and C-34 but it in no way ends disputes
or in itself resolves conflicts that may arise.
Mechanisms or boards put in place are only as good or as
confident or as well intentioned as the people we place on these
boards. We have only just begun.
Since Parliament began in January 1994 we have concluded
massive land claim settlements for the Sahtu, Dene and Metis to
the tune of $197 million. We have concluded the Yukon
settlement for which we are here today to the tune of $163
million.
This is not the total dollar amount. The implementation costs
will run another $263 million for these claims for a total of $596
million, according to the public accounts released this week.
According to these same public accounts, there are contingent
liabilities of $8.3 billion in claims in pending and threatened
litigation.
Despite the finance minister's declaration that we are in hawk
up to our eyeballs, the government continues to ignore the
perilous fiscal situation we have created and continue to sustain
in land claim settlements.
In addition to the $8.3 billion I just mentioned, there are
another 460 specific native claims and lawsuits that currently
have no dollar figure and currently do not form part of the
known liabilities.
Frankly no one knows what the total amount may be. That is
the frightening part. If the Minister of Finance is that concerned
with the fiscal situation he might want to start a review of the
policy and settlement mandate the minister of-
The Speaker: We will be taking up the debate right after
question period and the hon. member will be recognized at that
time.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
7028
7028
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib): Mr. Speaker, it is
about time that Bloc members recognize and give credit to
efforts made by both levels of government and concerned
Quebecers to find a new vocation for the Collège militaire royal
de Saint-Jean.
On July 19, both governments reached an agreement under
which the federal government will provide $25 million over five
years to set up a university study centre. Starting September
1995, Quebec will be in charge of the centre's operations.
Everyone agrees that this plan will boost the local economy.
Moreover, a working group made up of representatives from
the business world, labour, financial institutions, and
socio-economic agencies came on board in early September
with a view to drawing up an action plan concerning labour
re-training and the economic diversification of surrounding
communities.
As further proof of the merits of joining one's efforts to those
of the various stakeholders, the college is still alive and has a
new vocation.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the
House that Breast Cancer Week is coming to an end. I hope that,
this week, all stakeholders in the political and scientific
community have had the opportunity to stop and reflect on the
importance of research and of funding support groups as a way
to find a cure for this disease, which affects an increasing
number of women.
Such reflection is important because, notwithstanding lofty
statements in support of medical research in this area, several
women's groups are questioning the health minister's sincerity.
For example, the federal government is going to sink $12
million in a forum on health which is bound to fail, while
research on breast cancer needs additional money to be able to
make important inroads.
The Government of Canada must send a clear message to
Canadian and Quebec women.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to a request from my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap I call on this House to support the
Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners in their fight to get their
United Kingdom pensions indexed here in Canada. These
British pensions are already indexed in the United Kingdom, the
United States and Europe.
Were these pensions indexed to today's levels, Canadian
taxpayers would be relieved of some of their responsibility to
support many of these people who may receive as little as $10 a
week after a lifetime of mandatory contributions.
Many British pensioners living in Canada today were our
allies or support personnel during the second world war but
today find themselves in poverty despite their own best efforts
because of worldwide inflation which has eaten away at the
value of their retirement income.
Their cause deserves our support.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, almost a year after the election of a Liberal
government, the economic recovery is well under way and
Canadians are regaining their confidence. This recovery is being
acknowledged by consumers. According to a recent report from
Statistics Canada, consumption this year had gone up almost 10
per cent. More than 240,000 new jobs have been created over the
last year, 60,000 of them in Quebec. Exports are on the rise, and
so are company profits.
Confidence is spreading to the whole country, and this is
proof that the Liberal government has fulfilled its electoral
promises. I urge my colleagues in government and in opposition
to co-ordinate their efforts to continue giving Canadians equity,
expertise and leadership.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is estimated that approximately 17,000 Canadian
women will develop breast cancer in 1994. Consequently the
Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation was established in Toronto
in 1986, spearheaded by Nancy Paul.
With the incidence of breast cancer rising by 15 per cent each
year, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation has devoted its
energies to fund raising for more research, treatment and
education.
This week they are holding the third annual Honda Events
``Run for the Cure'' in seven major cities across Canada. These
events will take place in Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary,
Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa on Sunday, October 23. We
wish them well and encourage all Canadians to support them in
this endeavour.
7029
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment announced
that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would be
proclaimed shortly.
The four main regulations for the enforcement of the act have
been amended to make them stronger than the versions released
by the previous government.
The minister also announced that three amendments would be
submitted to the House in order to improve some important
provisions of the legislation. First, we will confirm the principle
of financial help to groups wishing to be heard by the assessment
boards.
Second, board recommendations will have to be submitted to
Cabinet. However, should Cabinet decide not to follow the
recommendations, it will now have to answer to the people and
explain its reasons.
Third, the principle of one project, one assessment, so dear to
the hearts of our colleagues opposite, will be included in the
legislation to remove any ambiguity.
It is therefore clear that the commitments contained in the red
book are being fulfilled.
* * *
(1105)
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Portuguese community in Quebec and in Canada is offended by
the attitude of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration,
which requires that their visiting relatives have a visa. The
300,000 members of this community, 60,000 of whom live in
Quebec, find it unacceptable that Portugal is the only country of
the European Economic Community subject to this requirement.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that there is no justification for
maintaining such a requirement, given that the department is
preparing to waive it for Hungarian tourists and has already
done so for Koreans.
Mr. Minister, I would ask you to do the responsible thing and
stop this groundless discrimination.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 19 the Minister of Natural Resources in the House
assured hon. members that her government anticipates a
reasonable and fair rate of return on Canada's investment in
Hibernia. However, in a letter from Ken Hull, president of the
Hibernia Management and Development Company, dated June
1994, he said:
Sufficient revenues will be generated to cover all gross capital and operating
costs, but no return on investment.
Even this statement is suspect. If one cares to do some simple
arithmetic on the project simply take $16 billion, which is the
total cost of the project, divide it by 615 million barrels of
recoverable reserves and one gets a figure of $20.75 per barrel.
With today's oil priced at $17.55 per barrel, it is not only
difficult to see any return on investment, it is difficult to see how
the project will cover capital costs.
It would be nice if the minister might one day explain these
inconsistencies.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to pay tribute to
the Women's Institutes of Canada, particularly the members of
the women's institutes in Perth county and the Avonton branch
which is celebrating its 70th anniversary in community service.
The Women's Institutes of Canada was founded as an
educational organization based on principles of sound nutrition,
safe food, health and fitness and the right of women to have
access of up to date information on issues that affect themselves
and their families.
There are over 16,000 members in Ontario alone. The
organization has been instrumental in accomplishing a number
of improvements in our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, did you know that it was women's institutes that
fought for the pasteurization of milk, signs at railroad crossings,
buses stopping at railroad crossings, clear marking of poison on
containers and the painting of white lines on our highways for
safety? These are just some of the things that we take for granted
today that were once the rallying cries of women's institutes.
I congratulate all members of the organization.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate those western farmers who showed their strong
support yesterday in Regina for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is
high time the silent majority of farmers in the west took a strong
public stand in support of, as one farm leader stated, this world
class selling agency.
I was greatly concerned on the other hand to see those few
who advocated a dual marketing system for wheat so openly
declare their intention to violate the laws of the country in order
7030
to get their own way. ``Catch me if you can'', said one of the
law-breakers.
I remind the House that the single desk marketing system this
country has for wheat and barley is under a well organized and
concentrated attack by a few individuals in the trades so a few
can gain at the expense of the many.
Again, my congratulations to the majority in western Canada
who are pro-wheat board farmers for speaking out. Keep up the
fight. The government is with you.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to pay tribute to a Canadian business leader. Mr. Al
Hopkins, the president of Algoma Steel, recently received as
part of his employment contract a $400,000 performance bonus,
but he gave it back.
Algoma Steel is still struggling and the workers who own 60
per cent of the common stock have their wages frozen. Mr.
Hopkins realized that taking the bonus would have eroded the
team spirit he was trying to build. In his own words: ``The basic
thing is trust. Once you establish a base of trust you can do a lot
of things''.
Mr. Hopkins obviously rejects the personal greed so prevalent
in the last decade. He understands the need for co-operation,
trust and team work. Mr. Hopkins is a business leader of the
1990s in the true Canadian tradition.
Please join me in applauding him today.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it was with dismay that we learned of the events in Port
Perry and at Brockton High School, in which seven people, three
police officers and two teachers were shot yesterday. I would
like to extend my sympathy to the people of Ontario, both
personally and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois.
Quebecers are very sensitive to this kind of violent act. Well
they remember the tragic events at the Ecole polytechnique and
at Concordia University, to mention just two examples, and
these events will remain engraved in our collective memory. We
can only reiterate our appeal to the Minister of Justice to table in
this House at the earliest opportunity a bill ensuring better
control of firearms.
[English]
Again, let me offer my deepest sympathy to those who were
affected by this wanton act of violence.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
consistently spoken out against the infrastructure program as a
program which taxpayers cannot afford in view of the deficit and
debt we are struggling with.
Since the government was determined to spend tax money I
supported a project that was infrastructure and included private
sector funding. If we are going to put additional debt on the
shoulders of our children and grandchildren let it be to the
common benefit.
At least this project was true to the red ink book promise of
transportation and communication links and water and sewage.
There is no mention in the red ink book about boccie courts,
canoe halls of fame or trade centres. It is this deviation that
causes distrust in the voters.
Given the recent discovery by the finance minister that the
deficit and debt are indeed as serious as Reformers said they
were this program should be stopped now.
The debt clock this morning is at $535,119,203,409.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the last
few hours Canadians have learned once again of violent deaths
associated with armed robbery and other forms of misuse of
firearms. I emphasize the misuse of firearms.
Considering the ongoing misuse of firearms and the
increasing nature of violent crimes associated with firearms, is
it not time for the minister, for the cabinet, for the government
and for the Parliament of Canada to reflect what Canadians are
telling us, that is to institute a zero tolerance for the misuse of
firearms in this country and instruct the Minister of Justice to
bring in legislation to change the Criminal Code to reflect the
zero tolerance position of the country?
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Industry has just released its report on
banks and small business.
I hope the government will act on this report to make Canada
an even better place to do business.
I thank all those who helped the committee produce this report
and in Peterborough riding my thanks to all those who appeared
7031
before the committee or who submitted briefs and to those who
appeared before the task force on small business in
Peterborough; thanks to the greater Peterborough Chamber of
Commerce, local banks and all those individual business people
who gave me good advice during the process. Finally, I extend
my thanks to the chair and staff of the standing committee and to
my colleagues on it.
Let us continue taking care of business in Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to voice my concern about GST reform. One aspect that
particularly concerns me is the possible loss of GST rebate
received by municipal governments.
Being a former mayor I know firsthand the benefits of the
exempt status for municipalities. If GST is levied on
municipalities it will place an immense financial burden on
local governments and a greater burden to their taxpayers and
possible higher tax rates.
Municipal governments across Canada are experiencing
serious revenue shortfalls as are all other levels of government.
Already local services are being threatened despite their best
efforts to implement efficiencies.
I urge the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National
Revenue to commit to placing no more greater tax burdens on
municipal governments through the reform of the GST and to
continue the rebate system that was negotiated with the previous
government.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week Atlantic Canadians were encouraged to pack our bags and
head west to find jobs and quickly.
I have news for the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound.
The government believes that all Canadians deserve the dignity
of a job. Our position of respecting and supporting the various
needs of Canada's regions has built this country. It was the
farsighted immigration policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that helped
build the west.
(1115)
I want to remind all members that since last October there are
275,000 more jobs in the country; 26,000 of those jobs are in
Atlantic Canada. This sends a strong message of hope to our
region. There is hope for improving our economy.
The government is committed to Atlantic Canada. It is
committed to all provinces. It is committed to Canada.
7031
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, when the Deputy Prime Minister was questioned in
the House, she merely drew our attention to the fact that
espionage activities in Canada were subject to Canadian laws.
At no time was she able to confirm who was in control of the
Communications Security Establishment in Canada. I may
recall that the RCMP officers who planted bombs and stole Parti
Quebecois membership lists were subject to Canadian laws.
Could the Prime Minister confirm that no government
democratically elected in Canada, no political party, including
the sovereignist movement in Quebec, was spied on by foreign
intelligence services, at the request of the Government of
Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all security services in Canada, which are necessary in
any democracy, abide by the rules set by the Parliament of
Canada.
Personally, I can confirm that I never asked them to spy on
any party or politician in Canada. I am a democrat, and I do my
fighting out in the open. As for the opposition parties, there are
not that many problems, and I do not need spies. I will go into
battle with weapons everyone can see. And we are going to win!
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will
notice that the Prime Minister refused to confirm or deny that
the Government of Canada might have asked foreign
governments to spy on political parties in Canada or on
democratically elected governments. He simply said he did not
do so himself. That is not very reassuring.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said in this House, and I
quote:
[-] that the activities of the CSE are totally subject to Canadian laws,
including the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act
and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they obey the law.
That is what she said, and I want to ask the Prime Minister
whether he could explain how his Deputy Minister could be so
positive about what she said, when it is clear the CSE is
controlled by no one and is accountable to no one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the line of authority is well known. The Minister of
National Defence is responsible for this agency, and if there are
any particular problems, the Minister of National Defence can
bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. That is
the line of authority.
7032
When all is said and done, the ultimate responsibility for this
government always lies with the Prime Minister. What the
minister was saying yesterday is that we ask all these agencies
to abide by the law. There is no country that is more democratic
than Canada. You are here to prove it. This is the only country
where the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to
destroy the country in which they live. This does not exist in
any other democracy.
I can stand here and say without any hesitation that Canada is
the most democratic country in the world. I ask all federal
agencies to obey the law. Canada will continue to be the greatest
democratic country in the world, the only country that allows the
Leader of the Opposition to be someone who wants to destroy
the country when his duty would normally be to serve that
country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I simply
want to remind the Prime Minister there was an election
campaign, the stakes were clear and we are the result of that
campaign. But that is not the point.
The point is this: How can the Prime Minister expect his
evasive answers on this issue to reassure Quebecers, when we
know perfectly well that all illegal activities by the RCMP in
Quebec, including stealing the Parti Quebecois membership
lists, were subject to federal laws and took place under a Liberal
government, of which he was a member?
(1120)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the point is that there are all kinds of stories about
espionage. I know an expert on the subject, Claude Morin, who
may be the Parti Quebecois-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: I would ask colleagues to please refrain from
using props in the House. It becomes a little cumbersome as we
go along.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, in Ontario, seven people
were the victims of violent crimes committed with firearms.
One took place in a school and the other during a bank robbery.
Such tragic events are a reminder of the urgent need to institute
better control of firearms in Canada. An undertaking to this
effect in the red book was reiterated by the Prime Minister at the
Liberal Convention last May.
Why has the Minister of Justice still not tabled his gun control
bill?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
quite right in saying that the tragic and troubling events in
Toronto yesterday merely serve to remind us of the importance
and the urgency of this challenge. Far from holding back
proposals in this regard, the Department of Justice is busy
preparing them in detail.
I returned this week from a trip to Alberta and the Northwest
Territories; before that to British Columbia and Yukon; before
that to the maritimes and Quebec; and before that to Ontario and
the central part of the country. Everywhere I have gone I have
spoken with interested groups, putting together a package of
proposals that will be introduced in the House in the near future
which will deal not only with illegal firearms but also with the
criminal penalties for the misuse of firearms, and which will add
further sensible and needed regulation to the control of firearms
in private ownership. That is our proposal.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government has been in power for a year now and for a year the
smallest legislative measure seems to have become inexplicably
complex. Everything is used as a pretext to justify the
government's failure to act. This is an urgent matter. Seven
people nearly lost their lives yesterday.
Will the Minister of Justice admit that the delays in tabling his
bill are attributable to very strong opposition within the Liberal
caucus?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will admit no such
thing. The Liberal caucus, like the country as a whole, wants to
discuss every aspect of the issue to make sure we get it right.
There are varying points of view. We are not embarrassed by
it; we are proud of it. It reflects the diverse nature of the
population. In caucus, in cabinet, we will discuss every aspect of
the issue and then we will bring forward proposals that are well
thought out and for which we have prepared the country through
the kind of consultation in which I am personally engaged.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister launched a $12 million
travelling medical show that will wander the country for four
years. It will not report until after the next federal election. Its
recommendations will gather dust on a shelf because the prov-
7033
inces that have the constitutional responsibility in this area are
not very much involved.
It is clear to us that the Prime Minister is using this forum to
avoid addressing the problems of the health care system rather
than addressing them.
I ask the Prime Minister: Is there not one concrete action that
he can propose today to demonstrate his government's
commitment to really reforming the health care system?
(1125 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we launched a forum yesterday and we invited experts
from many fields to advise us on it. In discussions with them we
said they have up to four years and that everyone serving on the
commission should do it voluntarily. None of them will be paid.
I told them that I would like to receive reports as soon as they
cover one element so that we can act. The health care system that
we have in Canada is a very good system but it is getting very
expensive. We want to make sure that we maintain universal free
medicare for all Canadians.
We have to do that in consultation with the provinces. It is
what the Minister of Health is doing. I wanted to have people
who are not representing the self-interest groups within the
system to look into that. That is exactly what they will be doing.
They will report every six months or so, whenever they are
ready. They will make some concrete suggestions that will help
us to maintain free medicare for all Canadians, not a good
system for the rich and a bad one for the poor like the Reform
Party would like to do.
We want one that will serve all Canadians, enabling them to
have access to hospitals free because they are citizens of
Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is talk, talk, talk. There is no concrete action at all.
Then there is the finance minister who talks and talks and
consults and consults and shows charts and charts. He admits
that the additional spending cuts are urgently required but he
continues to defer action.
I ask the finance minister: Is there not one major new
spending reduction that he could put forward today to
demonstrate to the Canadian people his seriousness about
reducing the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to
understand the
refusal of the Reform Party to understand why Canadians really
do want to have some input into the budget making process.
I fail to understand why the leader of the opposition does not
want to join into what is really a-
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): He is not the opposition.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): That is right. We could cut
the opposition's research budget.
We are engaged in a unique experiment in Canadian economic
history and that is opening up the budget process, getting rid of
budget secrecy. Why is it that the Reform Party seems to think
that only within its narrow executive is the repository of all good
thinking? I do not understand.
We in the Liberal Party believe in the common sense of
Canadians and we are going to tap into it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no concrete action.
Then there is the Solicitor General who has a lot of problems
he could be fixing. CSIS and the Communications Security
Establishment, two agencies that are virtually unaccountable,
have been accused of basic violations of human rights.
When the Solicitor General is asked about these matters there
is the standard routine: ``This is a serious matter'', blah, blah,
blah. ``We are investigating'', blah, blah, blah. ``I cannot
comment any more'', blah, blah, blah''.
If his only response is that, he should not bother to get up, but
can the Solicitor General tell us one concrete change that he has
actually made to improve the accountability of CSIS and the
Communications Security Establishment?
The Speaker: Usually when we start on a line of questioning,
the supplementaries are in the same area. I am going to permit
the question today, but I would ask all hon. members to please in
their supplementaries try to tie them to the first question posed.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the security centre responds not to me but to the
Minister of National Defence. Second, with respect to CSIS I
have ensured that the Security Intelligence Review Committee
and the Inspector General as mandated by Parliament are in fact
doing their work.
(1130)
In light of that answer I will leave the blah blah blah to the
leader of the Reform Party.
7034
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said yesterday in the opening speech of
the Canadian Forum on Health, and I quote: ``Unless we take a
broad view of health, we will not succeed in reducing costs''.
How can the Prime Minister make such a statement, when
those with health-care planning expertise and responsibility,
that is, the provinces, were not invited to participate fully in the
discussions at the Forum on Health?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find this very funny because it is a panel of experts.
The provinces said that they wanted to be there. So the Minister
of Health told them, ``Fine. How many members do you want on
the panel?'' They said, ``Five''. So we said, ``Fine''.
They then decided that was not what they wanted; they wanted
to co-chair with the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, there are not
two Prime Ministers of Canada, there is only one.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Yes, and he is there for
a long time, too. No problem.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Then I thought that I
should be a nice guy and that if a premier wanted to come or if
they all wanted to attend these meetings, they would all be
welcome. After arguing all summer about their attending the
forum, despite very generous offers, they decided not to come.
So we went right back to square one. But we listened to them and
they understood in the end that these experts will make
recommendations that will apply not only to us but also to them.
It is their mandate.
Every day, decisions are made by health ministers, and the
conference of federal and provincial health ministers will
continue. Nothing has changed in that regard. We can work
together but, to find a long-term solution, a review such as this
one was needed. We in Canada cannot afford to lose our health
insurance system because we did not take the time to plan for the
future.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the Prime Minister's commendable
efforts but since he claims that this is not a decision making
forum and that the real decisions will be made at health
ministers' conferences, why does he stubbornly insist on
wasting $12 million taken directly from the pockets of Canadian
taxpayers?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the health forum is a very useful exercise. We have to
look at the problem of health care in Canada. It is now costing
about 10 per cent of the GDP, the highest after the United States.
We have to look at the problem because if we do not we will be
facing some very difficult choices.
We have asked some experts to look at the medium and long
term problems of the national health care system. They are
doing just that. I can guarantee that this forum is a very good
investment to guarantee that eventually we will keep a health
care system in Canada that is free. There will not be one for the
rich and one for the poor, but a system that gives the same rights
and opportunities and the same guarantees to all citizens of
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the habits of economics professors do not die easily.
Recently I found myself giving the finance minister a passing
grade; now I must give the Prime Minister a failing grade.
He obviously does not yet understand that smaller deficits
lead to lower interest rates, more investment, higher
productivity and therefore more permanent jobs in the private
sector. Direct government job creation is obsolete.
Would the finance minister please share his good judgment on
these matters with the Prime Minister and get him to tell
Canadians about the win win benefits of spending cuts?
(1135 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely to heaven
there are some questions, and not only language, that are
unparliamentary.
The fact is that I am stunned and I am at a loss for words. I
give up.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister of Finance. The hon.
member for Capilano-Howe Sound.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I never expected that kind of a response, a speechless
Minister of Finance.
This week a group of economists gathered in this building to
present their views on the finance minister's budget initiative. A
majority noted that the 3 per cent target in two years from now is
not good enough. There is a high probability that by then the
economy will enter the next recession. Deficits and the debt to
7035
GDP ratio will rise again, just like they did for other
governments.
When will the finance minister take account of these concerns
and issue a plan for time specific spending cuts that will
eliminate the deficit during the present economic prosperity?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it
very clear that we are prepared to deal with time specific
spending cuts. In fact that is very clearly what we did in the last
budget. It is the specific reason for the 3 per cent target.
In an initial conversation with the Prime Minister as to what
tactic ought to be used it was pointed out to me-and I must say
thank God I can now raise this-that where the Tories went
wrong was in setting out medium term targets and not hitting
them. It is absolutely important that government set out and hit
short term targets and that is exactly what we are going to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Today's newspapers report an agreement between the federal
government and the Kahnawake Mohawks on the labour force
training program. Under this agreement, the federal government
would entrust the Mohawks with these responsibilities, for a
more efficient allocation of these programs' financial resources.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs tell us if the agreement in
question provides for the transfer to the Mohawk community of
all federal powers for employment and labour training
programs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, it does not. This is one
of several agreements that have been negotiated over the last
three or four years with various Indian bands across Canada
whereby we simply transfer planning responsibility for human
resources training programs that apply particularly to aboriginal
people. The terms and conditions of those programs must be
maintained. We do try to work out a partnership with the Indian
bands so that they can have a real responsibility for determining
what the priorities are.
It is very much within the spirit of the proposals we made in
the green book on social reform that we want to establish a much
broader range of co-operative arrangements and to decentralize
many of the program responsibilities to various community
organizations, provinces and others. In that way there can be a
much more grassroots level of development and decision
making for the important training initiatives we sponsor.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
government seems to be finally realizing the obvious fact that
manpower training programs are better administered by
authorities who are more sensitive to people's real needs, can he
tell us why these same principles were not followed by the
federal government in answering the consensus in Quebec,
which calls for Quebec to take back control of the whole labour
field?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is. As the hon. member
would know if he had read the green book, last June we tabled a
series of propositions to all provinces that include substantial
transfer of responsibilities to provincial governments.
(1140)
[Translation]
The federal government is proposing to the provinces that
they take over the majority of labour market programs. There is
$500 million earmarked for Quebec for example, to manage the
purchase of courses in training institutes-another $140 million
for Quebec-to manage and establish ``one-stop'' information
centres and manage other manpower programs bringing in $12
million to the province.
I hope, therefore, that the members from the Bloc Quebecois
will ask their partners in Quebec for a response to a new
proposal, a new agreement. But at this time, there has been no
response from the government of Quebec to this new proposal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples set up
four years ago is already substantially over budget and over
deadline. Again it is extending its deadline. This $58 million
exercise has obviously lost focus.
Will the minister of Indian affairs instruct this commission to
quit delaying and table its report immediately?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we inherited two
commissions when we took power. Because they are
independent I think it would be inappropriate for the
government to tell them to stop and give us their reports right
now. We would be accused of
7036
leaning on the commissions. We are not prepared to do that
vis-à-vis the royal commission on aboriginal rights.
I would prefer the report now. I need it now. The commission
has decided it needs another year. My preference is now but I am
stuck with the year and I will have to live with that. We did not
implement the royal commission. If I had my druthers, I would
have built the thousand houses that we could have built with the
$58 million, but that is what Mulroney did and that is what we
have.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this exercise started out as a $10 million or $12 million
exercise. The government has been taking excerpts from the
royal commission's work and using these for policy statements,
including the issue of inherent right to self-government.
Is the minister of Indian affairs the one who is really foot
dragging on the release of this report because he has no better
policy options to present?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from this member that is a
surprise question. Usually I am accused of going too fast and not
foot dragging. I do not understand the substance of it, but we are
prepared to deal with the issues as they arise and as soon as we
get them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. Responding to a question
recently put to her regarding acts of genital mutilation in
Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Minister of
Justice would see to it that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code that make the mutilation of children illegal are enforced.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm that, as we have been
advised, no proceedings have been instituted thus far with
respect to the practice of genital mutilation on the basis of the
present provisions of the Criminal Code?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer
that factual question today. However I will be happy to inquire
and let the hon. member know when I am certain of the facts.
Speaking to her point more generally I can say that in the
spring when this matter was raised in the House I undertook to
take several weeks to inform myself and respond to the
suggestion that we need a separate provision in the Criminal
Code to forbid this deplorable practice. I made those inquiries,
including conversations with colleagues and other ministries
that share the responsibility, particularly with provincial and
territorial attorneys general. After doing that I concluded and
informed the House that the better view is there are provisions in
the code at present which already make it clear that this is
criminal conduct. I said at the time that what we need is not only
vigilant enforcement of those Criminal Code provisions but also
a program of information to educate immigrants and others that
this is impermissible and will be prosecuted.
(1145)
We are continuing to monitor that. In fact, as recently as last
week I asked to be briefed with respect to the present state of the
practices in Canada with respect to education and enforcement.
I assure the hon. member, if I may conclude, and I will just
take a moment to say it, that if the practice is continuing
notwithstanding the efforts on education and enforcement of the
present provisions, I do not rule out a separate section of the
code if I believe it is necessary to bring this deplorable practice
to an end.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
have a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for his responses to my queries. However,
he is merely repeating the answer he gave back on April 12, and I
quote: ``The focus of the federal government at this time should
be on education in partnership with the provinces and
community groups''. He says he is monitoring, waiting, making
inquiries. These are all fine words.
However, what I would like to know is: when does the
minister plan to act on this issue, to take positive steps and,
above all, to table a plan of action in this respect? In spite of the
fact that the minister has to collect all this information, action is
required immediately and urgently, and we need to know what
his immediate plans are in this area, notwithstanding the
inquiries and analyses.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I first emphasize
that I share the hon. member's concern and sense of urgency, but
I want to emphasize that it is not a situation in which nothing is
being done.
The issue gained prominence in the spring primarily by virtue
of the report by Dr. Glenda Simms and the national committee
which she chairs. When I inquired about it, I found that the
provincial attorneys general in the provinces where this practice
is an issue are hard at work with task forces, with police and
enforcement efforts and they continue.
The advice I received from those active in the field was that a
Criminal Code amendment was not the answer. What is needed
7037
is to get into the communities, spread the word, gather evidence
and prosecute when it is appropriate.
One of the problems is getting people to come forward to
testify. That is one of the problems. I do not think a change in the
Criminal Code will get at that.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is about nuclear tests and is for the Prime Minister who
I wish well on his trip to China.
Since 1964 Britain has carried out 44 nuclear tests, France
210, and the United States over 1,000. Two weeks ago China
carried out its 41st test.
Would the Prime Minister on his visit to Beijing raise with the
Chinese authorities the need to set a good example to the world
community and bring to an end testing for the sake of planetary
security?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Canada deplores the underground nuclear test that was
recently carried out in China. The Chinese ambassador in
Ottawa was called in and made aware of Canada's concerns.
The Prime Minister's visit will provide an opportunity to
directly register our concern about nuclear tests at the highest
levels in the Chinese government. Canada hopes that China will
shoulder its share of the burdens and responsibilities held by all
nuclear weapons states toward the early conclusion of a
comprehensive test ban treaty.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
disturbing trend is developing that threatens the lives of
Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. In the past six months
Canadian troops in central Bosnia have faced confirmed attacks
from the Bosnian army on 13 occasions. Most recently Warrant
Officer Tom Martineau from my riding required five hours of
surgery after being shot.
My question is intended for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
When will the minister obtain an explanation for these attacks
from the Bosnian government and what action will he take to
ensure the safety of Canadian soldiers in Bosnia?
(1150 )
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we do not underestimate the dangers that our troops face in that
theatre of conflict. We were fully cognizant of it before we
renegotiated the mandate for the next six months. In fact
members of the House had an opportunity to express their
concerns.
We believe that a real peace effort is possible in the former
Yugoslavian republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. For that reason
we have deployed our troops for the further six-month period.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not an acceptable answer to this question. We have
repeatedly faced attacks from the army of the people we are
trying to protect. That is not an acceptable situation.
In the period since 1991 we have provided $50 million in aid
to the former Yugoslavia. Would the government agree that if
these attacks do not stop we should make any further aid
contributions contingent on an end to this kind of action from
the Bosnia government?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we regret the injuries and indeed the deaths of any of our
Canadian soldiers. The incident to which the hon. member refers
was a particularly nasty one.
It is not the government's policy nor that of the armed forces
of Canada to pick sides in this conflict. We are there under the
auspices of the United Nations to help with humanitarian aid to
give the peace process a real chance. It is easy to assume that one
particular side is guilty of an attack or another. Quite frankly
sometimes we are not sure whom to believe in these cases.
It is better for us to concentrate our efforts to try to protect our
soldiers the best way possible, and where we do know that an
attack has come from one side or another, make a protest
through the United Nations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. In answer to a
question from the Bloc Quebecois concerning the costs related
to the
Irving Whale, the minister said that the money would
come from the compensation fund set up by oil companies.
However, we were told by the Parliament's Research Branch
that there is absolutely no money left in that fund.
Can the minister confirm that the compensation fund is indeed
empty and, if so, what alternative is she considering to finance
the operations which will get underway to settle this issue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said to this
House is that the money will come from Ship-source Oil
Pollution Fund. The money will first come from our
government. This is precisely the financing arrangement which
I tabled in this House seven months ago, and I thank the hon.
memberfor raising this issue. I am pleased to see that she is finally
accepting the policy put forward by this government, conside-
7038
ring that this is an emergency and that we must be prepared to
pay. Indeed, this issue concerns the environment and ecosystem
of all the residents of the Magdalen Islands and Atlantic Canada.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister agree that Irving is the primary responsible for this
accident and that this corporation, not Canadian taxpayers, must
pay for the costs involved?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that when
the Irving Whale sunk 24 years ago, as was the practice at the
time, the sunken barge was immediately signed over to become
the property of the Government of Canada.
For 24 years ministers of the crown, including her current
boss, did not have the guts to raise the Irving Whale and after-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure no one's courage is under question.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, they had neither the interest nor the
political will even to reply to the letters from the people from the
Magdalen Islands.
In three months we put together a package of financing that
will see the Irving Whale raised next spring. Rather than
criticizing us the member opposite should be applauding the
initiative of a government that moved within three months.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions.
(1155 )
Following the recent hearings into the demise of
Confederation Life by the Senate banking committee, is the
government prepared to make recommendations or bring
forward legislation similar to that discussed in the presentations
made by John Palmer who is the superintendent of financial
institutions?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be a
paper released later this year regarding the deposit insurance
system and the earlier intervention in financial institutions.
We are awaiting the Senate report that will be coming out in a
short time. The senators have taken considerable time and
considerable interest in this subject. We are certainly going to
await their report and read it with considerable interest before
putting forward a paper.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the secretary of state that Canadians
need to know that the Liberals will actually implement the
proposals of John Palmer.
More specifically, will the government support John Palmer's
proposal for separation of the chair of the board of directors and
the chief executive officer in order to help eliminate conflict of
interest and, if so, when?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will be
considering the whole report of the Senate committee. We will
be considering all the matters that were discussed, including Mr.
Palmer's suggestions, and we will bring forward a paper later
this year on the subject. We hope that legislation will follow
shortly thereafter.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In January 1993 Canada and over 100 countries signed an
historic treaty to ban the production, stockpiling and use of all
chemical weapons. Unfortunately after nearly two years only 14
countries have ratified this treaty, when 65 ratifications are
required to make it enforceable.
Would the minister say when Canada will introduce
ratification legislation and what Canada is doing to support the
enforcement agency to be set up in the Hague?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for raising this important item.
At the present moment an interdepartmental and industry
consultation process is taking place. We expect that at the
beginning of the year a required bill will be presented to the
House of Commons for debate.
In the meantime, the Hague is putting in place a provisional
technical secretariat before the ratification of the convention.
Canada has submitted names to that. When the convention is
ratified we will again present names to the organization in order
to take our proper role in making sure that the convention is
complied with.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the
7039
Minister of Transport stated with respect to the safety hazards
encountered by Canadian ferries of the same type as the Estonia
that he would meet with the president of Marine Atlantic to
make sure necessary action was being taken to improve safety.
Can the minister tell us what exactly he intends to do to remedy
the problem and make these ferries safer?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question because, as
we all know, the safety of ferries is matter of a concern for the
people of Canada.
The president of Marine Atlantic advised us yesterday that he
would make a joint public statement with the Canadian Coast
guard to reassure Canadians, especially as winter approaches,
with its more severe conditions. This statement is expected to be
made today.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently I asked the Solicitor General about the
redeployment of RCMP resources to help combat the growing
drug problem in Nanaimo. The mayor of Nanaimo, the head of
the RCMP in B.C. and others have confirmed the need.
Now we discover that while Nanaimo goes lacking because of
tight resources, 100 RCMP officers are being sent to Haiti. If we
can send police to Haiti, why not to Nanaimo?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the need for further drug investigators in Nanaimo is
being reviewed by Deputy Commissioner Farrell, the head of the
RCMP in British Columbia. I am advised that it is expected that
he will be able to find additional resources to respond to the hon.
member's concern. It is a concern that I share.
(1200)
I repeat, I am informed that it is likely it will be possible very
soon to have the additional resources placed in Nanaimo.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The release of the green book on social security reform has
triggered much debate among Canadians. In my riding of
Saskatoon-Humboldt university students are particularly
interested in participating in this national review. They and
members of the House would like to know what the minister has
heard from other Canadians on this discussion paper as he has
been travelling the country in the last 10 days?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a very specific answer,
in the last day and a half I met with all the student leaders from
the colleges and institutions in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba to discuss in particular the issues of how we can help
refinance higher education, put more money back into the
system and give students much broader support for the
continuation of their education.
The response of the students as well as of most Canadians is to
engage in a very active debate. Canadians really are ready for a
change. They recognize the status quo does not really exist and
that we have to reform structures. I would encourage all
members of the House to engage in the same kind of dialogue we
have started. I think they will find it a very creative, very
exciting exercise.
_____________________________________________
7039
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased, to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments that have been made by
the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages
and pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's
response to one petition.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in my capacity as federal
minister responsible for co-operatives, I wish to recognize
National Co-op Week in Canada and to pay tribute to these
unique, democratic institutions and organizations that play such
a significant role in the socioeconomic fabric of Canada.
7040
[Translation]
Furthermore October 20 is recognized worldwide as
International Credit Union Day.
[English]
The Prime Minister in his co-op week message mentioned
that co-operatives strengthen the community and the country as
a whole. This is nowhere more true than in the 900 communities
in which credit unions or caisse populaires are the only financial
institutions providing service. In northern Canada, after
government institutions, co-operatives are the largest
employers.
On the national scene, roughly 40 per cent of Canadians are
co-op members. In the province of Quebec as in my own
province of Saskatchewan some two-thirds of the population
belong to a co-operative of one form or another. All together the
10,000 Canadian co-ops provide employment for 133,000
Canadians and represent total assets of $134 billion.
This year is of particular significance to co-operatives around
the world because it represents the 150th anniversary of the
formation of the first consumer's co-op in Rochdale, England.
As Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, I recognize the
important role that co-ops play in the agri-food industry. It has
been estimated that co-operatives account for 48 per cent of the
market share for poultry, 60 per cent of the market share for
milk, and 70 per cent for grains.
(1205)
[Translation]
To conclude, I want to congratulate the Canadian
co-operative movement on its achievements and I urge this
House to pay tribute to co-operative organizations during
National Credit Union Week.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak on National
Co-op Week.
As an anecdote, I could mention that all primary schools in
Quebec have a school savings bank and I remember that one of
the first things I did as an organizer was to look after the savings
bank in our school. For that reason, I am especially pleased to
speak on this statement.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who seems to
have held a similar position, said, the importance of
co-operatives throughout Canada is evident. In view of the size
of the co-op movement in Quebec's economy and the place it
has held in Quebecers' recent history, let me point out the work
this movement does and its special contribution to our society.
Co-ops played and still play a vital role in Quebec's economic
development. Voluntary membership, democratic organization,
training of members, redistribution of surpluses in the
community and limits on return on capital are all principles that
square with Quebecers' thinking and explain the development
of this movement in Quebec. Furthermore, co-ops are part of the
lives of Quebecers from primary school until they die-there are
even funeral co-operatives.
Whether we talk about financial, farm, housing, consumer,
labour or any other kind of co-op, the co-operative movement is
healthy and continues to grow in Quebec. Moreover, a new
generation of co-op members is assured with the rise of co-ops
in the student community through ``interco-operation'',
twinning co-ops from different fields of activity; the Société de
développement coopératif in particular promotes this.
The Desjardins movement is, of course, the pride of Quebec's
co-op community. Stretching across Canada and involved in
international co-operation projects in many other countries, the
Desjardins group manages total assets estimated at over $75
billion. Quebec's co-op movement comprises over 3,300
co-ops with more than 5.9 million members and in excess of
60,000 employees. A major success story.
The vigour of the co-op movement in Quebec is due to the
strong feeling of solidarity among Quebecers. We have always
stuck together to ensure our own growth, often under difficult
conditions. This solidarity will soon bring Quebecers to
sovereignty, which must be based on economic sovereignty. The
Desjardins movement, among others, has played a significant
role in this by giving us confidence in one another.
In closing, I wish to thank and congratulate all co-operators
in Quebec and Canada for their volunteer work, without which
the co-op movement would not be what it is today.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour to rise on behalf of the Reform Party to
recognize and pay tribute to the co-operative movement in
Canada.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and compliment the
pioneers in the co-operative movement for having the vision
and the dedication to fashion their dreams into reality.
The co-operative and credit union movement has had a very
positive effect on this nation. Co-Op Vegetable Oils Limited of
Altona, Manitoba, is one of the many examples of where a co-op
has been a leader in its field. Not only did it help develop a
vegetable cooking oil but it was also instrumental in
encouraging and developing trade between the United States and
Canada.
Co-ops and credit unions must be congratulated for being
present to help communities develop and improve themselves.
They must also be recognized as a player in our economy that
7041
provided competition and has given people another choice,
something that makes a democracy work very well.
It is with gratitude that on behalf of the Reform Party I
acknowledge the accomplishments of co-ops and credit unions.
We wish them well in future endeavours and encourage them to
continue their innovative example of leadership.
* * *
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House the 41st
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs regarding the membership of committees.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
this report later this day.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill C-50, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Bill C-50 as reported
with amendments.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to dispense
with the reading of the 41st report of the Standing Committee on
Procedures and House Affairs.
If so, I move that the 41st report of the Standing Committee on
Procedures and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier
this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present five
petitions today on behalf of individuals all across Canada,
including from my riding of Wild Rose and other areas of
Alberta.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
next petition contains the same signatures from across Canada
asking to prohibit assisted suicide.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition, is asking to extend the protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
I respectfully submit these petitions on behalf of these
signatories.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 122
residents from the riding of Verchères and the surrounding area,
particularly the municipalities of Saint-Amable and
Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu.
The petitioners feel that, by abolishing the universality of the
tax credit for seniors, the government unfairly targeted
pensioners' income. They also feel that this measure is basically
discriminatory from a tax point of view, since it affects people
who have already made a significant contribution to the
Canadian economy and will keep them from improving their
standard of living over the next few years.
Consequently, the 122 petitioners urge Parliament to oppose
any measure which would have the effect of reducing the income
of retired people. Needless to say that I share the views of these
petitioners and that I strongly support their representations.
[English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Hudson Bay Route Association, I would like to present
petitions containing 2,626 signatures.
(1215 )
The petitioners call on the minister responsible for the wheat
board to maximize grain shipments through the port of Churchill
and to ship at least 5 per cent of Canada's annual grain
shipments through Churchill.
I agree with these petitioners. The port of Churchill is a
valuable but underutilized resource. It is the most direct route
from the prairies to salt water. We have to overcome the
ignorance about this northern port so it can live up to its
potential.
7042
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a
petition on behalf of my constituents asking Parliament to revise
the Young Offenders Act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 75 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 75-Mr. Godin:
To what do the $3.2 million in budget cuts at the Department of Veterans
Affairs, announced in the 1994-95 Estimates, apply?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans,
Lib.)): This $3.2 million reduction was allocated to the
operating budgets of all areas of Veterans Affairs except
Ste-Anne's Hospital and Saskatoon Veterans Home.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The question referred to by the hon.
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that,
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by seven minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).
_____________________________________________
7042
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-55, an act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning
disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon
territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for North
Island-Powell River has 30 minutes left if he wishes to use
them.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will resume from where I was interrupted.
In addition to the $8.3 billion that I was speaking about there
are another 460 specific native claims and lawsuits that
currently have no dollar figure and do not form part of the
known liabilities. Frankly no one knows what the total amount
may be. That is the frightening part.
If the Minister of Finance is that concerned with the fiscal
situation he might want to start a review of the policy and
settlement mandate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development currently employs. It is an untenable situation
warranting immediate action.
The Reform Party during debate of Bills C-33 and C-34
cautioned the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development about setting these kinds of precedents for claims
from a land mass perspective as well as the compensatory side
and in terms of ongoing commitments. Our concerns were
dismissed and it has come home to roost.
We could sit here and argue about the settlement of
outstanding land claims, but there is no argument. The Reform
Party supports an early and mutually satisfactory conclusion of
outstanding land claim negotiations. Our argument and our
opposition is because of a lack of any recognition of the cost of
concluding these deals. The federal negotiators are exhibiting a
blank cheque mentality. This is not only wrong; it is
irresponsible. Here we are being asked to endorse this mentality.
We have heard today how the minister does not think he can
order the royal commission to table its report on aboriginal
peoples. The government has written additional cheques to keep
this royal commission alive. Surely those who write the cheques
have as strong a mandate as those on the royal commission who
want to keep it alive.
Bill C-55 gives impetus to Bills C-33 and C-34, including the
area of financial compensation. As well, Bill C-55 will create a
process to resolve disputes between parties guaranteeing rights
of access to private lands. It will also create the Yukon surface
rights board which will implement the process of dispute
resolution and allow orders of the board to be enforceable in
court. Bill C-55 will also confirm that the legal rights of minors
are unchanged.
(1220)
I recognize that the bill is the normal progression of what was
introduced and debated last spring. While House procedure and
standing orders preclude me from raising the contents of Bills
C-33 and C-34, it does not disallow me from reinforcing
Reform Party opposition and concern over the manner in which
we conclude agreements of this magnitude. It is too bad the
7043
government did not choose to consult as extensively on Bills
C-33 and C-34 as it appears to have done in this enabling
legislation contained in Bill C-55.
Business, particularly the very important mining sector in
Yukon, was not given the same opportunity to participate in the
deliberations leading up to the introduction of the Yukon final
land claim. While drafts of Bill C-55 were circulated to the
mining community and groups representing them, at no time
was the same courtesy extended on Bills C-33 and C-34.
I have had individuals in Yukon tell me they were caught
unaware of the previous provisions of the federal government
Council of Yukon Indians agreement that they are paid to know
about until it was signed.
In view of some of those preliminary comments it behoves me
to turn to some concerns the Reform Party has with Bill C-55.
Let me assure the House that my party's contribution to the
debate will not be obstructionist. However I would be remiss if I
did not offer some constructive criticism of some clauses of Bill
C-55 and my colleagues will add other comments.
Part I of the bill establishes a process to resolve disputes
between parties concerning surface rights and access to
subsurface rights. More specifically clause 8 establishes a board
to be called the Yukon surface rights board consisting of a
chairperson and not less than two or more than ten other
members to be appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. Half the members other than the
chairperson should be appointed on the nomination of the
Council of Yukon Indians.
Part I is really the essence of the bill. Part I and the manner
and type of appointments that are made will make or break the
credibility of the board and hence the bill. The minister has
enormous power in the appointment of members. While five
members are to be nominated as potential candidates to the
board by the Council of Yukon Indians the minister is
omnipotent. With this power can come the tendency to politicize
the board.
The greatest fear industry has in Yukon is that the minister
will be tempted to place some good old Liberals on the board to
ensure things go the right way or his way. I implore the minister
to exercise a non-partisan approach in his decision making on
board appointments.
I have some concerns that I expressed earlier in the House. I
give the example of Michel Robert who was the Liberal
appointed this spring with a non-tendered $249,000 contract to
negotiate at Oka for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. Mr. Robert is also the appointee to SIRC, the
so-called watchdog for CSIS.
(1225)
The board will decide which dispute can be brought before it
only after the parties attempt to resolve the issues themselves. It
is contingent on the success of this clause that board members
exercise good judgment and possess a real sense of
responsibility.
Otherwise we could have obvious favouritism on spurious or
vexatious issues brought before the board that will consume not
only valuable time but valuable resources in the form of per
diems that will be paid board members, in the case of the
chairperson $300 per day and $250 per day for members.
This could become costly if we have board members or a chair
who is looking for something to do. In short, the board cannot
become a hotbed for patronage appointments. Before we know it
we could have Joe Clark appointed to another chairmanship.
At our departmental briefing, Reform Party MPs were told
that no staff shall be appointed to the board. Clause 19 of Bill
C-55 clearly allows the board to employ such officers and
employees and engage the services of such agents, advisers, and
consultants as are necessary for the proper conduct of its
business and may fix the terms and conditions of their
employment or engagement and pay their remuneration.
What we were told in our briefing runs contrary to not only
clause 19 from which I just quoted but also clauses 20 and 21
which grab further latitude for the board to acquire personal
property in the name of the board and enter into contracts in the
name of the board. Just what is the budget allotted to the board
beyond per diems for members and why were we given
misinformation in our briefing?
The board will be empowered to set the amount of
compensation for expropriation of settlement lands and the
amount of compensation for pockets of government land
retained within settlement lands.
The board's orders will be final and binding, enforceable
through the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory. This is
awesome power beyond reproach and I can only hope we know
what we are doing and start right by appointing on merit not
politics.
Part II of the bill deals with rights of access on settlement
lands. The terms and conditions for the board's operation are
clear in this area. The mining industry in Yukon appears
confident that part II is drafted in such a way as to avoid
interpretive problems. However, part III, mineral rights disputes
on non-settlement lands, is ill-defined and therefore
troublesome. The jurisdiction and powers are ambiguous in
clauses 65 and 66 which constitute part III. What is of major
concern with these clauses is that 50 per cent of the board be
designated by the Council of Yukon Indians as specified in part
I.
Therefore what we have is a 50 per cent aboriginally
designated commission having jurisdiction in matters related to
non-settlement lands. I can foresee the possibility of nothing
but turf wars as a result and a counterproductive exercise based
on race and cultural interpretation. Perhaps it is not wise to have
the majority Yukon residency requirement on the board and the
7044
50 per cent nominations list from the Council of Yukon Indians.
Perhaps we are creating unnecessary racial strife.
(1230 )
At the outset of my remarks I said that Bill C-55 may confirm
the principles contained in Bills C-33 and C-34 and put them
into effect. However in no way does it end dispute or in itself
resolve conflicts that may arise.
Bill C-55 may conclude the land claims process but it opens a
new vista with many new problems requiring many new
solutions. I realize the veil of uncertainty that has stifled
investment in Yukon must be removed. Industry in Yukon has
expressed a desire to put this issue and uncertainty behind it.
The Reform Party appreciates this need for clarification and
stability in land claims. Now at least industry in Yukon knows
the rules but that does not say it or the Reform Party has to like
those rules.
The Reform Party is on the record as supporting the early and
mutually satisfactory conclusion of outstanding land claims. In
the Reform Party's opposition to the process of establishing the
land claim settlement as contained in Bills C-33 and C-34, we
feel we articulated our vision and pointed out the deficiencies in
the legislation.
In good conscience we cannot support holus-bolus all facets
of Bill C-55, particularly the jurisdiction of the board on
non-settlement lands. We will not impede economic
development in Yukon and the enunciation of the rules that will
dictate this development.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I am happy to rise to address the issue of Bill C-55, the Yukon
Surface Rights Board Act. I must say I was going to oblige the
member for Capilano-Howe Sound by wearing my Bermuda
shorts and dark glasses, however the dress code of this House
does not permit me to do so in talking to the bill.
I do have a comment to make on the speech of the member for
North Island-Powell River. He mentioned the participation of
the Yukon Indians as being over 50 per cent on the board and
talked about some racial problems that might arise. This seems
like a judgment even before the board is off and running. There
is no confidence in the Council for Yukon Indians being able to
make up its mind and determine who is going to be on the board
and what kind of board it is going to be. If we had a little more
trust in our aboriginal organizations, this country would be a lot
better off.
I want to join the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development in urging support for this legislation. I believe the
House has an obligation to move as quickly as possible on Bill
C-55 so that residents of Yukon can begin to benefit from the
certainty and the confidence that land claims settlement will
bring to the territory.
After more than 21 years of negotiations, we finally reached a
framework agreement to settle the land claims of the 14 Yukon
First Nations. The establishment of a new surface rights regime
which will be accomplished through Bill C-55 is the next
critical step in implementing the agreement.
This is a pivotal day for Yukon. Yukon residents expect us to
proceed responsibly and without further delay. They want us to
address our moral and legal obligations to the First Nations
people.
(1235)
As the minister has stated we have already adopted legislation
to put in place a territory wide framework for First Nations land
claims settlement agreements and to implement
self-government for the Yukon First Nations. We have before us
today the final piece of legislation that will allow the
finalization of these acts.
Bill C-55 is significantly different from the two acts we
approved before the summer recess. The bill deals with very
specific matters and is extremely technical. I can assure
members that Bill C-55 has been drafted with the interests of all
Yukoners in mind. It is fully in keeping with the Government of
Canada's obligation under the umbrella final agreement
negotiated by governments and Yukon First Nations.
Bill C-55 provides for the establishment of the Yukon surface
rights board and a new surface rights regime that reflects the
changing realities of land ownership in Yukon. I know some
hon. members on the other side of the House have been
expressing concern about the role and the powers of the board.
The role of the Yukon surface rights board is straight forward.
It will deal with disputes relating to land access, use and
compensation throughout the territory. However the board's
services will be called upon only when direct negotiations
between the affected parties have failed. There will be more
certainty for everyone in Yukon when the bill is enacted and we
begin to implement First Nations final agreements.
Bill C-55 will put in place a new regime for obtaining access
to private and public lands that will put it on a level playing field
with other Canadian jurisdictions. It provides for clear rules and
regulations.
This is not a scheme that has been pulled out of a hat. This
approach to dispute resolution has been applied elsewhere in
Canada and is working well. In fact the Yukon surface rights
board has been modelled on similar boards that are currently
operating in Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C. and Manitoba. The
7045
provincial boards were established to address disputes between
surface owners who were generally farmers and subsurface
developers such as oil and mining firms.
In Yukon we anticipate that when disputes do arise they will
primarily involve mining companies that hold mineral rights on
non-settlement lands where others have surface rights or
interest on land owned by First Nations, similar to the situations
in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The same basic principles of
reasonable access, responsible use and fair compensation can
and will apply to resolving disputes in Yukon.
Once the Yukon surface rights board is formed the
government intends to take its members to Alberta,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba where they will
observe the provincial boards in action. The government may
also invite a senior official from the provincial boards to Yukon
to provide training or other assistance.
As the minister has noted this is a cost effective alternative to
using the courts to resolve disputes. It will encourage mining
and petroleum companies as well as governments to work in
partnership with First Nations and other land users so that all
parties can benefit.
The board will not even hear a dispute unless it is convinced
that a serious effort has been made by the parties to come to an
agreement. In addition to reducing costs for all parties, the
provincial boards have enabled quicker resolution of disputes
than would be possible through the courts. This in turn has
helped prevent lengthy and costly delays in resource
development.
I think the minister would agree that the Government of
Canada, Yukon First Nations, the mining and petroleum
industries and the territorial government would be happy if the
surface rights board never met, in other words if there never
were any disputes to resolve. However this is not a utopian
world and we cannot sit back and hope that everything will work
itself out. We cannot expect that there will never be a
disagreement between two parties, both of whom may have
reasonable and legitimate concerns.
In the interests of good public government we must be
prepared to deal with issues as they arise. This is why it is
important to proceed now to create a surface rights dispute
resolution mechanism in the Yukon.
I am extremely confident the surface rights board that will be
put into place by Bill C-55 will be an effective institution of
public government. It will operate in a fair and responsible
manner to ensure that economic development proceeds in Yukon
in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the umbrella final
agreement. It will also protect existing rights including mineral
rights of third parties in the settlement area.
(1240)
Let me remind hon. members that Yukon First Nations have
never resisted development. Rather, they have said only that
they want a voice in how resource development will proceed. As
land owners they will have that voice. Guaranteeing 50 per cent
of the board's members will be nominated by First Nations
ensures that First Nations and other Yukoners will have input
into the important decisions that need to be made.
In addition, third party rights or interests on non-settlement
lands are recognized in the bill and the umbrella final
agreement. The need for this board was clearly identified in the
umbrella final agreement. It simply replaces the government
officials or courts now identified in the mining legislation as the
dispute resolution body.
Let me assure the House that the Yukon surface rights board
will be created in a manner that is financially responsible as well
as responsive to the needs of the people of Yukon and Canada.
Obviously costs are involved in setting up new institutions of
government, but through careful planning and management
these costs can be controlled. The Yukon surface rights board
will be kept as small as possible. Staffing will be kept to a
minimum and proceedings will be expeditious.
Bill C-55 will achieve some very specific goals, but it is
important for the House to consider the broader implications of
this proposed legislation. Most fundamentally we must
understand that without Bill C-55 the settlement of land claims
in Yukon cannot be concluded.
Once again our efforts to address the rightful claims of Yukon
First Nations will be stalled. Another generation of Yukon
Indians will face the prospect of starting anew to negotiate an
agreement that all parties have already accepted. Vital economic
development opportunities will be lost. We cannot and must not
allow that to happen. The Government of Canada made certain
commitments in the umbrella final agreement in 1993, including
the commitment to create a surface rights board and we must
live up to those obligations.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of the debate that
took place in the House some four months ago. That debate
determined conclusively that the umbrella final agreement is a
solid agreement that will benefit all residents of Yukon. By
providing a secure land base, settlement agreements will
empower Yukon First Nations to build a better future. The
territorial government and all Yukoners will benefit from
increased economic activity and from the strengthened political
development of the territory.
In addition to confirming ownership of vast areas of land,
Yukon First Nations will be entitled to significant financial
compensation. This compensation package is essential to the
future prosperity of Yukon First Nations. It will give them the
financial resources to create jobs within their communities, to
7046
deliver social services and to generally establish a better
standard of living for Yukon Indians. These achievements will
benefit all Yukoners and all Canadians.
All of us can appreciate that much more is at stake here than a
new surface rights regime. At stake here is the economic growth
of Yukon as well as its political and administrative
development. Also at stake is the spirit of partnership, trust and
mutual accomplishment that government is working hard to
establish with First Nations in Yukon and elsewhere. The very
future of Yukon First Nations is at stake. They have already
waited far too long to have their voices heard and their concerns
addressed.
With that in mind, I urge hon. members to look beyond the
legal and technical complexities of the bill, as important as they
are. I urge them to embrace a broader viewpoint to acknowledge
that the Yukon surface rights board is vital to the land claims
settlement process. I remind them that land claims settlements
are something all Yukon residents and Canadians want and
expect us to achieve.
This is the time to move forward to lay the foundation for a
better future for all people in Yukon. Toward that end I urge my
hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-55 so that it can
proceed as quickly as possible to the other place. This is the only
responsible course of action to ensure that implementation of
the Yukon First Nations final and self-government agreements
can proceed without further delay.
(1245 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the opening comments by the member who just
spoke there were some statements regarding the Reform's
concerns about the ability of the Council of Yukon Indians to
designate its representatives to this board.
On the contrary, we have no concerns about its ability to
designate representatives. Our concern, as expressed in my
speech, related to and focused on the minister's ability to make
this into a hot bed of patronage and to set up a divisiveness and
other turf wars that are of major concern to us.
I wanted to set the record straight on that and ensure there was
nothing on the record that would indicate we agreed in any way
with those statements.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I heard quite clearly the hon.
member saying that because of the 50 per cent participation of
the Council for Yukon Indians on the surface rights bill there
might be a place for some leaning in a racial way. That is why I
made those comments. To me that was undermining the
council's ability to look at problems it might encounter through
the surface rights bill in looking after the interests of all
Yukoners.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and the answer to my
colleague's question.
We are after the 10 best people from Yukon to address these
matters. It is in no way to be implied that it is a racial question
that we are bringing up here. I would like the hon. member on
the other side to understand that.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I suspect if we look at the blues
there will be comments in there that clearly state the word racial.
That is why I made the comment that this was uncalled for.
Yes, we are looking for the 10 best people or the best people
the Council of Yukon Indians can offer to settle its disputes. I
would be honoured if all members of the surface rights board
were Indians from the Yukon area. They probably could do a
better job than anybody else in the country in settling disputes
that will arise.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House today to
oppose Bill C-55.
The bill is the handmaiden of Bills C-33 and C-34, two pieces
of legislation debated before the summer recess and passed
despite the serious objections of many well-informed
Canadians, including the opposition of the Reform caucus.
I am told that Bills C-33 and C-34 cannot take effect until we
pass Bill C-55. I would like to be able to support all three pieces
of legislation because I support the progress of native Canadians
toward taking full responsibility for themselves and for their
future. Unfortunately a number of concerns with this bill
prevent my supporting it.
However, I wish to mention some positive aspects. First,
given transportation problems in the north for so much of the
year, I applaud the bill's provision that board members can
attend their meetings by telephone.
Second, I was also pleased to see that this board can only
intervene on matters brought to it by others and cannot just
insert itself willy-nilly into negotiations which the parties are
settling on their own.
Third, because delay of rulings can cause real hardship,
especially due to the very short work seasons for mineral
exploration and development north of 60, I was especially
pleased to read section 27 which states:
An application before the board shall be dealt with as informally and
expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.
(1250 )
Fourth, faced with the probable administration nightmare
generated by Bills C-33 and C-34, at least the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development consulted widely and
publicly among the many affected groups and general public of
Yukon as to how the expected conflicts of interest ought best to
be resolved through new legislation in Bill C-55.
7047
It is my understanding that 16 months ago some 11 interest
groups were sent draft copies of the proposed legislation
including the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer
Miners Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers and two groups representing Yukon trappers and
outfitters. Coupled with advertising in area newspapers, the
government apparently has made a sincere effort to bring all
parties immediately concerned into the discussions, a
praiseworthy method of proceeding.
However, I also believe it is my responsibility in opposition to
point out the shortcomings of these pieces of legislation and my
firm belief that no native group should be granted
self-government rights greater than those of municipal type
governments. The very amount of land to be covered by Bill
C-55 together with certain riches of natural resources involved
makes the subject far too large for municipal type
administration
It is my hope that the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development will listen and improve the process of
dealing with what will be among the most long lasting and
consequential actions of Canadian federal government for all
time. I say for all time because these land claim settlements and
dispute settling mechanisms will no doubt set precedent for the
entire process of settling native land claims still outstanding,
especially in the province of British Columbia.
In addition, they obligate Canadian taxpayers far into the
future. This latest piece of legislation, Bill C-55, if we include
all the lists and guides needed to find particular topics, requires
some 64 pages to sort out the mess created when the government
decided to hand over jurisdiction for many thousands of square
miles of Yukon territory to be administered by the so-called
First Nations.
I have great admiration as well as sympathy for Canada's
native peoples. Moreover, as our native people demonstrated the
readiness to take over the running of their own affairs, I strongly
support dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and handing those rights over to the
natives themselves.
Because I believe in full equity among all Canadians with
special status for none, I also believe we must take great care to
ensure that Canada does not create by this kind of legislation the
very sorts of racial homelands and racial biases for different
treatment of our people, which the government and people of
South Africa have been struggling for generations to root out of
their country.
Therefore, I also believe that any further federal
responsibility that in any way differs from the way the federal
government deals with each and every other Canadian should
also stop, cease and desist at that point, when by passing
legislation like Bill C-55 we hand over the running of native
affairs to natives themselves in a reasonable and efficient
manner.
However, these three pieces of legislation go far beyond
anything I can call reasonable and efficient. The legislation also
maintains special federal responsibilities to Yukon First
Nations, including large cash grants and creating separate living
areas and entitlements based solely upon race.
At the same time, the legislation package gives virtually all
the rights and responsibilities of a full fledged modern nation to
these groups whose total population is approximately 7,300
divided into 14 bands and scattered across some of the least
populated land remaining on our planet.
Even Canada's smallest cities have populations larger than
the total population of these groups, which are now to be
considered nations. Nor can it be any secret to any citizen
concerned about public affairs in their own municipal
governments that cities like Vernon and Salmon Arm in my own
riding of Okanagan-Shuswap often are hard pressed to provide
the personnel and pay for the services their residents require.
(1255 )
It is more than ridiculous; it borders on the tragic to heap so
much responsibility upon so few. The only thing making it
possible is the ongoing financial support of all Canadian
taxpayers; support for an inefficient administrative rat's nest,
here boxed and wrapped as Bill C-55.
Bill C-55 creates a group to resolve land use conflicts certain
to arise because of this government's decision to transfer
responsibility for all ``use, management, administration,
control and protection'' of some 16,000 square miles of land
equal to about 75 per cent of the province of Nova Scotia to
those 7,300 Yukon natives.
Included are natural resources, businesses, professional and
trade licensing, responsibility for all construction, zoning and
land development, sanitation and planning, operation and use of
vehicles, prevention of pollution and protection of the
extremely sensitive Yukon environment.
We all know that the Liberal government likes to brag about
the number of jobs that Canadian citizens and entrepreneurs
have managed to create in the year since the 1993 election
despite federal government overregulation, mismanagement
and overtaxation.
There can be no doubt that some of those jobs have been
directly created by government. It seems apparent that native
land claim settlements will become a big player in the job
creation scenario because there will be administrative jobs for
anybody who is not busy testifying about the many disputes
likely to arise from changing the status of this parcel of land
equal as I mentioned above to about three-quarters the size of
the province of Nova Scotia, land now being divided into
category A settlement land, category B settlement land or fee
simple settlement land.
7048
The major purpose of Bill C-55 is to create some group that
would have the authority and resources to settle the many
disputes springing to life when miners, trappers, big game
guides and many ordinary Canadians suddenly realize that areas
where they may have thought themselves previously legally
entitled to earn their living now have been handed over from
either federal or territorial jurisdiction to control by the First
Nations.
That dispute settling body is to be called the Yukon surface
rights board consisting of a chairman and from two to ten other
members, a majority resident in the Yukon Territory, with half
the members appointed on the nomination by the Council of
Yukon Indians.
I note that neither being a member of the Yukon First Nations
or having an interest in their land shall be considered as grounds
for disqualification. I have some concerns that this Yukon
surface rights board may become a nesting site for that well
known political species, the patronage appointed bird.
I believe it is important in all government groups to avoid
even the appearance of conflict of interest, and so I hope that all
concerned will take special care on that point.
Beginning on page 33 of the legislation, this act deals with
mineral rights disputes on non-settlement lands. I must question
the logic of this legislation doing so many things on the basis of
race only but then granting authority over non-native lands to a
board half composed of natives.
Additionally, because there are so many different pieces of
legislation involved, namely the Canadian Oil and Gas
Operations Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon
Quartz Mining Act, it seems that the Yukon surface rights board
will have to develop some fairly sophisticated methods of
weighing the various claims because virtually nothing is spelled
out in Bill C-55.
What principles should the board apply to settle disputes? Is
time of filing important? How long must a person have filed a
mineral claim for natives to recognize it? What amounts of
royalties will bands be allowed to request from proposed
developers of mining property? What environmental protection
bonds will be required? What percentage of band funds can be
devoted to develop a mine that may employ natives?
I am sure that all of us hope that the Yukon chiefs and band
councils are going to be fully responsible to their local band
members in a democratic fashion. Where is the board's
responsibility to either native or non-native people spelled out?
Bill C-55 does require the board to make an annual report but it
does not state in cases of conflicts of the best interests of natives
with the best interests of non-natives whose interests should
prevail. Can we today not envision such disputes lasting for
many years?
(1300)
Finally, I was somewhat surprised to see that this board has
been given discretion regarding awarding any and all costs of
hearings they undertake. It is all well and good to direct that the
hearings shall be conducted on the native lands wherever
possible and also that the hearings should be dealt with as
quickly and as informally as possible.
Nevertheless, I believe past experience should warn us that
hearings involving serious conflicts of interest with native land
claims have been known to drag on for many years to the delight
of lawyers and other hangers on of the Indian establishment. The
legislation proposes no limits, for example, on the number of
legal advisers or other so-called experts which either side to a
dispute might wish to summon. To that extent I am afraid that we
are once again committing taxpayers to sign and pay for a blank
cheque.
Some people are saying that the majority of disputes will arise
and be settled shortly after Bills C-33 and C-34 come into
effect. However, as population increases and resources become
scarce during the next century on this planet, I believe that the
people of Canada and the Yukon First Nations may well see
themselves tied up in virtually endless administrative wrangling
over surface rights in Canada's north.
I sincerely hope that Bill C-55 provides an adequate
framework for the settlement of such disputes. However I see no
clear evidence to make me reasonably certain that peace, order
and good government for all people of Canada, including other
provinces and future generations, will be well served by passing
Bill C-55. Therefore, I ask the House to support me in opposing
it.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a
question. The term native was mentioned in the debate a lot
during the speech of the hon. member.
I wonder if the hon. member might elaborate a bit on how he
feels about the way aboriginal people in Yukon have been
treated over the last number of years and whether he agrees that
the aboriginal people, the Council of Yukon Indians, and other
aboriginal groups deserve some recognition because of the fact
that they were here for quite some time before the arrival of the
rest of the Yukon population.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. First I am sorry that the member is upset about the
word native being used so many times. I use that term about
myself and about my colleagues, that we are all native
Canadians. I use that word a number of times in conversation
with anybody in the country. We are native Canadians. I can
under-
7049
stand the member's concern because of the misconception of
that.
I agree that over the last years the native population in Yukon
has not been treated that well by white people. This has been an
injustice. We have to be careful that we do not try to cure this by
another injustice. We have to do it properly at this time. Now is
the time when we have a chance to do things that will be set in
motion for centuries to come hopefully.
Our concern and my concern is that we must do it properly the
first time around so that we can go forward and not have to keep
going to court or run into the similar problems we have today
100 years or 200 years down the road.
Our obligation in the House is to the Canadian people and the
future of Canada as a whole. Let us try to do it properly this time,
not like we have done it for years. I hope that answers the
member's question.
(1305 )
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
address the House on Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board
Act.
I would like first to make some general comments regarding
how this legislation came about. We had two previous bills
dealing with the Yukon land settlement, the land claims and the
self-government issue. I was somewhat perturbed as to the lack
of understanding by the member who just spoke in terms of the
relationship that the First Nations have in the country. I think
oftentimes such ignorance misleads the general public. I do not
blame the member. I think it is just a lack of knowledge and lack
of awareness of that information.
I have always said that the first order of business in this
country should be with the first peoples, the First Nations, in
Canada. After all it is the First Nations that were here to
welcome many of the newcomers who are here in this country,
including members who are sitting in this House.
It is through the generosity of the First Nations people that
many Canadians have benefited from the lands and resources in
this country. In many parts of Canada there are still outstanding
claims that have to be settled with First Nations.
In my area in Manitoba we have treaties that were signed a
long time ago and in parts of B.C., the territories and Yukon
treaties were never entered into. As a matter of fact this land
claim settlement that we have just made I think is the conclusion
of the outstanding business that needed to be settled with First
Nations people in Canada. It is a modern day treaty that provides
the wherewithal for First Nations to be self-sufficient and
self-governing.
As the member has stated, Canadians need to be aware of what
commitments the federal government is making to First
Nations. We need to look at what promises have been made by
First Nations to this country. They have through treaties shared
the land and resources with the rest of the people in this country.
The question is not asked by First Nations: ``What are we
committing ourselves to, to other people?'' There is no
hesitation at all to bind our future generations so that we can
share our land and resources with the newcomers. As a matter of
fact this commitment and these promises are forever. The
treaties state as long as the sun shines and the grass grows and
the river flows that is our commitment. We expect governments
to reciprocate that kind of understanding to our people.
(1310)
As the member asked, what is the government promising to
First Nations in the country? We have waited well over 100
years to address these issues. We have First Nations in Yukon
who have waited a long time to settle these outstanding claims.
All these years governments have reaped the resources from
Yukon. Canadians have benefited from those resources but
across the country today the First Nations people still lack basic
human needs such as housing which many Canadian people take
for granted.
As a First Nations member I have been involved in this
process for a long time, trying to educate the general public
about these issues as to how generous we have been as First
Nations people. That is a kind of understanding that I hope hon.
members across will understand, that somehow in settling this
land claim we are depriving ordinary Canadians. That is not so.
If the government were to look at the past 100 years in terms
of the lands and resources that it has had and how much revenue
it has obtained from these lands and resources that First Nations
shared in the country, it would see that it runs into billions of
dollars. If the First Nations people would even obtain a small
percentage of the revenues generated from the lands and
resources alone there would not be any government handouts.
Oftentimes First Nations people come to governments to seek
help. Oftentimes it is humiliating because it appears we are
beggars and are seeking handouts.
The truth of the matter is that the aboriginal people, the First
Nations people, have given much already and have had very
little in return. It is time that governments honoured their
obligations to First Nations people in this country. We are not
asking for anything more or anything for less. We are just asking
governments to live up to their promises.
(1315 )
Another question I want to address is the hon. member's
notion of self-government. The hon. member said that
self-government should not be more than a municipality. That is
another lack of understanding the hon. member has. In the
country it was
7050
the Queen and her officials, the sovereign country of England,
who entered into treaties with First Nations in the country.
Therefore, we have a nation entering into an agreement with a
group of people in the country and it certainly was not a
municipality. It was the First Nations.
The notion of a treaty making process is a right that the
aboriginal people, the First Nation people, have had for
thousands of years. A treaty making process only validates and
recognizes that the First Nations have been self-governing for a
very long time. That is something that needs to be understood by
Canadians and by governments in the country.
We have a special and unique relationship with Canada. I do
not mean that we are special in a way that we are better off than
other people. No other group of people in the country has that
kind of relationship with governments except the First Nations.
By signing treaties we were entering agreements with another
government and did things we understood. We have been very
accommodating to other governments and Canadians. It is time
we begin to reap from the land the resources that we once had
control over.
I am extremely pleased to speak in support of the legislation
that deserves the backing of hon. members from both sides of
the House. The people of Yukon are nearly unanimous in
expressing the view that it is time to move forward with the
settlement on the Yukon Indians land claim. Bill C-55 is the
final building block in the legislative foundation.
Hon. members are well aware that the Yukon Indians'
umbrella final agreement was 21 years in the making. People
who were not even born when the negotiations began now have
families of their own. With Parliament's endorsement of Bill
C-55, the benefits of the agreement, including money, can begin
to flow to these families.
The claim agreement will do nothing less than ensure an
equitable and prosperous future for Yukon Indian children and
youth. It will also recognize First Nation seniors for their
perseverance, patience and guidance, as well as compensate
them for many years of hardship.
It will give Yukon Indians of all ages a chance for a new
beginning, a new partnership with governments in the
management of Yukon lands and resources.
Hon. members are also aware that the umbrella final
agreement was ratified by all the affected parties: the federal
and territorial governments, Yukon First Nations, business
interests and non-aboriginal residents of Yukon.
It is supported by the stakeholders because of the certainty of
land ownership and the rights it will bring to Yukon. This
certainty is essential if mineral and energy development
projects are to go forward, creating jobs, income and business
opportunities for all residents of Yukon.
(1320)
We must acknowledge and respond to this support by moving
Bill C-55 through this House as quickly as possible. To do
otherwise would be reckless and irresponsible and would
damage the crown's credibility among First Nations,
northerners and all Canadians.
The legislation before us today will establish a new surface
rights regime and a surface rights board for Yukon. The creation
of the board was a key element of the umbrella final agreement
and is, therefore, a legitimate commitment by the Government
of Canada to all residents of Yukon.
If there is one thing that stands out about the bill it is the
extent of the consultative process that has been proceeded with
since its introduction to the House. Both the general public and
affected interest groups in Yukon were widely consulted last
year by federal officials when guidelines for Bill C-55 were
being developed.
They were also consulted on a number of occasions on the
wording and contents of the bill. Several groups from the mining
industry participated in the legislative drafting process,
including the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer
Miners Association, the Prospectors and Developers
Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada.
The interests of the petroleum industry, which also has an
important stake in the issue of surface rights, were well
represented by the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers. The Yukon Territorial Government also provided
input as did the Council for Yukon Indians, various Yukon First
Nations and the Gwitch'in Tribal Council.
Public input was solicited by sending drafting guidelines to
major interest groups, including the Yukon Trappers
Association, the Yukon Outfitters Association. An
advertisement was also placed in Yukon newspapers announcing
the availability of guidelines for review by the public.
Consultation on a first draft of the legislation began 15
months ago in June, 1993 when a draft bill was sent to all
interest groups. Later that month a meeting was held with these
groups in Whitehorse. Subsequent parts of the bill were
distributed to groups in October and February. This was
followed by additional meetings with the Council for Yukon
Indians and the territorial governments in Vancouver in March
and with other interest groups in Whitehorse in April.
Based on the output received at these meetings and through
other channels, another part of the bill was produced and
distributed this past June. Further meetings were held with
different stakeholders in July, August and September, leading to
more changes to the bill.
7051
My intention here is not to provide details of every meeting
that has been held on Bill C-55, but it is important for the
House to recognize that the government has made an
extraordinary effort to hear the concerns of stakeholders who
will be affected by the creation of a new surface rights regime
in Yukon.
Most concerns were met but some compromises were
necessary. The bill that has been introduced is consistent with
the provisions of the land claims agreement and is in the best
interests of all Yukon residents in the interests of open,
accessible and responsive public government.
Hon. members would be hard pressed to find any stakeholder
group in Yukon that opposes the basic principles that underlie
this bill. The different groups may not agree with how every i
has been dotted and every t crossed, but they do agree on the
need for a territorially based surface rights board that will
oversee a stable, fair and responsible regime.
It is my belief that we must seize this opportunity to put this
new regime in place. As I stated earlier, further delay at this time
is not only unnecessary but will jeopardize the implementation
of the final agreements of Yukon First Nations.
I might remind hon. members that such agreements have been
already reached with four Yukon First Nations: The Vuntut
Gwitch'in First Nation, the First Nation of-
(1325 )
The Deputy Speaker: The hon member's time has expired. I
wonder if there might be unanimous consent to give him a
moment or two more to finish.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I will read my
prepared statement which is about four more pages. I will try to
read fast.
I would remind hon. members that such agreements have been
reached with four Yukon First Nations, the Vuntut Gwit'chin
First Nation, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, Champagne
and Aishihik First Nations and Teslin Tlingits Council. Progress
in the negotiations for final agreements with the remaining 10
First Nations are awaiting passage and proclamation of the bill
and the coming into force of the Yukon First Nations land claims
and self-government acts which members passed last June.
One of the primary objectives of land claim agreements is to
bring about certainty of land and resource ownership. This is
being achieved in Yukon and it will result in many economic and
social benefits to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents
of Yukon.
Hand in hand with this certainty of ownership comes the need
for a known regime for obtaining access to private and public
lands. This regime must be responsible and fair to all residents
of Yukon and it must put Yukon resource industries on a level
playing field with other Canadian jurisdictions.
I am very confident that Bill C-55 will establish such a
regime in Yukon. It will establish a common set of rules
throughout the territory. It will ensure that all stakeholders have
representation on the surface rights board which will hear
disputes between surface rights holders and those who want
access to the subsurface resources.
It will keep these disputes out of the courts. As my colleagues
have already indicated, the proposed Yukon surface rights board
will be a cost effective dispute resolution mechanism compared
with litigation.
The surface rights board will be an extremely important body
in Yukon. It will guarantee that mining companies and others
will be able to exercise their legitimate rights of access to
holdings of private land as well as crown land. This will ensure
that resource development projects will go ahead after many
years of delay and frustration.
The board will also ensure that compensation for the use of
these lands is fair and reasonable. This is particularly important
for First Nations which will own the surface rights of large tracts
of land for which subsurface rights have already been granted.
In addition, the surface rights board will be mandated to
uphold all existing rights of access across settlement lands for
the public and government.
This is on the condition that the use of these rights does not
significantly alter the route. Otherwise the consent of the
affected First Nations will be required. Consent will also be
required for new access routes across settlement lands.
There are many reasons why the House should support Bill
C-55 but in weighing all the reasons my colleagues and I have
outlined today, we should not forget that most fundamentally we
will be fulfilling a commitment made by the Government of
Canada to Yukon First Nations and to all Yukon residents.
That commitment was to settle the Yukon First Nations land
claims based on the umbrella final agreement and the creation of
this board is an integral part of that process.
The government's commitment to settle outstanding land
claims was clearly stated in the red book and it is a pledge we
intend to act upon at every opportunity.
We have made some excellent progress and established strong
momentum over the past year. Most recently, we endorsed the
final agreement of the Sahtu, Dene and Metis of the Mackenzie
Valley. Negotiations are proceeding well on a number of other
claims.
7052
By addressing land claims in a fair and responsible manner,
the government will resolve long standing disputes with First
Nations and contribute to a healing process between aboriginal
and non-aboriginal people.
I would urge my hon. friends to participate actively in this
healing process by supporting Bill C-55 at second reading.
(1330 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Churchill spoke at some length on matters not directly covered
by Bill C-55. In his remarks he referred to the lack of
understanding of we on this side of the House. Perhaps the
problem is that we understand only too well what is going on.
The hon. member speaks of the generosity with which
aboriginal people bestowed their heritage and their resources on
our ancestors. This is a misleading and I think unfair
interpretation of history. The native people lost their territory
and resources because they were confronted with overwhelming
numbers of people who possessed technological superiority.
No right-minded person would suggest the game was fair. The
invaders were not adverse to double dealing, chicanery and
theft, but some native tribes were not exactly angels either. The
past is past.
My question for the hon. member is short and simple. He long
ago joined the Canadian mainstream. Why does he continue to
promote and propagate the idea that other native people should
not also join the mainstream?
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, what we have heard in
the House from the hon. member confirms what I mentioned
earlier. There is obviously a lack of understanding by the
member. I said that ignorance sometimes misleads the public.
If the member knew the First Nations people, we have been
very kind and generous. The member should look at exactly
what the treaties mean. Much of the documentation created at
those treaty gatherings was done by government officials,
maybe in some cases by priests who did not understand
aboriginal people.
We have a very rich oral history. The member would find the
treaties meant that we were to live with each other side by side,
that we would respect each other and not dominate each other.
That is the spirit of the treaties. The member would not find
those things written in history books, but if he talked to our
elders he would find how generous we have been to share the
land and resources with the people.
We have never been conquered. We chose to enter treaties
with your government. Today we find that many of the First
Nations people live in poverty. Meanwhile other Canadian
people live in better housing. The standard of living in Canada is
one of the highest in the world. It is envied by many countries.
But First Nations people do not enjoy that.
Like I said, all we ask for is the government to live up to its
treaty promises. We do not ask for anything more or anything
less.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Churchill
might elaborate a little more on the comment that was just made
suggesting we should go into the mainstream of Canadian
society. We do enter the Canadian mainstream society when we
walk in the door to the House and Commons and to our offices
each morning, but that is a when in Rome do as the Romans do
practise. When we are back in our homes it is different. People
do not go up to me and say: ``Mr. Anawak''. They say: ``Hi
Jack''.
It is not our way to make one person any better than another,
because we respect each other. I wonder if he could elaborate a
little more. Yes, we do enter into the Canadian mainstream but at
the same time our culture is very important to us and should be
kept at all possible costs.
(1335)
I realize this is not part of the debate, but considering the
comments made by the member, I think it is appropriate that
there be no misconceptions about how we feel as members of
Parliament about entering the mainstream of Canadian society
when we need to.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill when
answering might wish to use up the remaining one and half
minute of the debate.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for his question. I chose to become involved in mainstream
politics because I wanted to raise many issues.
As First Nations members we were not even recognized as
part of the country for a long time. The first time we were
allowed to vote was in 1960 and in the province of Quebec it was
1969. Many of the laws and legislation affecting First Nations
people were passed without the full consent and participation of
the First Nations people.
It is hard to unravel the history and legislative policies over
the last hundreds of years in that short period of time. As a
matter of fact I was the first treaty Indian elected in the province
of Manitoba about 11 or 12 years ago. Most of my activity in the
political field has been in mainstream politics. Before that I was
chief of my band.
My ambition was to become involved in mainstream politics
and hopefully through my participation many other people will
begin to understand First Nations people.
7053
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being approximately 1:37 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7053
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you
are aware, since the introduction of Motion M-291, the Canada
Student Loans Act has been repealed and replaced by the Canada
Student Financial Assistance Act.
I would like unanimous consent to amend M-291 by striking
out the words ``Canada Student Loans Act'' and substituting the
words ``Canada Student Financial Assistance Act''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to.)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to
include an income contingent loan repayment system in order to:
(a) reduce the cost to taxpayers of financing post-secondary education by
reducing the number and dollar amounts of loans defaulted upon, by charging
accumulated interest, rather than simple interest on defaulted loans, and by
reducing the number and dollar amounts of collection fees for defaulted loans;
(b) allow post-secondary students greater flexibility and fairness in
financing their education through extended loan repayment period based on a
fixed percentage of individual income;
(c) ensure that post-secondary institutions in Canada receive the funding
necessary to maintain the high quality of services they presently provide.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion.
Before speaking to the merits of it, I would like to give a broader
reason for Parliament, not just Reformers and not just the
government but all members, to send a positive signal to young
people by endorsing this proposal.
All of us as parliamentarians and members of the older
generation pay lip service to the value of youth and the
importance of the younger generation of Canadians. But actions
speak louder than words. Often the actions of Parliament and the
government send a very different message. For example, the
chronic and systematic overspending by governments of our
generation have piled up a burden of debt and taxation which we
are passing on to the younger generation.
(1340)
This is a terrible legacy and unless we address it, the principal
effect of this generation of politicians on the well-being of the
next generation will be essentially negative rather than positive.
Therefore I feel it is important for Parliament and the
leadership of the country to offer something of real value to
young people, something that by its very nature sends a message
that states: ``Yes, we realize your importance; yes, we recognize
your value to the future of the country; and, yes, we are prepared
to invest in you and not just pass on our debts''.
During the last federal election campaign I made two
proposals on the subject of higher education which seemed to
provoke a very positive response from younger people. One was
the proposal to give students more control over the spending of
education dollars by distributing federal cash transfers in
support of education in the form of non-repayable vouchers.
The other proposal that evoked a good response was the
proposal embodied in this private member's bill. It is also a
proposal mentioned in the government's human resources
development discussion paper and that is the proposal for an
income contingent loan repayment program.
I should mention that in the national leaders' debate that was
held in Ottawa during the election campaign where the
questioning from the audience was very controlled, the one and
only question from a younger person in that audience had to do
with how students facing higher tuition and education costs are
going to finance their education in the future. I suggest that this
income contingent loan repayment program provides the best
answer we can think of to that question.
I would like to review the current situation briefly. Everyone
knows students require money to finance their education. I know
something about this personally. Sandra and I have five
children, three of whom are of university age. The principal
sources of funding for students are these: income earned by
students themselves, and many students today are carrying two
jobs in addition to their education to try to make their way
through; family funds, if those are available, but those are often
very restricted in many families; scholarship funds which are
usually tied to academic performance and other criteria; and,
borrowed funds.
At present the principal federal act for securing borrowed
funds for students is the Canada Student Financial Assistance
Act, the old Canada student loans act. Under the provisions of
that program the government guarantees loans by private
lenders, namely the banks, to students with the cost of the loan
being subsidized by the government as long as the student is
enrolled in full time studies. The student usually begins paying
the loan back about eight months after leaving school. In the
event of default the lenders are reimbursed and the loan is
usually sent to a collection agency under contract with the
government.
7054
The principal defects of the current system are that it provides
insufficient funding for students facing rising tuition and
education costs and the fact that one in five students ends up
defaulting on their loans.
Reform has asked: Is there not some superior alternative? We
believe it exists in this income contingent loan repayment
program. Since that is a mouthful I will refer to it from here on
as the ICLR program.
Simply put, this is a program designed to allow students to
pay back their student loans over a period of time after
graduation based on their annual income, with collection being
organized through the income tax system. After graduation a
student would begin to repay their student loan based on their
ability to pay as determined by their earnings. Precisely how
much a former student pays back each year would vary from
year to year depending on income. The specific amount set as a
percentage of income would be paid through the income tax
system. If the student's income does not reach a specified
minimum amount, the payment would be deferred until earnings
increased.
This payment system depends on an accurate flow of income
statements after the individual has left the institution of higher
education. Revenue Canada, producing the full details of a
former student's income and whereabouts through the income
tax form, would be the collector of the loans. We like the idea of
income contingent loan repayments for three reasons.
(1345)
It would help to maintain the high quality of educational
services in this country. As the finance minister pointed out in
the last couple of days demands on public resources are
enormous. The availability of those resources is increasingly
limited. Both federal and provincial jurisdictions are wrestling
with how to refinance post-secondary education.
As governments contribute less and less funding and costs
increase, the quality of education will decline unless new
sources of revenue are found. Lack of laboratory equipment,
growing class sizes and enrolment caps are a direct result of the
decreasing government contributions in the face of escalating
educational costs.
Any workable resolution to the underfunding of higher
education must depend on more financing from
non-government sources, including increased student fees.
However one cannot increase tuition and other fees to students
without making the cost of a university education even more
prohibitive than it is under the current system.
If however students were permitted to repay loans on an
income contingent basis over a longer period of time, the burden
of higher tuition fees would be more manageable. Private
lenders and the federal government would also be able to
provide more and larger loans at lower risk because the loans
would be secured by the enhanced future earnings of the
graduate and backed up by the collection powers of Revenue
Canada.
Another reason for supporting this scheme is that it provides
greater fairness and flexibility for students. The current student
loan system has many defects, most of which result in high
default rates.
Prospective borrowers are subjected to traditional means tests
that take into account their parents' and their partners' income.
Students whose parents are relatively well off are often
ineligible for student loans even if they receive no assistance
from their parents. Students are obliged to repay their loans at
the same rate and at the same level after graduation, regardless
of their employment and income position.
The high default rate which results from this system has two
particular negative effects. It invites abuse of the system by
irresponsible borrowers to the detriment of those who really
need the loans. It also makes it harder to maintain public support
for the student loans program because taxpayers are often left
holding the bag. The income contingent plan by contrast links
the payment to the ability to pay and makes repayment more
certain to the benefit of both students and taxpayers.
Under the current act taxpayers pay the difference between
the simple interest paid by borrowers and the accumulated
interest that private lenders demand. The taxpayers subsidize
interest costs while the borrower is in school. The taxpayers end
up footing the bill for loans where borrowers default and pay the
collection fees charged on the defaulted loan. The cost of default
has become a substantial burden on the entire system. Earlier
this week Peter Moon of the Globe and Mail sketched out the
dimensions of this burden.
Currently about one in five borrowers default on their student
loans. About two-thirds of these eventually repay but only after
the federal government assumes the debt from the bank and has
launched some form of collection activity. The other third,
about 7 per cent of all student loans, are carried as bad debt.
There is currently about $1 billion in bad loans outstanding
owed by 180,000 former students. Eventually about 2 per cent of
all student borrowers use bankruptcy to evade payment of their
loans.
Under an income contingent system these costs would all be
substantially reduced. The savings associated with minimizing
collection costs in particular would be major. The government
spent about $23.3 million in collection costs last year to recover
about $100 million worth of debt. With a total value of defaults
approaching $1 billion the potential earnings of the collection
agencies is now estimated to range up to $300 million.
7055
To sum up, Reformers advocate the adoption of an income
contingent repayment system for loans for three reasons. First,
it is a cost-effective, fair and flexible system for students. It
enables them to invest more in education, thus helping to fund
and maintain Canada's high quality system. Second, it provides
fairness and flexibility for students by dispensing with
traditional means tests and by allowing former students to repay
their loans over a longer period of time based on their income.
The third reason is that it reduces the cost to taxpayers by
minimizing defaults, dispensing with interest subsidies and
minimizing collection costs.
(1350)
I would like to spend a moment or two comparing the Reform
and Liberal government commitments to financing higher
education. I often note that some of the government's best ideas
are ones that have been appropriated from the Reform Party.
Canadian governments have gone out of their way to ignore this
type of proposal for about 40 years, as well as the experiences
with it in Australia and New Zealand. However only weeks after
my motion was placed on the Order Paper experimentation with
ICLR appeared in Bill C-28.
During the debate on that bill, Reformers suggested that the
whole system of student loans should be overhauled with a
system of income contingent loan repayment. A few months
later, lo and behold, the social policy discussion paper proposed
just that. We do not mind when the government borrows good
ideas from Reform. Our only concern is that it takes it so long to
do it. We hope it does not bungle the implementation.
There is however one significant difference between ICLRs as
the government is proposing and ICLRs Reformers propose.
Unlike the Liberal government's proposal, Reformers do not see
student loan reform as a means of offloading government debt
onto students or abdicating the federal government's role in the
funding of higher education.
We see income contingent loan repayment as a replacement
for the current system of student loans and as a supplement to
federal educational transfers. We believe the cash portion
should be transferred directly to students in the form of
non-repayable vouchers.
On the other hand, the government's social policy discussion
paper recommends eliminating the cash portion of federal
education transfers. This would reduce the EPF portion of
federal education funding by over 40 per cent and students
would have to meet this shortfall.
This is why students are so concerned about the government's
proposals. Students are not stupid; they know the difference
between a repayable loan and a non-repayable voucher. While
ICLR is a valuable proposal in and of itself, students and
prospective students legitimately fear that the sudden
elimination of federal cash transfers will damage the quality of
education, restrict access and saddle them with massive
personal debt.
In conclusion, I want to say just one word about the support of
the ICLR system and where it should come on the list of
Parliament's spending priorities. Everyone in the Chamber
knows the Reform Party has made its reputation by calling for
spending reductions that would balance the federal budget
within the term of this Parliament. However as indicated in our
zero in three plan for eliminating the deficit which we tabled last
winter, one of the few areas where Reformers do not advocate
spending reduction is in the area of financial support for
post-secondary education.
Make no mistake: Reform's fiscal goal is to eliminate the
deficit. However post-secondary education as an investment in
Canada's future is so important to us that we are prepared to
make massive spending reductions in other areas in order to
maintain current funding levels for education.
I suggest to the House that of all the things the government
does, of all the money it spends, its one true investment in the
future is its investment in the education and training of the
younger generation of Canadians.
In this light, the inadequacy of the proposals put forward by
the Minister of Human Resources Development in his
discussion paper with respect to financing education frankly
leads us to question the government's competence to set
spending priorities in the exercise of social reform or deficit
reduction.
I ask the House and I ask members opposite: Is $1.1 billion in
federal subsidies to the CBC more important than the funding of
the education of young people? I do not think so. Is $40 million
in federal funding for multiculturalism more important than
funding the education of young people? I do not think so. Is $50
million spent on bilingual bonuses for civil servants more
important than the funding of the education of young people? I
do not think so. Is $1.4 million spent on a film glorifying the
murderers of Pierre Laporte more important than the funding of
the education of young people? I do not think so. Is over $3
billion in federal funding for subsidies to private business more
important than the funding of the education of young people? I
do not think so.
(1355 )
In conclusion, I hope the House will support this motion to
reform student loans, especially in light of the proposals in the
government's social policy discussion paper. Let us send a clear
signal to the young people of the country that our highest
priority is their education, their knowledge and skills, and their
future.
7056
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased the hon. member did eventually conclude. After saying
in conclusion about three times, it was nice to see that he finally
came to his conclusion.
The government believes our competitiveness and therefore
our prosperity depends on the skills and talents of individual
Canadians. The policy choices we make today will have
important consequences for the future. Based on that belief the
federal government is ensuring access to student loans and
increasing the amount of money students receive under the
program.
We have approached the provinces to undertake pilot projects
in areas like school to work transition and learning technologies
because we know Canadians will be placing more and not fewer
demands on the educational system in the future. The resources
we use must be carefully placed for the greatest impact.
Research partnership with provincial governments will develop
new ways of bringing appropriate instruction and training
within the reach of all Canadians.
Members already know we have to make the most of every tax
dollar. They should also bear in mind there are few better
investments to make with those tax dollars than helping our
people to learn, whether they are children, teenagers, people in
the workforce or people who want to rejoin the working world.
It bears repeating that the government and most Canadians
place a high value on post-secondary education. Canada and
Canadians spend a great deal of money on higher education.
Every college and university student in Canada owes the
taxpayers a great deal, but the taxpayers benefit from a well
educated workforce.
Our college and university graduates repay the investment in
many different ways. University graduates have an
unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent; the rate of those who did not
finish high school is more than 16 per cent. Post-secondary
graduates earn about 40 per cent more than non-graduates over
their lifetimes. Last year more than three million Canadians
were on some kind of income security at one point.
In a time of constraint, allocating resources becomes very
difficult. There is greater need and there are more contending
voices. Under these circumstances a government is obliged to
listen carefully before choosing a policy.
To justify support for higher education we can point to the fact
that in the last three years there were 17 per cent more jobs for
university graduates and 19 per cent fewer jobs for those who
had not completed high school. By the year 2000, 45 per cent of
jobs will require 16 or more years of education.
With that in mind we have improved the Canada student loans
program. These measures reflect the concerns raised over the
years by the public, the provinces and student groups. There are
many reasons for extending the benefits of student loans.
There is no question that an investment in education now will
reduce social assistance costs in the future. A sound education
and access to training now will help following generations of
Canadians to grow up in a more secure world. We must invest in
a skilled workforce now to ensure that Canada and Canadians
have real choices in the future.
The work has already started. New financing arrangements
under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act will ensure
income sensitive terms for borrowers as they repay their loans.
Lenders will assume greater responsibility in servicing and
recovering loans.
Under the reform, students in similar situations will receive
similar treatment in each participating province. Some students
are worried that income contingent repayment will load them
with a huge burden of debt. We made our intentions plain in the
new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.
Take a look at what we did. We created four new grant
categories under the student loans act. We responded to the
needs of part time students, students with disabilities, single
mothers and women in certain graduate programs.
We want people to get a good education. Canada gets a high
return from its investment in competent and well trained
graduates. At the same time the government believes that those
who benefit from post-secondary education must assume their
responsibilities. When we make student loans for example, we
believe those students are obliged to complete their studies and
then repay the loans if they are able.
In his motion the member calls for the government to consider
the advisability of income contingent repayment. With all
respect, the short answer is the government is already looking at
income contingent repayment.
(1400)
In May and June the government moved the Canada Student
Financial Assistance Act, Bill C-28, through Parliament to
royal assent. This act provides flexibility for ICR schemes. We
are consulting with the provinces on possible pilot projects. The
province of Ontario and the Department of Human Resources
Development among others promoted and took part in a two-day
symposium on income contingent repayment in later September.
Work is underway with Statistics Canada to develop an
economic model of ICR which will allow the testing out of
various scenarios.
The question we must ask about ICR or any other proposal
about higher education is simply will this measure benefit
Canadians by bringing college and university studies within the
reach of everyone who wants to attend?
The discussion of ICR is not taking place in a vacuum. As we
all know, Canada's economic future will increasingly depend on
our college and university graduates. The choices those students
make will determine the country's ability to compete and our
7057
potential to remain one of the best countries in the world, in my
view the best.
These brief remarks can hardly do justice to the concept of
income contingent repayment. What I can say to the hon.
member is the government is always willing to explore new
ways to do more with fewer resources. We are already taking
steps to investigate income contingent repayment.
The reforms to the student loans program which are now being
implemented do not represent the government's final word on
ways to help Canadians finance their post-secondary studies. If
there is convincing evidence that Canada would benefit from an
income contingent repayment system the findings will speak for
themselves.
We do welcome good ideas. As a nation we spend 2.6 per cent
of the value of our entire economy on post-secondary education
every year. That is a lot of money. It is also the highest
percentage of any country in the world. From high school 60 per
cent of Canadian students now move on to college or university.
We should bear in mind in a given year two-thirds of students do
not take out student loans. The majority graduated with under
$5,000 in student loans.
When it comes to ICRs we have done our homework. At the
same time some student associations believe that any benefits
they receive from ICR loans would quickly be taken away by
their provincial governments in the form of fee increases.
We all know that we cannot impose educational fee schedules
on provincial governments. They have gone up in recent years.
Let me make this point. Education and training are shared
responsibilities. Governments can offer students a wide choice
of opportunities but Canadians have an obligation to invest in
themselves.
As a country we are willing to commit resources to education,
but many Canadians still feel we are not getting the kind of
graduates we need. We all face a new reality. When people stop
learning they stop earning. We do not want to burden new
graduates with huge debts. The new act makes that clear. We are
working for a system that supports people who go to school, not
one that penalizes their ambition.
Throughout their working lives many if not most Canadians
will need to learn new skills. Before that can happen all of us
must learn new attitudes as Canadians, as governments, as
businesses and associations. The challenge is accessibility.
Potential students may have all the ability and all the desire in
the world but we cannot expect them to undertake their studies
without the means to finance their education and a realistic way
to repay their loans.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate
this opportunity, as the Official Opposition critic for training
and youth, to state the position of our party with regard to
Motion M-291 put forward by the Leader of the Reform Party
This motion, as you may recall, reads as follows: ``That, in the
opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the Canada Student Loans Act to
include an income contingent loan repayment system [-]''
On the face of it, the concept of repayment based on income
seems to be to the students' advantage. If that were the intent,
there would, of course, be very wide support for this motion on
this side.
(1405)
But since no clear definition of this concept exists as of yet, it
can easily be used for other purposes.
As it stands, the motion tabled by the leader of the Reform
Party justifies, in our view, the approach advocated by this
government, that is to say to have the students defray the costs of
higher education.
There is no need for me to emphasize the fact that, at more
than $500 billion, our national debt is huge, but the point can
easily be made that students are not to blame for this situation. It
is not the doing of students pursuing higher education. I will not
get into a debate on who is to blame. Let us just say that the
blame does not rest only with this government. As we know, this
debt has been spiralling, particularly since 1979. It started under
the Liberals and continued with the Conservatives and is still
growing today.
Just now, I heard the member of the governing party say
something that is very wrong. He said that responsibility for
higher education is shared by the federal and provincial
governments. The member has misread the Constitution, which
clearly states that education and higher education are a
provincial responsibility. My purpose today is not to debate the
Constitution, but it is still worth recalling because even
members of this House seem not to know that fact.
Despite that, we know that so far the federal government has
used the spending power, which is also in the Constitution, to
invade this field. Since some of Quebec's taxes have been used
until now to finance higher education under the federal
government's authority, it was normal that we tried to obtain our
share, but again, keep in mind that it is in provincial
jurisdiction.
Until now, we in Quebec have used our right to opt out with
financial compensation, but this is not the discussion that I want
to get into today.
We believe that we must debate ICLR more thoroughly before
setting up such a plan. Nevertheless, we oppose any use of ICLR
if the ultimate goal is to make students pay the full cost of higher
education, because tuition fees are already rising outrageously.
Students' indebteness is also growing at an alarming rate, and
7058
not just the national debt. Students' personal debt is already
rising fast.
Indeed, students have great difficulty repaying their loans
once they graduate. According to an article that appeared in the
October 18 edition of the Globe and Mail, the federal
government is now owed close to $1 billion by former students
unable to repay their loans. The new financial assistance law
passed on June 23 will allow us to compensate by turning to
banks, whose customary generosity is well known. These banks
will not hesitate to recover students' debts.
Here is another statistic: former students unable to pay for
their studies make up 10 per cent of personal bankruptcy cases.
What do they want to do now? They want to increase these
students' debt load. Where are we heading, Mr. Speaker?
Although figures are often contradictory, according to the
Committee on Human Resources, the average Canadian student
owes $11,000. At first sight, this does not seem very high, but it
is the average and we know that the average includes those
students who do not complete their college or university studies.
This means that, at least in Quebec, the $11,000 average debt
would be closer to $16,000 or $17,000 for those about to receive
their B.A., and some even talk about a higher figure.
(1410)
They mention an average of $21,000 for students with a
master's degree and $37,000 for those with a Ph.D. The
Federation of Students thinks that these figures will double. We
can see what kind of debt load this could lead to.
I do not think that the purpose of this motion is to help
students. If we read paragraph (a) of the motion tabled by the
leader of the Reform Party, we can see clearly that such is not the
case. Its first objective is to ``reduce the cost to taxpayers of
financing post-secondary education''. The goal is not to help
students but to reduce the deficit. So we, of course, disagree
with the motion as it now stands.
A closer look at the text of the motion gives us a better
understanding of the real motives of this party which, above all,
wants to cut costs. I said that in paragraph (a), the reason was to
reduce the cost to taxpayers of financing post-secondary
education. Like the Liberal government, the Reform Party
recommends reducing the government's financial commitments
to post-secondary education. Its purpose in presenting this
motion is, first of all, to reduce government spending.
Students will have to pay higher tuition fees as a result of
government cutbacks. The Reform Party and the Liberal
government describe income contingent loan repayment as a
blessing for students, but they omit the fact that this measure
comes at a time of major cuts in financing for post-secondary
institutions. The blessing is rather dubious.
We are against cuts in post-secondary education. If the
government wants to withdraw from an area that is an
exclusively provincial jurisdiction, it should do so across the
board, not just financially. The government seems to want to
control more while spending less. There is a contradiction here.
We agree the system for repayment of student loans should be
changed, but not in the way suggested by the Leader of the
Reform Party or by the Liberal government under its current
social security reform.
Occasionally, references are made to countries like Sweden,
Australia and New Zealand, which have introduced income
contingent loan repayment systems. We know that New Zealand
was forced to do so by the IMF. However, people tend to forget
that the position of students and post-secondary education
financing differs from one country to the next. It is therefore
very difficult to apply in this country what is being done
elsewhere, especially since the ICLR systems used in these
countries are relatively recent and according to initial results
have shown that they are not successful.
Closer to home, a pilot project in Ontario had 1,000 openings
and only 75 people took advantage of this opportunity, 75 out of
a potential 1,000. Why? Because, students, the Canadian
Federation of Students and the Quebec Federation, all the major
student federations are against the system. Why? Because it
only covers loans, and there are no provisions for bursaries.
In Quebec, we have a bursary program that is very popular.
Since I only have one minute left, I see the Chairman of the
Human Resources Committee, and I happen to be a member of
this committee which will organize wide-ranging consultations
across the country. I think this is a concept that could be
discussed, but I think we would need some in-depth
consultation before getting it on the road.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak on the motion
of my esteemed colleague, Motion No. 291, to amend the
Canada Student Loans Act to include an income contingent loan
repayment system in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayers of
financing post-secondary education.
Before I begin I would like to address my colleague's concern.
This is not a turf war between provinces. We are bringing this
motion forward for students across this country and we do not
care what province they come from. I suggest that he look to
7059
New Zealand and Australia to see two places where the motion
has been brought into play and where it works.
D (1415)
If health is the most important thing that Canadians value then
surely education is its greatest investment. A solid investment in
education for the people of this country, particularly its youth, is
the greatest guarantee that we can have to ensure the social and
economic integrity of our society.
Canadian universities are now in a state of serious financial
crisis. Administrators, faculty and students alike agree that the
fiscal crisis we are now in compromises their ability to provide
for the best educational opportunities for the youth of this
country.
Underfunding on every campus is pervasive and the effects
are extremely negative. Fat has already been removed from the
system. We are now down to the bone and the bone is being
chipped away.
It was not so long ago that I graduated from the University of
Toronto after spending seven years there. It has not become any
easier since I graduated. Underfunding for the students is still a
huge problem as an example. The percentage of students
borrowing from 1982 to 1990 has risen from 44 to 47 per cent
but the amount they owe when they get out has also increased
dramatically, from $5,400 to $8,600 for merely a bachelors
degree. This is especially prevalent among those of lower
socioeconomic groups.
The fact that costs are increasing is compounded by the fact
that students cannot find summer jobs or part time jobs to offset
their tuition fee. In effect they are caught between a rock and a
hard place. On one hand they recognize that their best hope for a
career and a future to become financially independent is to
acquire post-secondary education. On the other hand they
recognize that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to fund
it but to drop out of school will commit them generally speaking
to a life of low paying jobs with little potential for advancement.
Recent studies have shown that the most important factor of
gaining employment is in fact some form of post-secondary
education. This fiscal crisis that students have can be amplified
on a macro scale to our country by the fact that we have
increasing deficits that add to the debt which produces
increasing interest payments that extracted from the
government and enables less money to be paid for programs
such as education. I know we keep on harping on this fact but we
will repeat it a thousand times until the government gets into its
head what needs to be done.
It is a vicious cycle that has to end. I am encouraging the
Minister of Finance who has at long last admitted to the problem
and has an understanding of what to do. However he does not
have a plan. We do in this party. It is called the zero in three plan.
Again I encourage the Minister of Finance to solicit our help in
aiding him to make fair, equitable and constructive cuts to
minimize the hardships for people while enabling this country to
get the economic kickstart it is so desperately in need of. We
have a plan. All he needs to do is ask us for it.
We in this party have also looked for ways to ensure that every
qualified student gets equal access to post-secondary education
and not just the rich. In response to this my colleague has again
brought up what I will refer to, and he has explained, as the
ICLR, a concept that our party has been advocating for years. It
has widespread support among students, administrators, and
educators alike across the country. It has been applauded by
these groups as being fair, more effective, and more fiscally
responsible than any other way of dealing with the student loan
system.
Currently our system has the same loan limits and criteria and
has not changed since 1984. It is behind the times; behind the
times with the costs of education rising, the cost of living rising,
and job availability decreasing. The loan system has become
archaic and much less helpful for the student population and
requires immediate revamping.
When students graduate they often find it very difficult to find
employment in the job market and this is becoming increasingly
more difficult with time. Real incomes are down, job prospects
are down, and they cannot pay back their loans. As a result of
this, 70 per cent default in the first 12 to 18 months. This does
not lead to a system that is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating
for future generations. It costs the taxpayers money. It is a drain
and an unnecessary one at that. It detracts money from higher
education.
(1420)
How bad is this situation? Let us take a look. In 1992 loan
defaulting became epidemic. The value of loans defaulted since
1964 is in the order of a billion dollars. That represents 180,000
students. The cost of extraction will be between $135 million
and $270 million, money again removed from the educational
system that could best be spent to provide for students in the
trenches.
The finance minister has also proposed to convert the cash
contribution of education from $2.6 billion to zero by the year
2006. This will produce a sharp rise in tuition fees and some say
will double in the year 1997. The problem is becoming more
critical in the very near future.
This is the most interesting fact. Most people after they
receive their post-secondary education ultimately do find a job.
The problem occurs in the first few years after they graduate
when they are not making much money at all. Because of the
inflexibility of the current loan repayment system they are
forced to default. This is a tragic loss to the taxpayer and our
educational system and one that is unnecessary.
7060
That is why this ICLR system that we propose is a powerful
tool to ensure greater certainty of return by tying the repayment
scheme to the income of the student. It would not cost more
to operate because it would operate through the existing income
tax structure and would be easily managed.
With the ICLR, this would produce a system that would be
self-sustaining with a much higher rate of return and much more
money being kept in the educational system. It is fair and
non-discriminating.
Education is indeed the hope of the future. In this world of
globalization and specialization, with the rapid movement of
capital across borders, economies are forced to change and
change rapidly. That is why our educational system must be
nimble in its ability to accommodate the needs of a rapidly
changing economy.
It is estimated that a student now graduating will change his or
her profession four, five or more times in the course of their
lifetime. With this in mind, we will need an expanded
educational system and the ICLR will produce the funding for
this system by stanching the losses incurred through defaulting.
I implore the government to look ahead to the future, not five
years but forty years down the line to anticipate the needs of our
economy and provide for these educational opportunities now.
This will require courage and foresight with this knowledge.
Our country demands a strong workforce. A workforce can
only be strong if it is given the proper educational opportunities
that it deserves which will cost money, money that will be harder
to find. That is why Motion No. 291 is a must to support. We in
this party support it. I hope people across the House and across
party borders will take it in their hearts to support this motion
for students all across the country.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
debate the motion thoroughly, we should take a moment to
reflect upon what we expect from higher education.
Canadians understand that we face tougher competition here
at home and around the world. Knowledge based industries are
becoming more important. We hear more about concepts like
distance education and lifelong learning.
The pace of change is accelerating. Knowledge intensive
industries like telecommunications, environmental services,
computer technology and biotechnology will provide economic
growth now and into the future.
The working world has changed dramatically. Canadians can
now expect to change jobs several times in a working career, as
the hon. member just said. No one can count on lifetime secure
positions with a single employer.
We know that a majority of jobs now being created will
require at least 16 years of schooling. Higher education and
continuous retraining will be necessary to remain competitive in
the marketplace of the future.
While Canadians are being told to acquire more education,
tuition fees have been rising and changes to the family structure
and the economic environment have been making it difficult for
some people to return to school to complete their studies.
Therefore, we take the hon. member's motion to consider the
advisability of income contingent repayment quite seriously.
Under ICR loan repayments would be adjusted to incomes.
Graduates could begin their working lives knowing their student
loan debts would not overwhelm their incomes. Such systems
could reach potential students who are now deterred by the
prospect of large, fixed loan repayments after they leave school.
(1425 )
As the member may know, the federal and provincial
governments have discussed these concepts in the past. We will
continue to examine them. An ICR student loan system deserves
careful consideration. The potential cost implications will be a
factor in our assessment because the federal government must
reduce spending in all areas in order to address the deficit. The
matter is as clear to the hon. leader of the Reform Party as it is to
me. Cost will not be the only factor.
The member's motion is an opportunity to elaborate on the
discussion of income contingent repayment in the social
security reform discussion paper. Every year the provinces
receive a higher proportion of their post-secondary education
funding as a result of the transfer of tax points. The overall
transfer of funds from the federal government is not increasing.
This means that while the tax point transfer increases provincial
revenues, revenues that are supposed to be used to support
educational institutions, the direct cash component of the
transfer is declining.
The provinces in the coming years will retain the tax points
and they will steadily increase in value as the economy grows.
The federal government is asking the provinces to consider
shifting the current cash transfers into expanded loans and
grants to students. The result would be a permanent $2 billion
loan fund for sustainable student aid.
The resource would continue to grow in the future and extend
its benefits to succeeding generations of Canadians. This is not
the blind and brutal cost cutting that some opponents of social
security review fear. Designed properly and carefully
administered, we could put in place a resource that would help
educate generations of students.
As a proposal for change the hon. member's motion is one
more voice calling for creative ways to help every Canadian
with ability and the desire to attend college or university. We
have already taken measures to increase and enhance student
7061
assistance and to help students make the school to work
transition.
We have high expectations of our graduates. We want them to
maintain a prominent place for Canada among the advanced
countries of the world. Considering our expectations, providing
student aid to those in need is more than a commitment to
fairness and equality; it is an investment in people. The amount
and the conditions of that investment in student loans reflect the
confidence we have in their abilities.
We need a climate that encourages both entrepreneurs and
investors. We need a highly skilled and adaptable workforce to
keep pace with the competition in high tech industries around
the world. Now Canadians want clear direction to guide their
individual decisions on education and training.
This generation of decision makers must give all Canadians
realistic choices because now more than ever we need
everyone's skills and capabilities mobilized to build our
common future. In creating opportunities the government put its
commitment to education and training on the record. We are
keeping our promises.
For 30 years the Canada student loans program has reduced
financial obstacles to post-secondary education for over two
million students. The new measures we introduced this past
spring will make education more accessible to students with
disabilities. Those students will help build larger, better
educated and a more representative workforce.
Other reforms reach out to a growing constituency of part
time students by increasing their loan limit from $2,500 to
$4,000. Under the new financing arrangement part time students
will pay only the interest on their loans while they are still in
school. Single parents will face fewer obstacles to their
education. The new needs assessment acknowledges the reality
of child care and transportation expenses as well as tuition and
books.
To address their present under-representation, women in
engineering, mathematics and science programs at the doctoral
level will be eligible for special opportunity grants of up to
$3,000 per year.
The Canada Student Financial Assistance Act reforms are
designed to help those who need better access to post-secondary
education. Today more than 900,000 full time and more than
half a million part time students are pursuing a higher education.
They do not just represent an investment in our future, they are
the future.
The new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act also
enables the federal government to join provinces in pilot studies
of income contingent replacement systems. The hon. member
opposite might recall that we wrote this specific provision into
the Canada Student Loans Act so we could investigate its
usefulness.
Income contingent replacement has some very attractive
features. It can be designed to meet different categories of need
while students are still in school. After finishing school, the
graduate who finds employment can pay off the loan at a rate
that by definition is affordable.
The student's risk is reduced because the loan would adjust to
an unexpectedly low income. We have heard the term offloading
from some students who oppose the ICR assistance, because
they believe people will graduate with huge debtloads. ICR
assistance can be deigned to protect the very small number of
students who necessarily take on a high level of debt.
Just as we have made provision for large debts in the Canada
Students Financial Assistance Act, we could design a system
that eased the burden for these situations. For the average
student, the extra burden is estimated at about $2,000 a year. To
put that in perspective, two years after graduation, the person
with a post-secondary education is making 25 per cent more
than someone with only a high school diploma.
(1430 )
If students take out a loan to finance their education, they are
the best judges of how much debt they can assume. If they are
wrong about their future earnings, they are only required to
repay what they can afford.
In effect, borrowers are protected from the risk of being
unable to pay and their borrowing relates to their ability to pay
rather than that of their parents. We do not intend to bury our
students under a mountain of debt, far from it. We will support
their efforts to get the education they want. We want them to go
on and hold jobs and create jobs. When that happens, the student
loans system benefits all of us.
The hon. member's motion and the new Canada Student
Financial Assistance Act both address the aim of meeting the
challenge of allocating education costs fairly between
governments and students.
Some groups oppose an ICR while others believe there will be
benefits. The Association of Universities and Colleges has
proposed an ICR type system. The Association of Community
Colleges is generally in favour. Some student associations are
interested in the concept. I note that some institutions have
concern with the proposals in the social security review with
respect to EPF transfers.
We are in dialogue with these institutions and welcome their
active participation in the social security review. Their ideas and
support are extremely important for all Canadians.
There are no exact models elsewhere in the world that tell us
how ICR would work in Canada, in the Canadian environment.
We must evaluate the idea in the Canadian context. We want to
know if we can build a comprehensive system to help
7062
students in need without putting a greater burden on the
taxpayer.
Social programs save money by putting resources where they
belong, training and employment skills for those who need them
and protection for those people who need help.
The current system is not doing a good job. It keeps some
Canadians in poverty and dependence. Any new system must
help people learn the skills, develop the skills they need to get
back on their feet.
We hope that the social security review will bring to light
more interesting and creative concepts. It is safe to assume we
will need flexible and responsive systems to meet the training
requirements of the Canadian workforce.
In the final analysis, Canadians want a system that works. We
know that success in advanced technologies is the key to a
prosperous and caring society. The key to future success is
advanced education. Canadians must share in the benefits and
costs of academic success.
We expect many more Canadians will enroll in our colleges
and universities. Young and old alike will want the skills that
keep them employed in well paying and challenging jobs. The
social security review will examine anything that could
contribute to this success. Together as partners, we can manage
our educational resources to meet the needs of every student.
When our students succeed their achievements benefit all of us.
The hon. member's motion has illuminated one possible
response to the need for fair and effective student loans.
Through this debate within the context of the social security
review and elsewhere we will continue to seek out, listen to and
investigate every possible means by which Canadians can build
prosperous and productive futures through training and
education.
The Deputy Speaker: There are approximately seven
minutes left. The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound has
approximately seven minutes. He will have three minutes in the
next two-hour session.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance this week like never before cut
through the traditional Liberal ideology and wishful thinking
when he warned that spending cuts are needed or the country
will go bankrupt.
The search for such cuts is now on. I predict confidently that
the post-secondary education sector will not be spared such cuts
any more than any other of the many worthy spending programs
in our society except those serving the truly needy, handicapped
and aged.
If this education sector joins all the other recipients of
government funds in the traditional refusal to accept cuts and
the government accedes to their wishes, the coming financial
crisis very soon will make the recently proposed cuts seem
trivial.
Under either scenario, I believe that it is in the self-interest of
the higher education sector to consider methods for dealing with
the coming financial difficulties.
I recommend this course of action because I am totally
convinced of the economic and social merit of higher education.
How could it be any other way after 30 years of university
teaching, the experience of having seen first hand many
generations of young people gaining knowledge and maturity
that prepared them for successful careers in their lives. I do so
because I am a realist and I wish to see a continued, strong
higher education industry in Canada.
(1435)
The financial innovation that will help this sector overcome
the upcoming financial problems is found in the private
member's bill for the establishment of income contingent
student loans which we are here to discuss today. What are these
innovative types of loans? The idea is simple. Students receive
government loans that they can use to pay tuition at institutions
of higher learning. The loans plus accrued interest are repaid in
instalments once the borrowers have reached a specified level of
income. Revenue Canada would serve as a collection agency at
low cost.
Detailed legislation has to address a number of important
characteristics of this system such as the maximum amount a
person can borrow, the interest to be charged, the income
threshold when repayment starts, the period of required
amortization which determines the maximum annual income tax
surcharge.
While one should never underestimate the devil that lurks in
these details, enough research and practical experience with the
principle of income contingent loans exist to make me confident
that it is workable, efficient and equitable. The program would
give students the ability to pay more of the true cost of their
education. Institutions of higher learning could use this ability
to recover more of their operating costs, replacing the funds lost
as a result of the government's present financial problems.
Students certainly will not like having to absorb more of the
cost of their own education. I would be very disappointed if they
did not launch massive protests and repeat all the old chestnuts
about the unfairness of it all, how it prevents those with low
income parents from obtaining higher education and so on. I
sympathize with these students. They have had a good deal for a
long time and very few people will want to give it up when they
have had such a good deal.
I enjoyed having these benefits when I was a student. The time
of free lunches and good deals is over. I wish it were not so, that
we could go back to the past when the taxpayer paid the full fare.
No wishing will bring it back. The country is heading for
bankruptcy and students will have to share in the burden of
preventing this untold disaster. Do not shoot the messenger.
7063
A few facts should be considered by those concerned about
the fairness and efficiency of the proposed system. Canada
devotes a large amount of resources to higher education. The
direct and indirect annual costs are about $15,000 per student
per year which in total are exceeded only by the costs of health
care.
There are over 100 universities and other institutions of
higher learning for 29 million Canadians. Nova Scotia has 32
university places per 1,000 population. Analogous figures are
21 for Ontario and 13 for British Columbia.
As a result of past investment in higher education 17 per cent
of Canada's population hold university degrees. This compares
very favourably with 7 per cent in France and 8 per cent in the
United Kingdom.
Students should also consider the following fact about their
ability to pay a larger share of the true cost of higher education. I
am sorry, I have to wind down. I will have to continue next time,
but the point is that the private rate of return to higher education
is-
The Deputy Speaker: Thanks to the graciousness of the
parliamentary secretary, it is proposed that we not see the clock.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the generosity
of the members opposite.
Census data show that Canadians with bachelor degrees on
average earn higher incomes than Canadians with lower levels
of educational attainment. The present value of these lifetime
income premiums is much greater than the costs involved in
obtaining the degrees. These costs consist of tuition fees at
recent levels, costs of books and supplies and, quantitatively
dwarfing all the other costs, the earnings forgone while in
university.
The rates of return on these investments in recent decades
have been about 7 to 10 per cent. This is a very good rate of
return. It is capable of absorbing very substantial increases in
tuition costs without becoming less than the real long run rates
of return available in financial market instruments.
Students concerned about the fairness of our society's
spending and taxation system should be aware that the vast bulk
of university graduates come from families in the middle and
higher end of the income distribution. Yet a substantial
proportion of the tax revenue used to pay for their education is
collected from Canadians with lower incomes. In effect, the
present system forces low income earners to subsidize those
with higher incomes to get their university education.
The proposed system will correct this inequity. Middle and
higher income families will pay a larger share of the higher
education benefits they receive. If bad luck prevents them from
enjoying the benefits of higher education, these students will not
have to repay.
Students concerned about the access of the poor to higher
education are reminded that under the present system the poor
are often excluded because they do not qualify for fixed
repayment loans. Under this system, no questions are asked and
they will have access without any difficulty. They have to repay
only if they are able to do so.
Finally, I would like to raise a point that is not often
discussed. Under the present arrangement, students choices are
severely limited. Programs offered by state monopolies of
higher education have been slow to react to the demands of
students in a changing world. It is well known that the solution
to these problems lies in the use of vouchers, that is,
non-repayable certificates given to students and cashable at
institutions of their choice. The Reform Party supports the use
of such vouchers and the resultant empowerment of students.
The income contingent loans program moves the system
closer to the ultimate goal of vouchers. It similarly empowers
students to obtain study programs that they like rather than those
that professors and bureaucrats think they should like. By
spending their loan money in institutions of their choice, they
encourage them to grow and force others to shrink. Since they
spend their own repayable money, they have the proper
incentives to make wise choices.
The time for income contingent loans for students in higher
education has come. This proposed system offers an efficient
and equitable way out of the problems created by the country's
financial crisis.
I hope the government will take note of this private member's
bill introduced by the Reform Party and debated today and that it
will offer promptly legislation to put it into effect.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair would thank the members
for their co-operation and assistance to the member who just
spoke.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the motion
is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.44 p.m.)