CONTENTS
Thursday, October 19, 1995
Bill C-352. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 15563
Bill C-353. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 15563
Bill C-106. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15564
Division on motion deferred 15584
Bill C-105. Motion for second reading 15584
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15597
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 15597
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15598
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15598
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15599
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15599
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15599
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15600
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15600
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15600
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15600
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15600
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15601
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15601
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15602
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15602
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 15602
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15603
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 15603
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15603
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15603
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15604
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15604
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15604
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15606
Bill C-105. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15607
Motion for reference to committee of the whole 15611
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and,by unanimous
consent, the House went into committeethereon, Mr. Kilger in the
chair.) 15611
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.) 15611
(Clauses 6 to 22 inclusive agreed to.) 15611
(Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.) 15611
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 15611
Motion for concurrence 15611
(Motion agreed to.) 15611
Motion for third reading 15611
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 15614
Bill C-107. Motion for second reading 15614
Consideration resumed of motion 15626
15563
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 19, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I
have the honour to table in both official languages the
government's response to 24 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two
copies of the 1994-95 annual report of the B.C. Treaty
Commission.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act (members who cease to be citizens of
Canada).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would disqualify a former
member or the former member's estate or family from any
allowance or benefit under the act if the member ceases to be a
Canadian citizen.
This is in essence a bit of housework on my behalf. It would not
apply to the withdrawal allowance payable to a member who ceases
to participate in the plan which consists of the return of the
member's earlier contributions plus interest.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-353, an act respecting a national organ donor day
in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes the efforts of a
constituent of mine, Mrs. Linda Rumble of Whitby, Ontario, and
the ultimate gift her nephew, two-year old Stuart Alan Herriott,
gave to others whom he had never met.
The bill will assist in providing more public education and
awareness on organ donation by making every April 21 known as
national organ donor day right across this great nation.
April 21 marks the anniversary of the death of Stuart,
affectionately known by his family as Stu Buddy. It is hoped that by
establishing a national organ donor day more Canadians will be
encouraged to make a pledge to organ donation. In doing so,
Stuart's supreme gift will be remembered and his act of kindness
can be repeated by other Canadians throughout Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my great privilege to present a petition from my constituents
reaffirming the importance of a united Canada.
This petition is signed and supported by French as well as
English speaking Canadians, by aboriginal Canadians and by those
Canadians who have come from other countries.
It is an honour for me to represent these cultures as they come
together to voice their desire to keep Canada united and to keep
Quebec in Canada.
[Translation]
Clearly, a vast majority of Canadians want a strong, united
Canada, as do a large number of French Canadians and other
francophones in Canada.
15564
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed
by some 120 constituents of Wetaskiwin.
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 which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of
sexual orientation.
(1010 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. The petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Delta and Vancouver, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill,
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am certainly pleased to
present a petition signed by well over 100 residents, mostly in the
Campobello area of my riding of Carleton-Charlotte.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
GST for short term rentals from the United States is applied to the
full value of the item being rented instead of on the rental value
itself. They request that Parliament assess the GST to be only on
the market rental value of the item in question in the future. I am
pleased to table this petition.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to
eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide
care in the home for preschool children, as well as for the disabled,
the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a number of petitions.
The first is signed by many hundreds of people in the province of
British Columbia. It relates to the Pest Control Products Act and is
particularly directed toward the poisons that were introduced for
pesticidal use after World War II and which created a serious
environmental hazard.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition relates to the Young Offenders Act. It calls
attention to the increase in sexual predatory acts and asks for
tougher legislation.
The third petition relates again to the Young Offenders Act and
specifically refers to acts of violence committed by young people.
The petitioners ask for changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fourth petition is also from residents of British Columbia. It
relates to the conscientious objection act, in particular to the
payment of taxes for the maintenance of Canadian military forces.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15564
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 17, 1995, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-106, an act respecting the Law Commission of
Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
now at the second reading stage of Bill C-106, an act to create, or
rather to exhume, the Law Commission of Canada. The Minister of
Justice now wants to revive this useless creature, which cost
15565
taxpayers $105 million over its 20 years of existence and which
made only a few recommendations that were adopted by
Parliament.
The Law Reform Commission created in 1971 was responsible
for reviewing Canada's laws on an on-going and systematic basis.
The research work done by the former commission was divided
into three main areas: substantive criminal law, criminal procedure,
and administrative law. In its last year of existence, the
commission had a budget of $5 million.
(1015)
In addition to its members and employees, the commission hired
a number of outside consultants.
The commission spent over 82 per cent of its budget on salaries
and on special and professional services. This small organization
was very costly. Most of its staff consisted of university researchers
and lawyers hired as consultants for short periods. The emphasis
was on research and not on efficient management. Research
programs that were out of touch with reality and astronomical costs
were the two main reasons why the government of the day pulled
the plug on the old commission.
With Bill C-106, the Minister of Justice is about to make a
monumental mistake. The minister is showing the federal
government's inability to manage responsibly. Therefore, he is
giving us another good reason to vote Yes on October 30.
The Minister of Justice intends to sink millions of dollars into a
revived law reform commission. This shameful waste must be
vigorously denounced.
I am appalled to see that the Minister of Justice has still not
recovered from acute consultitis. Not only has he been consulting
left and right since receiving his mandate but he now wants to
create an organization dedicated to consulting. As silly as this may
sound, the Minister of Justice is nonetheless taking himself
seriously.
Let me read you the first paragraph of the bill's preamble. It
reads: ``whereas, after extensive national consultations, the
Government of Canada has determined that it is desirable to
establish a commission to provide independent advice on
improvements, modernization and reform of the law of Canada,
which advice would be based on the knowledge and experience of a
wide range of groups and individuals''.
The government of Canada has determined that it is desirable to
waste $3 million per year on this consulting commission. It has
determined that it is desirable to appoint 29 of its federalist friends
to this commission.
It seems obvious to me that the Minister of Justice and his
government are taking us for fools. Let me tell you that, whatever
the consultation minister's views on the matter, Bloc Quebecois
members will not let him table something as half baked as this
without denouncing it.
Did he expect that we would be too busy during the referendum
to notice he was pulling a fast one on us? Perhaps he assumed that
the miller could not look after the mill and the oven at the same
time.
As I said a moment ago, the minister's condition is going from
bad to worse. His bill provides that all those involved are to consult
one another. I consult you, you consult me, we consult each other.
At a cost of $3 million per year, this makes for a very expensive
consultation process.
Clause 5 of Bill C-106 states, and I quote:
(1) The Commission shall
(a) consult with the Minister of Justice with respect to the annual program of
studies that it proposes to undertake;
(b) prepare such reports as the Minister, after consultation with the
Commission and taking into consideration the workload and resources of the
Commission, may require;
And that is not all. Clause 18 provides for the establishment of
the Law Commission of Canada Advisory Council, and clause 19
states, and I quote:
The Council shall-advise the Commission on any matter relating to the
purpose of the Commission, including the Commission's strategic directions
and long-term program of studies and the review of the Commission's
performance.
This silliness goes on in clause 20, which reads, and I quote:
For the purpose of advising and assisting the Commission in any particular
project, the Commission may establish a study panel presided over by a
Commissioner and consisting of persons having specialized knowledge in, or
particularly affected by, the matter to be studied.
Between obtaining advice, consulting and acting on this advice
and the results of consultations, I wonder when the commissioners
will find the time to do their job, to justify an annual budget of $3
million. This is outrageous.
(1020)
This bill does not even have the merit of being an original piece
of legislation. It is almost a carbon copy of the Law Reform
Commission Act, which was repealed three years ago. The two
texts are so similar that you might think they are one and the same.
For example, the provisions dealing with the goals and objectives
of the commissions, both the former one and the one being
proposed, are substantially identical. I hope that the minister is not
serious when he claims that the future commission will be different
from the old one, because their goals and objectives are identical.
The only difference is the purported independence of the new
commission. I will get back to this.
If you read the two legal texts side by side, you come to the
following conclusion. The former commission's mandate was to
15566
study and review Canada's acts and legal rules, while the proposed
commission will study and review Canada's law.
The former commission was set up to eliminate anachronisms
and flaws in the law, while the proposed commission will provide
advice to eliminate the rules of law which have become obsolete, as
well as the flaws in the law.
The former commission was to develop new methods and
concepts related to the law, while the proposed commission will
provide advice to develop new legal perspectives and concepts.
It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. We were told that
justice department officials worked on this legislation for two
years. It is unthinkable that they would have spent so much time to
come up with this result. The only new element proposed by the
minister is the commission's advisory body, which will include 24
members. The minister wants to bring back to life an organization
which should not be revived.
The reasons the previous government disbanded the former
commission are essentially the ones for which the Bloc Quebecois
cannot now support such a waste of public money. The previous
government had come to the conclusion that the services provided
by the former commission could be adequately obtained by
transferring to the justice department the responsibility of
commissioning research work from non governmental
organizations, under specific mandates. The Minister of Justice and
his department were to seek the opinion of researchers and
professionals on a factual basis. Consequently, the Law Reform
Commission was disbanded and the resources to be kept were
transferred to the justice department.
Interestingly, that department currently has a division called the
Law Reform Division. This division was formed after the old
commission disappeared. The financial resources of the former
commission were therefore added to the budget of Justice. The
division had an budget of $1.5 million the first year and $2 million
the next. At the present time it has three full time employees and
one part time.
The minister wishes to create a new commission when there are
already competent staff in place capable of meeting the
government's requirements. The law reform division does a good
job of carrying out the task for which it is intended. The minister
can very readily mandate this law reform division to carry out all
projects focussing on orienting or reforming Canadian law or to
seek innovative solutions to endemic problems. Ironically, in May
1994 it was this division which assumed responsibility for
distribution of a questionnaire to 884 individuals or organizations
concerning the creation of a new law reform commission.
The department got back 126 responses to its mailing of 884
questionnaires. So much for the extensive consultations referred to
in the preamble to the bill.
The minister would have us believe that his commission will be
independent in nature. This is clearly indicated in clause 3, which
states as follows:
The purpose of the Commission is to study-the concepts-of the common
law and civil law systems-with a view to providing independent advice on
improvements, modernization and reform-
This is total nonsense. The partisan character of the process to
appoint the five commissioners is obvious. These positions are
clearly rewards for good and faithful service. The five
commissioners will in fact be appointed by the Prime Minister on
the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. It goes without
saying that these commissioners will be paid royally. Certainly, the
annual commission budget is evaluated at $3 million. As well, the
commissioners' appointments will be during pleasure, in other
words they can be dismissed if they are found unsuitable and do not
toe the party line.
(1025)
After appointment, the commissioners will in turn appoint the
members of the advisory council. There will be 24 of them, and
they also will hold office during pleasure.
These 29 persons will therefore make up the Law Commission of
Canada. With 29 partisan appointments, the Minister of Justice is
setting up his own fan club. To be a member, all you have to do is
be in the good graces of the Minister of Justice and be willing to go
through three million dollars a year. This will be a fan club of
intellectuals philosophizing on legal niceties. They will be so
disconnected from reality that the Minister of Justice will not take
long to realize his error and will put an end to this nonsense.
In looking at the reasons the old commission was dissolved we
can understand why there ought not to be another. The old one was
strongly criticized by the office of the Auditor General of Canada
in the House. In 1985, it carried out an in depth analysis of the
operations and administration of the defunct commission. In his
report, the auditor general was critical of the commission's project
management.
The following is very illuminating: ``Since 1972, the
commission has not revised its original research program or
submitted a supplementary or a second program, despite extensive
changes in its work. Also significant delays have occurred in
carrying out its research program and significantly more resources
have been committed to it than were envisaged in 1972. For
example, none of the estimated completion dates was met, and
many of the original projects are still in progress 10 years after
their originally stated completion dates''.
15567
The auditor general went on to say that the program's
effectiveness was not measured, there was a lack of guidelines
concerning project management and a lack of control and
supervision.
Clearly, the Minister of Justice never bothered to read the auditor
general's report. He should have. The former commission,
however, was rather proud of its record. In 1991, in the
commission's twentieth annual report, the president at the time,
Gilles Létourneau, eager to justify the commission's existence,
wrote that on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary, the
commission could be proud of the impressive number of its
achievements, especially in the legislative field, that the
commission was far more than an agency that made
recommendations to Parliament on how to improve Canadian laws,
that, in fact, it had initiated extensive research in various areas of
the law, producing 33 reports, 63 working papers, 78 published
studies and more than 300 supporting documents.
I would be curious to know where all those documents are
gathering dust. It is all very well to say that the commission
produced reams of documents, but to what purpose? In 20 years
only three proposals for legislation were accepted by Parliament.
The explanation is simple. A commission that operates in tandem
with governments cannot hope to amend or improve the law if its
amendments or reforms are not part of the legislative agenda of the
government of the day.
(1030)
The auditor general's report is very informative about this aspect
as well, and I quote: ``The commission, however, is not satisfied
with its impact on legislative changes and readily acknowledges its
modest record in comparison with that of other law reform
commissions. Because of its statutory independence, it establishes
its own programs and has not been asked by the Minister of Justice
to carry out specific research activities. Therefore, the
commission's areas of research and study often have not been high
priority areas for government legislative agendas''.
The dissatisfaction of the commissioners at the time seems to
indicate that the former commission was more in need of direction
and controls than independence and broad, poorly defined
mandates. The Department of Justice never played its role as a
supervisory body. The situation was allowed to deteriorate to the
point that the government no longer had a choice. It had to get rid
of the commission and merge some of its resources with the
Department of Justice, leading to the creation of the law reform
division.
I must say the approach taken by the Minister of Justice is not
very sound. He calls the future commission a new and improved
law reform commission of Canada. If he really wanted
improvements, he would leave things as they are. He already has a
new and improved commission within his own department. I fail to
understand the justification provided by the Minister of Justice,
because, aside from handing out goodies to friends, the future
commission has no reason to exist.
Upon tabling the bill, the minister stated that Canada's legal
system faced complex problems that deserved more than a legal
solution. Effective and long-term solutions required an approach
that considered legal, social, economic and other aspects. The
federal government was of the opinion that an independent and
multidisciplinary law reform body was essential to this process.
The future commission will never be independent, since it will
be a fan club of the Minister of Justice. Even assuming that
appointments to the commission would not be partisan, the
Minister of Justice is heading straight for disaster. A more or less
independent commission would operate exactly like the former
commission, in other words, without controls and without
supervision.
The Minister of Justice has not learned from the mistakes of the
former commission. He preferred to ignore the auditor general's
report which was very critical of the commission. He still does not
realize that his department already has a division that is concerned
specifically with law reform.
Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
them. And that is exactly what the Minister of Justice is doing
today. His ignorance will cost us three millions dollars annually.
Another good reason to say yes on October 30.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say that in these days, when we find so little to agree
on with our friends from the Bloc, I would recommend to
Canadians the extremely well researched and cogent arguments put
forward in the paper by my hon. colleague who preceded me. Many
of the points that were made should be persuasive to this
government.
Unfortunately, one gets the impression in this House, and it is
more than just an impression, that what we say and do here in
debate is simply smoke and mirrors and window dressing and hot
air, because the course of the government is set and the government
members, who are in the majority, stand up and support it
invariably. The excellent, well-reasoned considerations that should
be taken into account before these pieces of legislation are foisted
on Canadians simply go by the by.
However, it is my duty to represent the people of Canada,
particularly the people of Calgary North who elected me, by
putting forward my concerns and my objections to this piece of
legislation.
(1035 )
When our country is in real difficulty with respect to public
safety and the workings of our criminal justice system, I find it
passing strange that the thing on the top of the justice minister's
mind is allowing the politically appointed parole board to
investigate itself if it decides to do that. He is setting up a bunch of
political appointments to make recommendations to the minister
15568
about what he should do about the law. I do not think there is any
question in the minds of Canadians what should be done about the
law. However, apparently the justice minister is so unsure that he is
going to need some extra advice, for which we have to pay millions
of dollars.
Just so the Canadian public who are watching this debate are
clear on what we are talking about today, we are debating Bill
C-106. This reinstates a body that was formerly called the law
reform commission and is now being resurrected and reincarnated
under the name of the Law Commission of Canada.
The Law Commission of Canada will have five members, a full
time president and four appointed commissioners to assist the
president. In addition, unless these five people find themselves
bereft of ideas, they are going to be ably assisted by a further
government appointed body called the Law Commission of Canada
Advisory Council, with 24 additional patronage appointments.
Bill C-106 reinstates a failed body, this law commission of five
people and an additional 24 people to advise them. Apparently the
idea of this is to provide ``independent'' advice on needed
improvements, ``modernization'', and reform of Canadian law.
Again, we need to make it abundantly clear that the people of
Canada are not leaving the government in the dark about the
improvements and reforms that are needed in Canadian law. Why
they have to work hard to shell out another $3 million a year to
have the obvious stated, if in fact it is stated, is beyond the
comprehension of any hard working and overtaxed Canadian I can
think of.
This additional spending of $3 million a year is touted as a great
improvement because the old disbanded law reform commission
cost a whole $4.8 million a year, so we are actually saving $1.8
million with this new, streamlined version of the Canadian law
commission. I do not think it takes a cynical Canadian to figure out
that $3 million in budget almost invariably creeps up. If $3 million
is the bottom line, Canadians have to wonder what the top line is
going to be.
The old law reform commission grew into a very significant
bureaucracy. It is the nature of government to suspect and be
concerned that the same thing is going to happen again, because
these five commissioners and 24 advisers to the commissioners are
going to need some administrative assistance, which is going to be
another consideration.
In the justice minister's introduction of this bill he said
something that to me was extremely curious. He said ``This will be
an independent and accountable body working at arm's length from
government''. That is a direct quote. Canadians should know that
these five commissioners are being appointed by the cabinet of this
government on the recommendations of the justice minister. Tell
me and any other logical Canadian who might happen to be
listening to this debate how a body directly appointed by the justice
minister has even the feeblest chance of being independent. Give
Canadians some credit for intelligence here.
The minister then said, in the same twinning of words,
``independent and accountable''. I know that logic is not taught
much these days, but it begs the question of how a body can be both
independent of government and accountable to government at the
same time. It is just not possible. In fact the whole way this is set
up, independent is about the last thing this body is.
(1040)
The Minister of Justice has a history of encouraging politicized
bodies to endorse his predetermined positions. We saw that in the
debate on Bill C-68 and we have seen it in other debates. He will
get up and say that a certain group really supports this legislation.
Well yes, the group is funded by the government. One wonders
what group would not know what side its bread was buttered on. Of
course it will not bite the hand that feeds it. It will be a cheering
section for the very body that gives it dollars to keep going.
If we are going to talk about independence, let us at least be
honest. Let us at least be reasonable. Let us at least be logical. Let
us have something that will carry an ordinary judgment. This is not,
in any way, shape, or form, an independent body.
In a news release before Bill C-106 was introduced in the House,
the headline read: ``Minister of Justice Announces Creation of a
New Law Commission''. Since this thing has already been created,
why are we wasting our time debating it? We all know it is a done
deal. This debate is just a formality. The thing has been created. It
has been announced publicly. The public knows. Canadians have
been told. The objections we are going to be bringing forward in
the debate will mean nothing. It is nice that the opposition has a
chance to fire at this thing, but it is done.
I find that repugnant in a democratic system. I would like to
think that the work and the research I do in examining bills and
issues counts for something. But it is very clear to all Canadians
that it does not.
How independent is the commission? Clause 5 of the bill
requires that the Law Commission of Canada consult with the
minister before setting its agenda. That does not seem to me to be
independent. I suppose that good Liberals will say that the
commission does not have to listen to him. He is only the guy who
appointed them and gave them this wonderful patronage position in
the first place. He is only the guy who pays their salaries. He is only
the guy who will request reports from them. This consultation in
15569
setting the agenda really means that the commission is told by the
justice minister: ``This is what we want you to do''.
The commission is required by clause 5 to submit to the minister
reports that are required by the minister. It is a creature of the
minister. There is nothing independent about it. It is in the
legislation, to be seen clearly by anybody who looks at it. This is
nothing more than an extension of the minister and his department
doing work the justice department has already been contracting
out. It is an unnecessary, far from independent body.
How independent is it? The complete commission is under the
control of the minister. In the legislation it states clearly that these
appointments to the commission and to the advisory body to the
commission are held at the pleasure of the cabinet. Independent,
when the cabinet can fire them out the door at its pleasure? Give me
a break.
The commission is appointed by the justice minister. The
advisory council, in clause 18, which is made up of 24 members, is
appointed by the deputy minister and by the commission itself. The
commission is appointed by the justice minister and its advisers are
appointed by the commission and by the deputy minister, who is
the right hand man to the justice minister. This is hardly
independence.
(1045)
There is already legislation coming forward from the justice
department. One wonders how it has managed so far without the
commission. The whole point of having a justice ministry is to
make sure that we have proper legislation to protect the rights and
property of citizens.
Legislation is supposed to be developed within the Department
of Justice. It does the research and drafts legislation. Why does the
minister have to appoint a select group of advisers to know what
the country needs to protect the lives and property of Canadian
citizens? Is he not listening to Canadians?
The minister talks a lot about consultation. We have heard him
use this term in a glowing endorsement when he was talking about
other legislation he brought forward previously in the House. Now
the minister has another stick to beat us up with. He can say that the
Law Commission of Canada which he appointed, can tell what to
do and controls, although this will never be said, says that we
should do this.
Canadians who have not listened to the debate, who have not
examined the legislation, who do not know that the commission is
anything but independent will be fooled by it. Canadians think it is
another expert body they can be impressed with, the Law
Commission of Canada, not the minister's commission with people
who are manipulated and give him the answers and endorsements
he wants.
Laws should be developed by elected legislators who are closely
reflecting the wishes and the interests of the people they represent,
period. They should not be developed by appointed flunkeys of the
justice minister. This back door elite group of hand picked Liberal
policy makers have no business developing law for Canada.
The people of Canada elect representatives to do that. That is
why we get the big money. Why are we also getting millions of
dollars to have other people tell us what laws we need? What are
we doing here? Elected representatives are well able and should be
seeking all the time the views of researchers and knowledgeable
citizens throughout Canada. We do not need to appoint these people
and pay them to tell us what they think.
Law professors spend almost half their time in research; that is
part of their mandate. They are quite happy to pass on to elected
representatives the wisdom, the knowledge and the
recommendations they have come up with. We do not need to pay
for them.
We already have far too many boards and commissions in
Canada. The money that pays these people does not grow on trees.
People work darn hard for the tax money that the government
gobbles up. They do not want to pay a bunch of people to do a job
they have already elected people to do. It is ridiculous.
It is an insult to Canadians who are already hard pressed. They
are worried about their jobs. They are worried about their futures.
They are worried about having to pay their mortgages. Now they
have to pay a law reform commission $3 million a year.
The government does not have this money. It gets it from the rest
of us who are working. It is a shame that in these hard economic
times we would even think of asking Canadians for a few more
million dollars so we can have a nice little group of appointees for
the justice minister.
The parliamentary role should not be given to outsiders. Private
members' bills, for example, have been developed in the House.
The justice minister might consider that a very accurate law
commission. I sat in the House last evening when a member asked
for permission from other members of the House to withdraw a
private member's bill because he said that the government had
introduced legislation which essentially covered-and he was
satisfied that it fully covered-the concerns and the
recommendations he made in his private member's legislation.
Here is a law reform commission at work that is already being paid
properly within the system. This is the parliamentary role and it
should not be given to anybody else.
(1050)
One wonders if the justice minister is saying that he cannot
always control and influence what his colleagues in Parliament do,
so that is not good enough, and if he would rather have
recommendations from people whom he can control.
15570
It is just another chance for political activists to be rewarded
by government appointments and get on the government payroll.
It is another haven for Liberal political appointees. The justice
minister insults the intelligence of Canadians to claim that this
is anywhere close to being an independent commission. The
justice minister's fingerprints are all over the whole thing. He
picks the appointees. His top assistant and his appointees appoint
the group that advises the appointees.
Ms. Clancy: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Ablonczy: It may be funny to the hon. member for Halifax
but it is not funny to Canadians. They are paying for this nonsense.
The justice minister has a say in setting the agenda of his
appointees. He will have in subclause 5(2) flexibility in how he
deals with the commission's recommendations. In other words he
has the flexibility to totally ignore them, which is exactly what
happened in the past.
The legislation does not say how he has to respond. They are just
gathering dust, more reports to gather dust while the money rolls in
for the people who have been appointed to do a bit of work.
I close my presentation by making the minister an offer that I
feel he should not refuse. The Reform caucus will willingly take on
the onerous task of providing the minister with advice on needed
improvements and reforms to the laws of Canada. I speak in favour
of this generous offer.
First, it is the perfect solution for the justice minister. It will save
hard pressed and tax weary Canadians the $3 million a year the
justice minister would have to pay his hand picked advisers. We
will do it at no extra charge. We cannot get more generous than
that.
Second, it would allow the justice minister to help the Liberals
keep another red book promise, which so far has been sadly broken,
to base appointments on merit rather than on patronage. Who
would have more merit in advising the justice minister than
Reformers?
Third, the justice minister can be sure that Canadians are really
setting the agenda, not his appointed dependants.
Fourth, the proposals will be brought forward in the House of the
people for open scrutiny and debate from day one, not hatched
behind closed doors and pushed through by forced votes from
Liberal backbenchers. It will be truly independent of government
and fully accountable to the people of Canada, which is exactly
what it should be.
Fifth, last but not least, the minister can be absolutely certain
that he is receiving truly independent advice.
Voters elect at great consideration and cost their own
representatives to legislate to ensure peace, order and good
government in our country. If we could be allowed to do our job
responsibly and take into account the concerns and advice we
receive from Canadians every day, the justice system would make a
lot more sense and do a lot better job for Canadians.
As members might have guessed, we strongly oppose the
Liberals' appointing people from their approved list of friends to
do our job as members of Parliament and we oppose Bill C-106.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The first three interventions
had 40-minute maximums without questions or comments.
We will now go to the next stage of debate at second reading of
Bill C-106, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada,
where members for the next five hours will have 20-minute
maximums for their speeches and be subject to 10-minute question
and comment periods.
(1055 )
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is passing strange to hear some of the comments I have heard this
morning. It is nearly 90 years since Benjamin Cardozo wrote his
famous essay ``Ministries of Justice''.
For those who do not know better, it was said that Mr. Justice
Cardozo was the greatest jurist never appointed to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Then Herbert Hoover, in what some
have said was his greatest act as president, appointed Mr. Justice
Cardozo in his twilight years to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
When he wrote 90 years ago he was making the case for an
independent law commission. Its members would neither be civil
servants because they were too close to the minister, too much
under ministerial supervision, nor legislators because they were too
much concerned with the exigent here and now of reading the flow
of papers and attending to the details of legislation. He wanted
people with a long vision and a detachment from politics. This is
why he made the case.
His ministry of justice was not a ministry in our sense. It was an
independent body of law commissioners to take a long view to try
and establish the necessary relationship between positive law as
written and the society it was supposed to serve.
When he wrote he was undoubtedly reminded of the words of his
great friend, we understand from different legal tradition because
Cardozo was the son of immigrants who had come from different
legal tradition, Mr. Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: ``The life of
the law has not been logic; it has been experience''.
At the time Cardozo wrote the legal system in the United States,
Great Britain and parts of the then British Empire, now the
Commonwealth that received the common law tradition, the law
was essentially known as black letter law. From the vibrancy and
creativeness of the early days of the common law it had
degenerated into Lord Eldon's, it was said, juridical conservatism:
the pursuit of precedents divorced from social reality, the pursuit of
15571
logical interpretations divorced from what happens in the daily
lives of citizens.
In its creative period the common law was a law in full
evolution. By the 19th century it had decayed into a rigid
formalism. This is from what Cardozo had wanted to break away,
and this is what those countries that followed him, in a very belated
way the United States, have tried to achieve.
The law is more than the study of precedents. Precedents can be
studied by law students cramming for examinations. However our
society is evolving. In fact at the turn of the century, we lived in a
revolutionary period in the world community as dramatic as the
Thirty Years War and the late 17th century western European
society, a world in revolutionary change with laws that are
increasingly out of date.
I think one of the ironies that I encountered in my
pre-parliamentary career, visiting many countries that sought my
advice, was the knowledge that with the help of visitors from other
countries and experts provided by the Canadian International
Development Association, CIDA, their laws would probably end
up more up to date and more relevant than Canadian laws.
We advise countries abroad because we believe in the free
market economy and we believe the free market economy to be
properly achieved with liberalization and rationalization of the
legal system. We advise many other countries on how to update
their laws. The curious thing is that dynamic element sometimes
produces commercial law, laws on transactions involving
foreigners, that are better and more up to date than our own, than
American laws or the laws of other countries exporting their
economic ideas. That is a sort of contradiction that frankly is
unacceptable in our society.
I spoke of the period of legal positivism, the pursuit of the black
letter law, the pursuit of precedents at the cost of reason, which is
fortunately behind us as a legal theory taught in law schools.
(1100 )
The legal realist movement focused on the gap between the law
in books and the law in action; the law as written in some bygone
age and the law in action and how it was actually applied. It is a
movement that is peculiarly North American although there are
continental European counterparts.
It leads directly into the school of sociological jurisprudence
whose founder was the great Dean Roscoe Pound of the Harvard
law school followed by the Commonwealth writer Julius Stone and
by the man who had the distinction of teaching two American
presidents, Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton's wife,
Myres McDougal. The notion is that law exists to do other things
than to give a pre-defined answer to new problems, that it is in
constant evolution, that law exists to solve social problems, that
there is a necessary policy element inherent in law and that the only
way to get good legal decisions and good laws is to study society.
The intellectual framework of a good jurist today includes much
more than logic and much more than the study of precedents. It
includes a necessary acquaintance with economics, a necessary
acquaintance with the driving forces in commerce, in business in
our society, a knowledge of the sociology of the state, of human
relations. This is the necessary intellectual equipment of a good
lawyer today and it is basically what Cardozo spoke of when he
referred to the need for creating ministries of justice.
Legal research would have to be carried on anyway. I asked the
Minister of Justice two days ago what had happened when the
Conservative government made the decision to cancel the law
reform commission, whether he had buried research. He said no,
they had to carry it on within the department.
In terms of cost saving we are dealing with essentially the same
thing, civil servants. However, civil servants do not have that
freedom from the exigent here and now of daily departmental
practice that Cardozo said was a necessary element in the process
of law reform.
In looking to the formation of the law reform commission again
we are responding to the challenge today of a law responsive to
society, Canadian society and the society of the world community,
in continuing almost revolutionary change in terms of the social
forces moving within us. It requires a group of people independent
from the government and of high intellectual distinction.
I said to the minister when he introduced this bill: ``Your big
problem is cherchez l'homme or cherchez la femme, look to the
right people. Whom are you going to get?'' He said: ``Whom can
you think of?'' He recognizes the need for creative appointments.
This is where opposition party members can help. Give the
minister names. I said I could give him a couple of names from the
past including Mr. Justice Rand, our greatest liberal judge on the
Supreme Court of Canada. He gave us a bill of rights before we had
the 1982 charter; somebody like that in his creative periods.
I also took the opportunity to cite somebody well known to many
members of the House, the late Jean-Luc Pepin who died only a
couple of weeks ago in the prime of his life. He was a non-lawyer.
This is one of the valuable things in this bill. We do not limit the
choice of members of this commission to lawyers. We recognize,
as the French have done and the Germans have done, that even on
supreme courts, constitutional courts, non-lawyers have a role to
play and should be included, and they are.
15572
I had the honour of being chief advisor to Jean-Luc Pepin in
the preparation of his report on the Constitution along with John
Robarts, Léon Dion and John Meisel. If his report had been
adopted many of our problems of federalism today would have
been resolved before.
(1105)
The quest goes on for the right people. Please, the invitation goes
to members of the government and members of the opposition to
put forward the names. This is intended to be independent. It will
only be independent and courageous if we get the right people. The
minister is on the right track. They do not have to be lawyers. It is a
challenge. We have given so much time to Quebec issues that very
much of our creative energy in other areas has been pre-empted. If
we do not modernize our own laws the problem of economic
recovery will be very much accentuated.
I see no point in my telling Chinese audiences, as I did from
1980 onwards, or audiences in other countries that if you want a
free market economy, you need streamlined, up to date laws that
respond to the exigencies of the society you are living in. There is
no point telling these people that if we do not do it at home. This is
the message in the law reform bill. Please see the large issue, see
the necessity for this and take the steps to ensure the choices will be
excellent ones.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-106 today. I
listened to my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra make his
presentation. I have the utmost respect for him. He is a man of
much accomplishment in his career. He is certainly an academic
and has contributed a lot to his profession and has many
accomplishments.
I have one fear, though, as I listen to the hon. member, that the
average Canadian is not getting a grasp or is not able to understand
exactly what the member is saying. I want to bring this debate away
from the level used by hon. member from Vancouver Quadra, a
level which, no disrespect intended, was far above the average
Canadian.
The hon. member talked about the people who should be
involved in this commission. I will use some of his words and
reflect on what he said. He said the law commission should be
comprised of people in the law profession and people of high
intellectual distinction.
Nowhere in his presentation has he indicated in any way that the
opinions reflected by the minds of average Canadians should be
represented in the commission. That has been the problem with the
Minister of Justice's decisions and the government's bills in the
two years I have been in the House. Nowhere in the bills introduced
has there been any sense of realism between what is in the bill and
what is on the mind of the average Canadian.
As parliamentarians we have a profound responsibility first and
foremost to represent the concerns and the opinions of average
Canadians. This recreation of the law commission is certainly far
from that.
The predecessor to the law commission was abolished by the
Tories in 1992. The Tory government was never known to be frugal
but for some reason it found the commission a luxury it could not
afford, which was a surprise considering its record of spending. It
had grown as a quite natural progression into a large bureaucracy.
(1110 )
The Tory government in its wisdom decided it could get the
same advice from outside sources at a better price. No doubt those
outside sources were Tory advisers because the old line parties
have a habit of rewarding their friends after they get into
government. I have no doubt that this recreation of the law
commission is another form of thanking Liberal friends for their
participation in helping them get to government. We have seen this
over and over again.
The law commission was established in 1971 to review Canadian
federal laws and to make recommendations for the improvement or
modernization of reforms within the justice system and develop
new approaches that would be responsive to the changing needs of
Canadian society.
In all honesty we have not seen a lot of evidence that the former
law commission responded to the concerns of average Canadians.
Its recommendations and work seemed to come out of some
academic legal nirvana in which the recommendations were made
on behalf of the people of Canada because, in all honesty, as the
people formerly of the law commission would probably rightly
determine, the Canadian people do not really have the wherewithal
to make up their own minds and make reasonable choices about
how the justice system in Canada should operate.
At its elimination in 1992, the commission had a budget of about
$5 million and a staff of about 30. That was a lot of money. Now
the Liberal government wants to revive this law commission. It has
set a budget with a benchmark of about $3 million a year. It says
the money will come from existing government resources. Anyone
who believes that tale I honestly think believes in the tooth fairy; a
wilder belief is maybe the Liberal government will some day get its
spending under control.
The Liberal government is simply adding another level of
bureaucracy to government operations. We have seen over and over
again commissions with budget overruns like it is the natural thing
to do.
The Canadian people have no reason to believe this commission
will not be independent. It will not be accountable to the
government except to the wishes of the Minister of Justice.
15573
My hon. friend from Calgary North spoke earlier about this
so-called independence. She pointed out very clearly how this
commission would operate. There is no doubt the terms of
reference for setting up this commission will be at the absolute
direction of the Minister of Justice. Despite what the Liberals have
said there is no substantive evidence to back up the claim that this
will be a truly independent body. We have no reason to believe
that. The Canadian people have no reason to believe that.
We have seen how the Minister of Justice operates. We have seen
what he does when he wants to give some sort of credence to some
of the ludicrous bills he has introduced. He goes out in the field and
gathers together some of his political friends who happen to form
associations and he gets them to back him up on his decisions.
The Canadian public is not buying that any more. The Minister
of Justice now wants to give some extra support to some of the
decisions by setting up the law commission. He will then stand in
the House and present a bill without any reality of what the
Canadian people believe. He is going to present the bill. He will
stand up and say: ``I would like to inform the House that the law
commission has recommended that this reform be made to the
criminal justice system''. Recommended. I have every reason to
believe that the law commission will simply be a rubber stamp for
the Minister of Justice. It is a very dangerous situation for this
House of Commons and for the criminal justice system in Canada.
(1115)
The bill will permit the governor in council to appoint-and how
many times have we heard that word-a president and four other
commissioners and an advisory council consisting of 24 members.
I have every reason to believe that every single member of the law
commission will be a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of
Canada. There is no possible way that a law commission set up by
this government, by appointment of the Minister of Justice, can be
independent.
There is no doubt that more Liberal appointees will be feathering
their nests at the expense of taxpayers. The Liberal government
knows that it will have to fight an election in two years. The
Liberals want to keep their friends; it is only natural.
The justice system in Canada cannot afford to have a rubber
stamp law commission which is held up as an advisory board to
help the Minister of Justice put through the law reforms his
cappuccino friends in Toronto want. We cannot afford that.
I doubt that when the commission is set up the justice
department's budget will be reduced by an appropriate amount. I
would like to be able to look into the future to see whether the
justice department's budget will be reduced by $3 million. I do not
believe the figure of $3 million, but I would like to see the
reduction. I do not think it can happen.
If the Liberals have proved anything, it is the ability to
mismanage taxpayers' money. Whenever I start talking about
Liberals and budgets, I have to remind Canadians that using the
Liberals' numbers of 1993, in their term of office the national debt
will increase by $100 billion to some $650 billion. The interest
payments will rise by some $10 billion to around $55 billion. This
is ample evidence that Liberals do not know how to manage money.
This gives more credence to the fact that I doubt very much the
budget of the Department of Justice will be reduced by the amount
which will be spent to finance the law commission.
There is no compelling reason to re-establish the law
commission. Law reform is possible without the creation of
another government agency which will be supported by Canadian
taxpayers. As I stated earlier, the commission will be nothing more
than a mouthpiece for the Minister of Justice. No doubt he is
desperately seeking some official body to back up his autocratic
decisions on gun control and the death penalty. What better way to
save his image than to spend $3 million a year to establish a panel
of yes people beholden to the Minister of Justice, prepared to put
forward or support his personal decisions?
(1120 )
We should be getting our spending under control some day, but
most definitely it will not be within the term of office of this
government. Consider that the commissioners, the president, the
board of advisers are going to be appointed by this government, by
the Minister of Justice himself no doubt-
Mr. Stinson: That is the only job creation they know.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, could this possibly be part of the new
Liberal job creation program? I thank my hon. colleague for
bringing that to mind.
The commissioners' work can in fact be done in the private
sector. I would like to suggest that more average Canadians be
involved when it comes to making reforms in the justice system.
The hon. member for Calgary North offered the services of the
Reform Party of Canada free of charge to the government. We
would not charge $3 million; we would work for nothing on this.
If the Reform Party were part of this commission for nothing, at
no charge, it would be possible to have a truly independent body at
no cost to the government and no cost to the taxpayers. We would
pick 24 Reformers out of here and we would form the commission
at no charge. We would give input to the Minister of Justice which
truly represented the views of the Canadian people, not the views
which come from his friends in Toronto. They would be views that
were representative of the Canadian people all across the country.
15574
There have certainly been enough questions raised lately about
just how Canada's criminal justice system is supposed to work.
There have been many instances. There are cases out in B.C.
recently where a band of militant natives held the RCMP at bay
for a number of days. The people in B.C. were saying: ``My God,
what is going on when people can draw arms against our country
and hold a whole province and the national police force at ransom
with seeming impugnity?'' We saw the same thing at Ipperwash.
We see serious criminals who have committed violent acts being
let out on parole and day passes and for what reason? For reasons
that just boggle the mind of the average Canadian, only to have
criminals go out and kill, rape and maim again.
These are the concerns on the minds of the Canadian people, not
some airy-fairy ideas that come from the minister's friends in
Toronto. These concerns come from average Canadians. These
concerns are not going to be addressed by the people he appoints to
the law commission. They will be there only to do his bidding and
not the bidding of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, you can probably imagine that I do not support this
bill either. In confusion, in conclusion-
An hon. member: It is a confusing bill.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that I stumble on my
words. The word confusion comes up right now because I am so
confused about the motives of this bill. The minister is not telling
the people what he is planning on doing.
I am confused about how this bill has come into the House to be
debated and will come to a vote when we found an announcement
that the minister is going to create this law commission. What does
this debate count for? Anything? Is this a waste of time? Surely the
government must have some other business to put forward.
We are going to waste time debating something that is already a
done deal. If this deal is already a done deal as we saw by the
announcement the other day, that means I have wasted my time in
the House. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has wasted his
time in this House. The member for Calgary North has wasted her
time in this House. The Bloc member who spoke on this has wasted
her time. Could we not be doing something more constructive than
debating a bill that apparently already is a done deal?
(1125)
I join with my Reform colleagues and the hon. members from
the Bloc in opposing this bill in the strongest possible terms. It is
inconsequential. It will not achieve any realistic reform to the
criminal justice system. It cannot in the form it is proposed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair never engages in
debate but certainly if I can be of any assistance to any member of
any party at any time, let there be no confusion that on the
government's Bill C-106, the member for Prince George-Bulkley
Valley does not support the government's bill.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I want to make it
clear that I do not support Bill C-106.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member in his remarks questions why we would
be debating this bill today when as he suggests it is some kind of a
done deal. He knows full well that the bill is not passed until it is
passed.
I am sure the hon. member would not for the world miss an
opportunity nor would his colleagues have missed the opportunity
to take the time of the House and tell Canadians how undeserving
and unworthy this bill was of support. Having taken all his time to
do this, something he figures was not worth his time in the first
place nor worth the time of this House, maybe he will not find it
worth his time to reply to my question. We will see.
This bill which sets up this renewed law commission states very
clearly in clause 6 that the commission is accountable through the
minister to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs. That is a fairly
clear statement, that this commission is accountable to Parliament.
It is Parliament that will make decisions about changes in law.
I am wondering what his comment is, what he thinks about the
very clear statement that this commission is accountable to
Parliament and not anybody else. It is accountable to Parliament.
Does he believe what is written in the law on which he will have a
chance to vote?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Clause 6
does say that, but let us examine what accountable through the
minister to Parliament really means. In other words, Parliament
will have no opportunity to question members of the law
commission, only the minister. That is sort of a misleading
explanation of accountability.
We all know that unfortunately the Liberal Party has a majority
in this House. Quite frankly, on very few occasions do I see the
Liberal Party or any of the ministers really paying any attention to
what the opposition members say. Every amendment that we ever
put through to the Minister of Justice has been defeated by the
government. This indicates that the Liberals have a clear agenda
that they are going to follow regardless of what arguments the
opposition members bring up in the House.
The idea of the law commission being accountable to Parliament
through the minister really is just a smoke and mirrors thing. The
only way that could work would be if we had a minority govern-
15575
ment, where the government did not have an absolute majority in
the House.
If our party put amendments or recommendations for the
criminal justice system to the law commission, if the minister did
not want it to happen it simply would not happen because of the
majority in this House. Although I appreciate the structure of the
words in clause 6, I believe they are totally unworkable as far as
accountability is concerned.
(1130)
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-106, an act
respecting the Law Commission of Canada. In doing so, I want to
focus on one particular aspect of the approach to law reform
embodied in the legislation: the emphasis on consultation in the
bill.
If I may, I would take a minute to define the term
``consultation''. Consultation is a word that over the years has been
sucked into the chilly abstract vocabulary of social and
organizational planning and also has become a part of the technical
jargon of experts and specialists. Sometimes in the House the word
``consultation'' seems to take on a negative connotation.
In talking about consultation in the bill, I am talking about
consultation as a living, social process, the antithesis of arbitrary
rule, and what is in a positive sense the soul of the democratic
system of government; that is, asking what one thinks and getting a
response and acting on the response.
When parties bring their policies before the public at election
time or other times, that is consultation on the most basic scale.
The building of democracy consists in large part in consulting ever
more broadly and thoroughly, involving all who have a stake in the
process. By consulting one looks at all the players, all those the end
result of consultation would affect.
All members of both Houses at this moment are working in a
mode of consultation. We are doing the nation's business in a
consultation mode. That is, when we are considering something
that is before us we see the importance of consultation, the
importance of sharing with the stakeholders and getting the views
of all stakeholders and bringing this to the discussion.
The agenda of law reform is set by the challenges of the times. It
is a continuing task of renovation, identifying existing problems
and new trends, and of dealing with the areas of the law in which
time and change have revealed gaps and insufficiencies. That task
was once handled for the most part by lawyers and legal
professionals, toiling in the framework of the royal commission or
other temporary bodies. It was shouldered by a permanent law
reform commission, which operated from 1972 until 1992, when it
was abolished by the previous government to the general dismay
of the legal profession.
In the election platform of 1993 we said we would reverse that
action. At the same time, we recognized that we should do more
than restore the previous commission in a form identical to that
prescribed in the early 1970s. We wanted to give that reform life
and energy.
The agenda of law reform is shaped in direction and detail by the
social and economic environment of the time. That agenda has
been utterly transformed since the structure and approach of the
previous commission was laid down by Parliament nearly a quarter
of a century ago. Times have changed. It is different. We are in
different times because Canada is different. First of all, there has
been a far-reaching social transformation. In 1971 we were a
country of 21 million. In 1995 we are approaching 30 million in
population. The demographic and cultural composition of our
population is different, 1971 to now. We are also 25 years further
down the road in terms of our democratic evolution.
(1135)
Consultation has now been incorporated by custom and
institution into our way of life and our way of doing things.
Canadians of our time, including the generation that grew up with
the charter of rights and freedoms, take it for granted that they will
have a part in the making of policies that affect their lives.
Meanwhile, transformations in technology, trade, and industrial
structure have made the Canadian economy more complex.
As a result of change at all these levels, the inadequacies that
make law reform necessary reveal themselves not only in the
courtroom but in other settings. They emerge in the marketplace,
the workplace, the home, the scientific laboratory, the social
welfare centre, and at the centres of learning of about a dozen
disciplines. These trends have made it more important that law
reform become a co-operative enterprise informed by expertise in
many fields.
The process that has brought this bill before us today has been
open and consultative from the start. The Minister of Justice knows
the benefit of consultation. This process began with two original
consultations. They brought together representatives of the
academic community, the judiciary, provincial governments, and
also non-governmental organizations with an interest in law
reform.
The process continued in 1994 with the distribution of a
consultation paper on the structure and modus operandi of the new
commission. That document went to over 800 groups and
individuals and to all members of the two chambers of Parliament.
To illustrate the breadth of the consultation, the organizations
involved included, to name a few, the Canadian Medical
Association, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society,
women's groups, multicultural groups, aboriginal associations, et
cetera. Of
15576
course the process also allowed the full and active participation of
experts in law. The Canadian Institute for the Administration of
Justice held a nation-wide consultation with judges on the proposed
law commission. The federal Department of Justice conducted a
consultation with legal academics from all provinces. In addition,
the subject has been discussed at meetings of the ministers
responsible for justice in the federal, provincial, and territorial
governments and at other meetings involving both the legal and
non-legal communities. That is consultation.
The legislation now before us has been shaped by many hands
and moulded by experience in many fields. It is the product of
consultation. It proposes an instrument for doing the work of law
reform in the same mode. That commitment is reflected on every
page of this bill. It starts with the first paragraph of the legislation,
which says the advice the commission will provide will be based,
and I quote, ``on the knowledge and experience of a wide range of
groups and individuals''.
The first of the five guiding principles in the preamble is that the
commission's work should be open and inclusive of all Canadians.
This approach is also expressed in the organizational design of the
new law commission. Clause 7, which deals with organization,
says, in effect, that the five commissioners need not be lawyers or
judges or other legal professionals. Indeed, it specifically states
that the membership should be representative of the
socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canadian society.
As an aside, I heard from the other side that we should have a
number of parliamentarians sitting on that commission. Of course
there are opportunities here for the full participation of the
diversity of Canadian society.
(1140 )
The four part time commissioners would live wherever their
homes are, where their full time jobs and occupations require them
to be. This means that at the executive level the commission would
be linked personally and directly with the concerns of main street
Canada.
Clause 18 describes the advisory council of the commission,
which will comprise 25 people serving on a voluntary basis-I
repeat, voluntary basis-appointed by the commission. Like the
commission members, the members of the council itself would be
generally representative of the diversity of Canadian society. Its
members will advise the commission on such things as strategic
issues, review of its annual report, agenda setting and performance
review. A varied blend of training and experience will be applied to
the basic shaping of the process as it responds to the issues of the
day.
Clause 20 allows for an even further extension of the
commission's connections with other disciplines and backgrounds.
Under this clause the commission can bring in voluntary experts
and specialists in any aspect of law reform to serve as members of
temporary study panels. I am stressing the words ``temporary'' and
``voluntary'' because the Reformers who spoke earlier seemed to
miss that in the bill.
Clause 23 is important in this regard. It ensures the products of
work done in this mode will not disappear into a vault but will
emerge without delay into the public domain for inspection and
discussion. The minister must table any commission report to the
two chambers of Parliament in session within 15 days of receiving
it.
In short, the commission created by this bill will be itself part of
a wider network of collaboration in the work of law reform. It will
allow us to renew and extend the architecture of law on the basis of
an expert understanding of the complex issues involved. It will
permit us to do so efficiently, effectively, and at a manageable cost.
This bill is a blueprint for a law commission that will meet the
needs of our time, a body that will be known not only for the legal
soundness of its products but also for the relevance of its work on
the issues of our time. This bill will meet an urgent need. It
deserves our support. It deserves the support of all the members of
this House.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to join in the debate in this area. The area of law reform is one of
special interest and special concern to those of us who have in the
past been involved in the legal profession. It should be of interest to
all of us as legislators.
Having been here all morning, I have listened, sometimes in
shock, to some of the comments that have come particularly from
the members of the third party with regard to a need for this bill. It
may be a good time to talk about why this bill is being brought
forward.
I first want to note that one of the hon. members for Calgary
noted this bill ``has the justice minister's fingerprints all over it''.
Well, it is his bill. I would hope it would have his fingerprints all
over it. I wonder whose fingerprints should be on it if not those of
the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice, in his usual well
thought out way, has indeed brought this bill forward. We would
not mind the solicitor general's fingerprints on it either, but as it
happens this bill is brought forward by the Minister of Justice.
(1145 )
I want to talk about the law commission because tremendous
things have come from bodies of this nature both at the national
level and in various provinces where these bodies exist.
15577
I listened, more in sorrow than in anger, to members opposite
talk about Liberal flunkeys. I think of the people who have served
on law reform commissions. Those comments ill serve anybody
who wishes to be a public servant. In particular, I think of
members of the former law reform commission, Mr. Justice
Linden, for example. I recall Mr. Justice Linden's coming to a
parliamentary committee where he and I crossed swords in an
admirable debate on a bill which his commission had brought
forward.
Mr. Justice Linden was then of the Ontario high court, as it was
known. He is now with the appeal division of the Federal Court of
Canada. He is the author of a torts textbook which all of us in the
House who went through law school had the pleasure to read. We
were taught very well by Mr. Justice Linden through his
publications, textbooks and articles. To refer to him as a Liberal
flunkey does a great disservice to the bench, the bar and Canadians
who serve their country.
In my province of Nova Scotia one of the many lawyers and lay
persons who have served so well on law reform commissions is the
former dean of Dalhousie Law School, Professor William Charles.
He was known across Canada as a law teacher. He was one of the
founders of the University of Victoria law school when the
University of Victoria asked Dalhousie law school to send
professors to help it start a law school. He is unparalleled in his
respect across the country in legal circles as someone learned in the
law, a law reformer, a law teacher and a legal administrator.
I think of the current president of the University of Calgary,
Murray Fraser, another former acting dean and associate dean at
Dalhousie Law School. He was the first dean of the University of
Victoria law school. He served on the Law Reform Commission of
Canada back in the middle seventies before he went on to Victoria.
In Nova Scotia, where politics are taken with pabulum, the
Fraser family would be taken aback to hear President Fraser
referred to as a Liberal flunkey or a flunkey of any kind. That kind
of pejorative talk is unfortunate.
It is perhaps because certain political parties are new to the
legislative process that it behoves those of us who have been
around a little longer to talk about-
Mr. Stinson: Far too long.
Ms. Clancy: Not according to the people of Nova Scotia.
The people on the Law Reform Commission of Canada and the
various provincial law commissions have a job quite different from
that of legislators. I have served for seven years in the House. Mr.
Speaker, you and I served together on a legislative committee,
which I am sure will go down in your memory, when we were in
opposition.
Legislative committees are one of the areas along with the
Chamber where parliamentarians from both sides of the House can
make their wishes, their policy concerns and their concerns
generally for the development of legislation heard. That is what we
are here for, no question.
(1150 )
A law commission is instituted for those areas that
parliamentarians, busy with their daily jobs, do not have time to
delve into. The vast majority of members are not lawyers, which is
a good thing. The vast majority of members are certainly not
academics and, heaven knows, the vast majority of members are
not what one could call intellectuals. Consequently we are not in
the business of doing the kind of legal research, exploration and
prognostication-look it up-that leads to legislation in good
government and prods governments to move in ways in the best
interests of the country.
That is why people of the calibre of Mr. Justice Linden,
Professor William Charles and President Murray Fraser have
served at the provincial and federal levels along with hundreds of
other Canadians. They have served with one desire and one desire
only, to do good for their country.
For members of the opposition to use this bill, which fulfils a red
book promise, as some sort of partisan stick with which they think
they are beating the government not only cheapens the process
when we consider the source but it says to Canadians we do not
want their participation in the public process.
We on this side of the House do not say that. Three million
dollars for this law commission is a low price to pay for the
tremendous contribution of the people who will serve on this
commission. What a low price to pay for the tremendous work they
will do, for the hours of research, for the incredible gift of their
thoughts, hard work and dedication to Canada.
It reminds me of a bit of a cliché about optimists and pessimists,
certainly something that has been repeated often; the idea that an
optimist sees a glass half full and a pessimist sees a glass half
empty. When it comes to the boards and commissions that help us
run the country, that advise the government, prod the government,
in many cases boards and commissions at arm's length from the
government with quasi-judicial functions on behalf of the people of
Canada, the glass from my point of view is more than merely half
full, it is full.
How very lucky we are in Canada that there are legions of
citizens delighted to fulfil this role when many of them could be
making more money and certainly taking a whole lot less abuse in
other endeavours.
Having dealt summarily with the unusual and perhaps
ill-informed comments from the other side, I will talk a bit about
the bill. What is the commission created for? It is to fulfil the needs
of the government and Parliament for independent, broadly based,
15578
strategic advice on legal policy and law reform issues. That seems
to me a fairly straightforward and clear statement of intent.
Independence means not connected to the party in government or
the party in opposition. I realize there are many times when the
third party does not really behave like a political party. If a party
has not been in existence very long and does not have much history,
it really does not understand how political parties behave.
However, according to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, it is
a political party. It may be tragic. It may be unfortunate but it is a
political party. It appears to be a political party with more than its
share of empty barrels. As a political party it is not considered
independent.
(1155)
The hon. member for Calgary suggested her party could do this
independently. It may well be its neophyte status in Parliament that
under the rules of Parliament, even being the third party, it does not
qualify as independent. There are other adjectives such as strategic,
legal, et cetera, which it may not qualify for as well. I would not
comment on those, heaven forbid.
I remind members of the third party as well as my trusting and
beloved colleagues on this side of the House that keeping red book
promises is very important.
Mr. Stinson: It is called patronage with a capital P.
Ms. Clancy: A three syllable word, well done. When I sat on the
other side of the House and saw the law reform commission
disbanded, I along with many of my colleagues was very unhappy.
I knew how important it was to the development of legislation.
One of the things the law commission does is provide a critical
eye and a distinctive perspective on modernizing the law. The word
modernizing is very important. Words like modernize, progressive
and forward looking along with independent and strategic may not
be words familiar to some of our colleagues.
The commission will have five guiding principles. It will
approach the law from a multi-disciplinary perspective, and this is
very important. As I said before, one cannot leave the making of
the law and the creativity of law reform merely to lawyers or
legislators. One needs to bring in people from all walks of life, to
listen to them, to hear what they need.
When I taught law I used to tell my students the law is a reactive
social science. In general law will come into existence to react to a
specific need, to specific a situation.
Sometimes, as in the case of human rights law, the law is
proactive. For many of us, especially those enamoured of human
rights law and who see this as one of the brightest lights in our
parliamentary careers, the law then becomes proactive.
In general it is reactive and it is the job of a law commission to
delve into the hearts and minds of the people in a way that
legislators and lawyers in the legislatures do not have the time to
do. They have a specific job which they will be doing all the time
whereas legislators, contrary to the rather superficial responses of
the third party, have other things to do.
We as legislators and as members of Parliament have casework,
committee work, political work, travelling back and forth to our
ridings. It is a massive job, which I do not have to tell anyone here,
including members of the third party.
Consequently if one is to serve the people as one should with the
law reform commission one needs people who will dedicate all
their time to the particular necessities and exigencies of law
reform.
This seems a fairly simple statement and a fairly simple concept
to grasp. Obviously it is not in some cases, but I can do only what I
have been asked by the people controlling the debate. The chips
will have to fall where they may, in empty barrels or elsewhere.
There are five guiding principles. I have talked about the first
one, a multi-disciplinary perspective being open and inclusive by
making its work more accessible and understandable to all
Canadians. This is something that is very dear to my heart.
(1200)
I taught undergraduates in several universities in Nova Scotia in
areas of law, family law, legal status of women, law and aging, and
environmental law. I always found it terribly important to
demystify the legal process for the majority of Canadians.
A legitimate complaint that comes to us both as legislators and
lawyers is that the law is mumbo-jumbo. There are legal
documents and pieces of legislation that the average Canadian does
not understand what we are on about. Part of the work of the law
reform commission is to make the law more accessible and
understandable for Canadians and to utilize innovative research,
consultation and management practices through new technologies.
As we approach the millennium we have exploding technology
in the country. We are one of the leading countries on earth, if not
the leading in certain high tech areas. Except for the people trained
in those particular disciplines, to the vast majority of Canadians a
lot of this is very mystifying.
How much more mystifying is the regulatory and legislative
process that surrounds us? Ergo, how much more necessary is it to
have the law reform commission take on the job of making sure
that as the legislation is brought forward to the government it will
be less mystifying to Canadians?
15579
Another important point is being responsible and accountable
to key groups affected by law reform through partnerships that
build on existing knowledge and expertise. Since it came into
power two years ago the government has talked about the question
of partnerships. We talked about partnerships between business
and government. We talked about partnerships between interest
groups and government. It is one reason we have seen massive
consultations in all sorts of areas between the government and the
people. The people of Canada appreciate that consultation because
the previous government of not so blessed memory had no history
of consulting with Canadians except in a very few cases.
A law commission gives an opportunity for Canadians to come
forward with their concerns about developing areas and the things
they would like to see. They can come forward to help develop law
in areas that provide for good government. In effect it is a tool of
democracy. It is one when we were in opposition we were very
distressed to see removed. It is one that we promised in the red
book we would reinstate. I could not be happier that we are
fulfilling this promise, fingerprints of the Minister of Justice or
not.
Next is the achieving of cost effectiveness in operation and the
recommendations and advice it provides. This goes back to the well
meant but misguided comments of my colleague on the other side
who talked about the cost. The cost for Parliament to do the work of
the law reform commission in time, in person hours-
Mr. Harris: Reform Party members will do it for nothing.
Ms. Clancy: They will do it for nothing. It is probably like
throwing in 10 per cent of their salaries and all that stuff. I notice
some of them are not talking about the pensions over there.
That is not what Parliament was elected to do. If my hon.
colleagues do not understand that perhaps they need job
descriptions. Parliament was elected to represent the people, to
debate in the Chamber, to review legislation in legislative
committees, to deal with various and sundry public policies in
standing committees, et cetera, to do constituency work, and to
deal with our political duties.
(1205 )
I can only say that if members of the third party feel they have
the time-and I am not even going to get into the questions of
expertise-to be a law reform commission, thank the powers that
be we are in government and there is little or no danger of that ever
taking place under the current government.
I am delighted to support the legislation. I am delighted we are
fulfilling a red book promise. I am delighted there will once again
be a law commission to serve the needs of Canadians.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Halifax who mentioned
quite truthfully that there was not a vast number of lawyers in the
House and that there was not a vast number of intellectuals. I agree
with her. The problem is that we have a vast number of Liberals in
the House. That is where the problems come from.
The hon. member spoke about the benefits of establishing the
law commission. Let us go back and look at the history of the law
reform commission holding hands with the Liberal government.
For example, the law commission came into being in 1971. Lo and
behold in 1976, and I assume at the suggestion, advice and
direction of the law commission which is there to represent the will
and the opinions of the people, we find section 745 of the Criminal
Code was amended in the House to eliminate capital punishment in
Canada, to provide for the eligibility of first degree murderers
given a life sentence of 25 years to apply for early parole after 15
years. These provisions were brought forward by the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was a Liberal and still is a Liberal,
working hand in hand with the Liberal appointed law commission.
Poll after poll has shown when polls are taken in an honest
fashion of average Canadians, something that the Liberal
government does not relate to, that they would support capital
punishment and always have. Poll after poll has shown that
Canadians are disgusted with the fact that violent murderers given
life sentences can apply for early parole and in most cases get it
after 15 years. Poll after poll has shown that the people of Canada
do not appreciate these parts of the law.
How can the member for Halifax stand and say that the law
reform commission, holding hands with the Liberal government, is
reflecting the will of the Canadian people? I should like to ask her
some specific questions.
These are some of the things Canadians have told us are wrong
with the justice system, some of the things that would have been
fixed if the law reform commission had been an effective body that
listened to the will of the people.
First is the delay in implementing the use of DNA testing, which
at the insistence of our party the government finally got around to.
Had the law commission prior to being disbanded in 1992, and
maybe it did, recommended to the government of the day that DNA
testing be brought in, perhaps we would not have had to wait so
long and perhaps some of the murderers who have gone free
because we did not have access to this way of gathering evidence
would be behind bars right now.
If the law commission was so effective, how come it took us
until 1995 to deal with the drunken defence used in the courts?
Why did it take us that long if the law commission was so good?
15580
I talked about parole eligibility. If the law reform commission
was so good, why has it not closed the loopholes in parole
eligibility? What about violent criminals being let out of prison
early? If the law reform commission was so good, why do we have
violent criminals walking the streets because some parole board
has screwed up its decisions? Who is charged with fixing those
mistakes?
(1210 )
Let us talk about what upsets Canadians most of all, the grand
idea of condoning plea bargaining in our justice system. Canadians
are fed up with seeing people accused of crimes plea bargaining
away the more violent sections of the crime in order for the courts
to give a lesser sentence and get a sure conviction.
If the law reform commission is so good, why do we have so
many things wrong with the criminal justice system? The fact
remains that the laws of the country are made by lawyers for
lawyers with little regard for the opinions, concerns and wishes of
Canadians. If it were not that way we would not have so many
problems with the justice system.
Canadians have had enough with law commissions and a Liberal
government that treat criminals as if they have special rights. In
1982 the Liberal government brought in a Constitution and in the
section on rights granted more rights to people who break the law
than to people who keep the law. That is an absolute disgrace and
the legislation will not change a thing.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon.
member because what I hear in them is a real cri du coeur. I
understand his being upset about certain situations that he
perceives to be developing in the country. There are several things
to consider but let me deal with a number of comments he made.
With regard to the problem of there being a Liberal government,
I would only say to the hon. member that the government was duly
elected in a very democratic process. A majority of Canadians
elected a majority of Liberals. We are here to represent the wishes
of our constituents, just as the hon. member is here to represent the
wishes of his. It so happens that a majority of Canadians picked this
Liberal government. I understand he does not like it. I understand
he does not agree with it, but there it is. It is a fait accompli and
unfortunately he will have to deal with it. I suspect he will have to
deal with it after the next election as well, but we will wait and see.
There is a real misconception in the land with regard to criminal
activity. This is not to minimize the criminal activity that takes
place but unfortunately some of our hon. colleagues in the third
party are overly influenced by American television and American
newspapers. The crime rate is not rising in this country over all. It
is rising in the United States; it is not rising here. As a matter of
fact in certain sectors it is dropping, but good news unfortunately is
not something the third party deals in.
I will certainly not deal with the member's meanderings on the
issue of capital punishment. As my constituents well know I have
been against capital punishment from the first time I ever heard of
it. I will continue to be against capital punishment for the rest of
my life. The people of Halifax know well what my feelings are on
this and other issues, never having been one to hide my opinions.
I go back to what the hon. member said about the law
commission. With the greatest of respect it shows he does not
understand it. The law reform commission is not the House of
Commons and the House of Commons is not the law reform
commission. They are two separate entities with two separate jobs.
The law reform commission is there to research and recommend.
Then the government and the House of Commons can accept or
reject its recommendations. In many cases those recommendations
are accepted; in other cases they are rejected.
They talk about it being hand and glove with the Liberal
government. I merely ask the member to take any list of the
previous members of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, or
of those provinces that have law reform commissions, and he will
see people who have served their country, served their province and
served their community in ways the third party would like very
much to be able to emulate.
(1215 )
We are talking about people who are eminent members of their
communities, holders of the Order of Canada, people who have
been honoured by non-partisan members of their community. I for
one find this disappointing, tragic, and I would go so far as to say
despicable, that they would cast aspersions on the characters of
such a large group of public servants, of people who serve Canada.
Why would these people cast aspersions on people who wish to
serve their country? Why is membership on a federal board or
committee, a provincial board or committee, or a municipal board
or committee something that should taint you? I am appalled that
anyone would suggest this. I am appalled that there is such a
narrow and angry and sad view of public service in this country by
the hon. members of the third party, that they do not rejoice in the
opportunity to serve Canada, in the opportunity to stand up and say
how lucky we are to be in the House of Commons or how lucky our
constituents are to be able to serve their country.
If they do not feel that way, I can only say we feel on this side of
the House a great sorrow for them at the loss in their public
participation.
15581
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Halifax,
if only because very often there is nothing left to say so I can speak
much more briefly.
First of all, I want to comment on how this bill fits in with the
overall Liberal vision and the overall Liberal plan for Canada. I
think the Reform Party is shortsighted when they criticize this bill
only on the limited grounds they have set out. In reality, justice
issues in many respects are economic issues. I say this because I
come from a community, Windsor and Essex county, that has
prospered as it leaves the recession. We are probably on the leading
edge of recovery from the last recession.
I have noticed at home, and our city leaders and our citizens have
noticed as well, that as our community becomes more prosperous,
as we have more jobs, as we have a healthier community
economically, we have a healthier community in other ways. When
we look at the health of the community and we look at how we have
been affected by this recovery from the recession, or partial
recovery from the recession, what we see is that violent crime has
gone down, other forms of crime have decreased, and the pressure
of social problems has lessened. This is because the community is
in better shape economically.
In the early 1980s, when the last great recession hit, I was
practising law in Windsor, not as a young lawyer but as a new
lawyer. I did a bit of matrimonial law in addition to my regular
criminal practice. It was devastating, because as there were layoffs
at the auto plants and at the feeder plants it seemed there were more
marriage breakdowns. As there were more marriage breakdowns, it
seemed that my practice in what were then called juvenile
delinquents, young offenders, increased in terms of criminal law. It
seemed to me also that I had to deal with more domestic violence in
my practice.
Subsequently, when I began to prosecute I found the same thing.
With economic waves and downturns and the economic
roller-coaster we have experienced in the recent past in Windsor,
domestic violence and other forms of violence increased. There
were more robberies, more property offences, more break-ins. You
could see and palpably feel the link between economic health and
social health in our community.
(1220 )
When Reform talks about the justice system they should do so
within the greater framework of economic development in our
communities. A community with a healthy economic base and with
active ongoing economic development is a community that is going
to be healthy in other areas. This is part of the Liberal program for
healthy communities.
The law commission is a very small part of this. I would like to
point out that this is not something we have just recently pulled out
of the air; this is something for which we set aside money in our
February 1995 budget. In their joint wisdoms, the Minister of
Justice and the Minister of Finance agreed that setting aside a
relatively small amount of money out of the overall budget for the
work of the law commission was an important part of moving
Canada forward, moving forward into communities like Windsor,
Tecumseh, and St. Clair Beach to make them healthier.
The law commission allows us to reach into individual
communities and into the broader Canadian community for advice
and help as to how we can improve our justice system. As we are
increasing the number of jobs in the country, over 400,000 since we
were elected, as we are making the country economically more
viable and as we are making it more prosperous, we are also
looking at and dealing with aspects of our criminal justice system
and our justice system in general that can be improved.
The Reform Party complains about the way the commission is
set up. In reality, the commission is doing what the Reform Party
has asked us to do. It is allowing us to go to what they call the grass
roots. In reality, of course, the Reform Party's grass roots are
people who think like them, who are not a majority of the country.
They have a fundamental problem with democracy, which allows
the majority of a country to rule.
We are not satisfied with that either. We know that not everyone
who voted for us agreed with every single thing we wanted to do in
the red book. We know that the people of Canada who voted for us
did so because of the overall thrust of our policies, and they may
have some disagreements. We are not satisfied with that. We are
setting up structures that allow us to reach out to find out what is
going on, what people are thinking and where we can go.
The Reform Party derides the efforts of the former law reform
commission, which was summarily executed by the Conservative
government. Deride that as it will, in fact this is not the old law
reform commission; this is a new law commission, and it is a
commission with a difference. This commission has a special
mandate, which is very different from that of the old law reform
commission.
When the law reform commission was eliminated there was a
cry from many parts of the country, from groups that had benefited,
who had been able to persuade the law reform commission that new
advances were required and changes were required in the law and
who saw that come to fruition in legislation. However, this law
commission, with its special guiding principles-which are not just
stuff we are talking about, they are actual principles we have put
into the legislation-has a very real difference, which will allow us
to tap into what all Canadians are thinking about our justice
system.
This law commission is mandated to take a multi-disciplinary
approach to law reform and to the legal system. Like the Liberal
government, it sees the justice system as part of a broader social
and economic environment. It is mandated to look at what people
15582
have to say from a social work perspective and at what people have
to say from labour. It is mandated to look at what people have to
say who are concerned about violent crime in our communities. It
is mandated to take a look at what probation officers have to say, at
what parole officers have to say, and at what the people on the
street have to say. It is mandated to be open and inclusive by
making its work more accessible and more understandable to all
Canadians.
(1225 )
The member for Halifax indicated that she has always believed
there is a need to demystify the law. Any of us who have worked in
the law know that is the case. We can work in an ivory tower,
prepare our mumbo-jumbo and talk to each other with our special
language and never communicate that to Canadians or to our
clients. If it is a mystery, it is somehow something only a specialist
can deal with.
We are not content to have that carry on. The Reform Party talks
about that all the time. Yet it criticizes us for making a law
commission that is open, inclusive, and makes its work accessible
and understandable to all Canadians.
This law commission will utilize innovative research,
consultation and management practices by utilizing new
technologies, something that, as good as it was, the old law reform
commission was not very good at doing. It will be responsive and
accountable to key groups that are affected by law reform through
partnerships that build on existing knowledge and expertise.
This is an interesting one, because this again contrasts with what
the Reform Party says and what it does. The Reform Party loves to
talk to us about special interest groups. It loves to accuse the
government of being captive to the special interest groups. What it
means is that we listen to groups it does not listen to. Its special
interest groups, like the American National Rifle Association or
certain alleged wildlife organizations or the people who I like to
call the gunners, are of course not special interest groups. That is
not what Reform members mean; they can listen to those special
interest groups.
There are lots of special interest groups out there. There are
groups that are interested in the welfare of human beings. There are
groups that are interested in benefiting mankind and their fellow
Canadians. The law commission will give them a place to go, so
they do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
lobbying parliamentarians who are busy with other aspects of their
work. It gives them a place to go and be heard. It also gives the
individual a place to go and be heard as well. I cannot see how the
Reform Party could object to that.
The law commission is mandated to be cost effective in its
operations and in the recommendations and advice it provides. The
last law commission, indeed many of the vehicles that governments
have used in the past to advise them, did not have to worry about
budgets or about making recommendations the government could
implement in a cost effective manner. We are mandating this group
to do so. We are telling them to come to us with a project or a piece
of legislation and think of the economic impact that will have as
well.
I would suggest that this bill is part of good Liberal government
in Canada. It is part of what the majority of Canadians elected us to
do.
I will never forget what the little person from the Reform Party
who ran against me said. When Reform became the
government-quite a leap of fancy-it would listen to Canadians.
Here we are providing the vehicle to not just listen to Canadians but
to go out and shake them and ask them what they think about this,
so that we can incorporate their views into our overall scheme.
When we try to do that, where is the Reform Party? Politics as
usual. It is here heckling and arguing but it has not bothered to take
a look at what this bill really does.
On that point, I would like to comment on something else I heard
today, which is the use of what I would call fear tactics and
fearmongering to try to scuttle a bill of the importance of this one.
When Reform members talk about violent crime, when they feed
the myth that violent crime is on the upswing in Canada, they do
their own constituents a disservice. It is not for them to create a
false environment and then try to force the government to operate
within it. It is not for them to set up a straw dog in order to knock it
down. It is up to them, as a responsible third party, to focus on
problems that actually exist in society.
There is no question that violent crime exists in Canada. There is
no question that violent crime that exists at any level is
unacceptable. However, it is wrong to suggest that it is growing and
this government is doing nothing about it. It is also wrong to
suggest that a law commission made up of people from every
aspect of our greater Canadian community will do nothing about it.
(1230 )
This bill responds to Canadians. I would like to compliment the
Minister of Justice for what he said when he announced this bill. It
sets out a real Liberal and a real Canadian attitude to law reform.
He said: ``Canada's legal system faces complex legal issues that
require more than a legal solution. Effective long term remedies lie
in an approach that includes not only legal but social, economic and
other disciplines as well. The Government of Canada believes that
an independent, multi-disciplinary law reform body is essential to
this process''.
15583
I would suggest that is good common sense. I would suggest
that the Minister of Justice is right on. That is the Liberal vision.
That is the Canadian vision.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to have this opportunity to express my support for
Bill C-106.
The legislation we are considering responds to the urgent need
for a permanent body to advise the government on the
improvement, modernization and reform of the laws of Canada. As
this bill makes clear, there are many requirements to be met if this
work is to succeed. We must have openness of process and the
focusing of a multi-disciplined expertise on these issues.
Something else that is required is a close attention to the matter
of costs by the commission both in its methods and in its goals.
This was a concern expressed by the Reform Party. It is this aspect
of the legislation I want to concentrate on today.
In the context of this bill, there are two aspects to the challenge
of efficiency. One is the need for the commission itself to meet the
test of cost effectiveness, both in its organizational architecture and
in its approach. The other is the requirement that the commission's
work contribute to the cost effectiveness of the Canadian legal
system in general.
The structure of the commission supports these goals. Four of
the five commissioners will serve on a part time basis. The
members of the advisory council will serve without pay. So will the
members of the temporary study panels that the commission will
create to provide expert assistance on the specific issues of the day.
Hon. members will also find that the administrative and the
operational arrangements visualized in the bill reflect the concerns
for costs.
The legislation steers the commission away from the pitfall of
trying to do everything itself. As the preamble makes clear, it will
promote partnerships with a wide range of interested groups and
individuals, including the academic community.
The commission will save money by sharing services wherever
practical. For instance, the previous commission maintained an
in-house library. The new commission will make use of existing
facilities. This approach is implicit in the administrative apparatus.
The commission will be served by a secretariat of no more than
eight people.
Unlike its predecessor body, the commission will not retain a
significant body of full time researchers but will make greater use
of contract help. There are several advantages to this arrangement.
The most obvious is that one avoids having to hire an in-house
expert specialist for every issue or alternatively, to expend time in
bringing in-house staff up to speed on new agenda items.
(1235 )
Hon. members will also note that the bill designates the
commission as a departmental corporation. This too impinges on
cost effectiveness. It allows the commission to receive gifts,
bequests and other donations from outside sources and to
reimburse some costs through the sales of its publications.
The important question is what it will all cost. The government
said as early as in the red book and has kept saying since that the
commission will operate on a budget of $3 million a year, all of
which will come from funds already voted. This is Spartan fare
indeed considering that the previous law commission operated on
approximately $5 million a year in its last operating year. Ten years
ago it would not have been possible to tackle a task of this
magnitude within these limits. What makes it possible today is the
structure and the modus operandi outlined in the bill. What in turn
makes that possible is new technology.
The bill before us recognizes the importance of that factor. The
preamble incorporates as a guiding principle the requirement that
the commission use new technology wherever appropriate in order
to achieve, and I quote from the bill ``efficiency in its operations
and effectiveness in its results''. The commission will do so in
every phase of its operation.
For example, a large part of law reform is research, the
painstaking gathering, sharing and storing of information. The use
of modern information technology will make it easier and cheaper
to do all of these things. The same technology will cut other costs
down to size.
For example, law reform is envisaged in this legislation as a
consultative process in which people from many fields and regions
will present their viewpoints and reason together. In the days when
that required a convergence of experts from all over Canada to one
location, that activity alone would bite large holes into the
operating budget. Today fortunately, we can achieve that meeting
of minds at a much lower cost by making intelligent use of
information technologies, for example through on-line networking,
teleconferencing and video conferencing.
These new tools can also lighten the administrative load. The
birth of a new organization no longer has to mean the making of a
new multi-layered mini bureaucracy. On-line networking for
example makes it possible for organizations to share personnel, pay
and other services. The commission will take full advantage of
these opportunities.
This bill is a mandate for the pursuit of efficiency, both in the
internal workings of the commission and the interpretation of its
mandate.
As the bill says, one function of the commission will be to
recommend measures to make the legal system itself more efficient
and economical. As the commission considers which of various
options for reform to recommend, it will give full weight to the
15584
element of costs, both the immediate ones and those associated
with downstream economic and social impacts.
The importance of this part of the commission's role has
influenced every aspect of its design. It is reflected, for example, in
the emphasis in this bill on the multi-disciplinary approach to law
reform, one that involves not only lawyers but also economists,
scientists and other experts. Efficient solutions can only come
when we see the problem in the whole context. This applies with
full force to law reform.
(1240 )
The failure to take costs into effect leads to system overload. It
weakens the administration and enforcement of the law. It
undermines the confidence and credibility that sustains the law.
Because the law touches on every aspect of our national life, it is
detrimental to our national well-being if we do not take these cost
factors into account.
Cost effectiveness, the quality of achieving a high ratio of output
to input has achieved something of the status of a common cause. It
is the recognized prerequisite to Canada's competitiveness on
world markets. It is the key to the sustainability of the social
programs which are this country's pride and its strength. It is vital
to the efficiency of the legal system which has the infrastructure for
everything else.
The cost effectiveness component will also allow us to bring
together legal and other experts, scientists and scholars, through
these technological advances to allow them to be part of improving
the law in Canada. This is going to open up the whole process of
law reform and the appreciation of the law in this country.
By spending less we are really going to be able to do more. Most
of all, it is going to put us back in the lead of all western nations as
a country that has a law reform commission or a law commission as
it is in this case. In our modern society we have to have laws which
are going to evolve with society. No law can be looked on as a law
that will rest in its exact form for an indefinite period of time. We
constantly must be looking at our laws and appraising the needs of
society for changes in the laws.
If, as some members have said, this can be done through the
Department of Justice, then of course we are blind to the context at
which we must look at our law. We must look at our laws separate
and apart from the Department of Justice so that recommendations
can come to the department from outside. That is by far the
healthiest way of approaching this.
Today in our society and in the world we must be conscious of
the strength of the rule of law. People look to our laws and they
look to our society. Part of our society is the fabric of our laws.
When investment takes place it not only looks at the economic
climate but it also looks at the stability of our system and the
forthrightness of our laws.
This bill is going to do a great deal to enhance an already
tremendous respect for the Canadian justice system throughout the
world. I am very pleased we are dealing with this bill today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion, the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(1245 )
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The chief government whip
has asked us to defer the vote until Monday of next week at 5.30
p.m.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-105, an act to implement a convention between Canada and
the Republic of Latvia, a convention between Canada and the
Republic of Estonia, a convention between Canada and the
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and a protocol between Canada
and the Republic of Hungary, for the avoidance of double taxation
and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on
income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to speak today at second reading of Bill C-105.
Bill C-105 implements reciprocal income tax conventions
between Canada and Latvia, Canada and Estonia, Canada and
Trini-
15585
dad and Tobago and a protocol to the current income tax treaty
between Canada and Hungary.
[Translation]
These tax conventions or treaties, as they are also sometimes
called, and their amending protocols, are similar to other
conventions already approved by this House.
Tax conventions two main purposes: firstly, to avoid double
taxation of income and, secondly, to prevent tax evasion. However,
not all tax conventions require Parliament approval. Certain tax
agreements require no legislative measure when the Income Tax
Act already contains equivalent provisions.
For example, an agreement respecting the profits of airline and
shipping companies confirming the exemption they are entitled to
under the Income Tax Act would not require legislative
authorization.
On the other hand, double taxation conventions all require
parliamentary approval, because they change the effect of national
legislation, specifically the Income Tax Act. The same criteria
apply to amending protocols.
This is why we are considering Bill C-105.
A few minutes ago, I mentioned conventions that have already
been approved. Those in Bill C-105 are no different. They are part
of a series of tax conventions dating back to 1971, when reform of
our tax system necessitated Canada's developing a network of
double taxation treaties with other countries.
[English]
Bill C-105 continues along this path. Canada now has double
taxation treaties in place with 55 other countries. This point brings
me to a related topic, the selection of countries for reciprocal tax
treaties. How does the government decide with which countries to
negotiate tax treaties? Are there benefits to having tax treaties with
other countries? Let me take a moment and review this process.
Canada does not need any legislative authority to negotiate and
sign a tax treaty relationship with a country. Legislation comes
later, such as with this bill, when measures in the ensuing
convention differ from those affected by our Income Tax Act, as I
have explained.
(1250)
A tax treaty with a specific country is usually pursued because
the government wants to encourage foreign investment in Canada
and investment by Canadians abroad or as a result of budget
measures.
The 1992 budget announced Canada's willingness to reduce its
withholding tax on direct dividends to meet with the national
norms. The 1993 budget subsequently announced Canada's
willingness to eliminate the withholding tax on specific royalties to
ensure the competitiveness of our technological industries.
There are three primary factors to be considered when
negotiating a tax treaty with a country: how much Canadian
investment is planned for that country, Canada's desire to
encourage economic reforms there, and that country's interest in
expanding its trade and economic relations with Canada. The tax
treaties in Bill C-105 meet each of these three criteria.
Bill C-105 is neither earth shattering nor housekeeping
legislation. Rather, it is the workaday legislation that addresses the
dual issue of fair taxation and good international relations.
In this era of governments reappraising their roles, particularly
their economic roles, and an increasingly interdependent open,
global economy, reciprocal trade tax treaties make sense. They
certainly do not hinder economic competition, which for Canada is
an important factor of life.
Canada is above all a trading nation and we must keep expanding
our trading boundaries and therefore our relationships with other
countries.
A few items apply to all four treaties in this bill. First, while tax
treaties vary from one country to another, these proposed
conventions are similar to other treaties already concluded by
Canada. They are patterned on the model double taxation
convention prepared by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Second, each treaty has been negotiated individually and has
taken into account the relevant policies in each country.
Third, Bill C-105 provides an equitable solution to the double
taxation problems that exist between Canada and these countries.
Double taxation occurs when international transactions result in the
same income being taxable in the hands of the same person by
more than one nation.
In addition, the protocol brings the convention with Hungary in
line with current Canadian tax policy, particularly with regard to
the rates of withholding tax.
Here are some of the technical aspects of Bill C-105 that apply to
the treaties with Estonia, Latvia and Trinidad and Tobago. There
will be a withholding tax rate of 5 per cent on dividends paid to a
parent company and on branch profits and 10 per cent on interest
and royalties and management fees in the case of Trinidad and
Tobago. A 15 per cent rate of withholding tax will apply on other
dividends.
The conventions also provide for a number of exemptions in the
case of interest. For Estonia and Latvia a zero rate will apply to
interest paid to the governments, the central banks, the Export
Development Corporation and from sales made on credit.
15586
For Trinidad and Tobago a zero rate will apply to interest paid
for government indebtedness and on loans or credit from the
Export Development Corporation or its equivalent there and to
interest paid to pension funds.
Canadians will benefit from any future changes extended by
Estonia and Latvia to other OECD member countries with respect
to the withholding tax on copyright and patent royalties. Trinidad
and Tobago will maintain the exemption on copyright royalties.
Pension payments and annuity payments in the case of Trinidad
and Tobago will be taxed at a maximum rate of 15 per cent in the
source country. However, war pensions in Trinidad and Tobago will
be exempt.
(1255)
In addition, social security pensions will be taxed in the
originating country and the withholding tax rate on annuity
payments will be dropped to 10 per cent.
Also with respect to Trinidad and Tobago, the two-year
exemption for visiting teachers will no longer exist and seasonal
workers will not have to pay Canadian tax if they earn under
$8,500.
I turn now to the protocol negotiated with Hungary. For
historical purposes I should mention that Income Tax Act
amendments in 1976 increased the rate of withholding tax paid to
non-residents from 15 per cent to 25 per cent unless reduced by a
tax treaty.
The existing treaty between Canada and Hungary reduced the
withholding tax rate to 10 per cent on dividends paid to a parent
company and 15 per cent in all other cases. However, that
convention was negotiated before the 1992 budget announced
Canada's willingness to reduce its withholding tax on direct
dividends to 5 per cent. The revised protocol before us today
reduces that rate and the rate of branch tax to 5 per cent by 1997.
There are no changes in the rates of withholding tax on other
dividends.
Tax treaties such as this are important tools for countries. The
benefits they provide in helping to stabilize tax systems foster
international trade and investment which are very important in
today's global environment.
Canada will not lose any revenue from the concessions in these
conventions. Not only will Canada gain from increased trade and
investment, we will gain from the reduced withholding tax rates
and other concessions.
There is nothing in the view of the government contentious in the
bill. By passing this legislation the number of countries with which
Canada has tax arrangements will increase to 57.
I urge my colleagues to give Bill C-105 speedy consideration so
that we may get on with more pressing issues.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to express the Bloc Quebecois' assessment of Bill C-105.
As the government spokesperson said before me, this bill is not
controversial, it is a matter of course in trade relations between
countries.
The bill concerns the implementation of conventions between
Canada and various countries, including Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad
and Tobago, and Hungary to avoid double taxation and prevent
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
It is a very technical bill that was first negotiated by officials in
Canada's diplomatic corps and public service, and we are ratifying
the treaties they concluded, with this bill.
As the government spokesperson put it so well, this sort of thing
is standard between sovereign countries, countries that want to
promote trade. The bill is based on the standards defined by the
OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
You might be wondering why I wanted to speak on behalf of the
official opposition. Because this bill, which has been described as
arising as a matter of course, could serve as an example, a point of
comparison, for the events that could occur the day after a yes vote
in the referendum in trade and economic relations between Canada,
the United States, Quebec and other countries in the world.
(1300)
In their trade, diplomatic and political relations, countries look
after their own interests, as the opposition member clearly pointed
out. In a proposal like the one before us, before concluding a treaty
or an agreement-and there are now such treaties and agreements
with 55 countries in the world-, we look after Canada's interests.
We look at these countries' investments in the Canadian economy
and at Canada's investments in the countries with which we have
treaties.
At some point, after assessing our trade and economic interests,
we sign a treaty. So there is nothing contentious in all of this.
Negotiations take place, the various countries check their laws, and
it is quite normal to sign an agreement so that Canada and its
partners can maintain and improve their regular trade and
economic relations.
In the debate currently taking place in Quebec and Canada on the
prospect of a sovereign Quebec, economic and trade arguments are
often on the agenda. Just the day before yesterday, the Minister of
Finance claimed that Quebec's sovereignty would threaten 1
million jobs in that province. When we examine the finance
minister's speech, we see that these million jobs would be
15587
threatened if trade between Canada and Quebec and between the
U.S. and Quebec was reduced to zero.
Can trade between Canada, Quebec and the U.S. be reduced to
zero? Will Quebecers and people in Jonquière stop buying Ford
cars if these cars meet their requirements? Will people in the U.S.
stop-
[English]
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were debating Bill C-105, an
act to implement tax conventions between Canada and Latvia,
Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol for the tax treaty with
Hungary. I find it very difficult to see how what the hon. member is
saying is relevant to the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. parliamentary
secretary of course is a very experienced parliamentarian. The
question of relevance does come up from time to time in the House.
In the past few days it has come up and possibly in the days to come
it will come up more often. It is good that we are reminded of it and
we should be mindful of it.
[Translation]
The question of relevance is raised from time to time. It was
probably raised a bit more often this past little while and it is likely
to come up more often yet in the weeks to come. While I wish to
remain sympathetic to both sides I just want to say that the hon.
parliamentary secretary reminded us of the need for relevance and I
hope we will be mindful of this requirement in all our remarks. I
will be monitoring the debate very closely.
The hon. member for Jonquière still has the floor.
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs called
me on relevance because I thought it was rather obvious. Here is a
country, Canada, with 28 million people. This country may well
rank sixth in the world in terms of per capita gross domestic
product, given purchasing power parity. This is based on 1991
figures.
(1305)
This country, this great country which is a member of the G-7
and the international jet set, sees fit to enter into trade relations
with countries that I would not describe as small-I will not use
this qualifier often used by our friends opposite, because it evokes
little people and conveys the somewhat pejorative idea of being of
minor importance-but rather as countries with not as large a
population as Canada.
Latvia, for example, has a population of 2.6 million; Estonia, 1.5
million; Trinidad and Tobago, 1.3 million; and Hungary, 10
million. While these countries do not have the economic prestige
and stature of Canada, as it stands and as our friends opposite see it,
Canada has negotiated tax treaties with them based on the OECD
model. This is normal. Earlier, the spokesperson for the opposition
said: this is normal; this is the way things are done between
civilized countries of the world, that is those countries which look
after their best interest.
We did not see or hear anything from Latvia, Hungary, Trinidad
and Tobago to the effect that Canada is too big, that its economy is
too strong, or that it will impose unacceptable conditions to those
countries.
I do not know for sure, since we do not have newspaper articles
from Latvia, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago, and all the other
countries, but we do not feel that Canada acted improperly with
sovereign nations.
The point which I am making is that, right now, English
language newspapers in Canada are constantly saying: ``If Quebec
becomes a sovereign nation, Canada will not deal with it because
Canada is twice as big as Quebec. You will not count at all on the
North American market. You will probably not be able to trade any
more. Americans will probably stop buying your aluminum or your
paper, and you will stop buying their cars, their refrigerators and
IBM computers. You will have to go down on your knees and pay
twice the price, because the United States is too big. Americans
will not comply with international standards; they will try to crush
you''.
When I look at the bill before us this morning, I realize that this
will not be the case. We are talking about Latvia, Estonia, Hungary,
Trinidad and Tobago. We are talking about countries which do not
have close relations with Canada, which have not been part of
Canada for 130 years; there is no problem with these countries.
Canada does some trading and has good diplomatic relations with
these countries, and there is no problem when the time comes to
sign conventions.
However, when they are talking about Quebec, which has been
part of Canada for 130 years, they kowtow to the U.S. They seek a
statement from the U.S. secretary of state, in the hope that he will
say: ``Should Quebec become sovereign, we may decide to
renegotiate NAFTA, we may impose additional conditions; your
cultural industry may be crushed; American movies will flood the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean market, which is 98 per cent French.
Movie theatres showing French language movies will close; French
language newspapers will have to be highly subsidized and may
even have to stop publishing. It will be the end of the world''.
When you see bills such as this one, which is described by the
government's spokesperson as being the normal thing to do,
without any problem, you tell yourself: ``Indeed, there is no
problem signing commercial treaties with Latvia, Hungary or any
other country. Why then should there be problems if Quebec
becomes a sovereign nation''?
I think it might be worthwhile to use some examples. If they had
said ``We will make an exception for Latvia and Estonia, because
15588
they were part of the soviet block for a long time, because they
lived through difficulties, because they are small countries which
valiantly defended their sovereignty, which survived the soviet
empire's steamroller, which maintained their language, which
maintained their cultural identity, which defended themselves, and
which succeeded against all odds in becoming sovereign as soon as
the soviet empire loosened its hold slightly. If they have succeeded
in doing so, it might then have been said that we Canadians,
rightfully considered the boy scouts of the world, are prepared to
defend widows and orphans everywhere in the world.''
(1310)
As soon as Estonia and Latvia were free of the Soviet Union, the
first thing they did was to demand sovereignty and seek
recognition. We could have said ``We will give Estonia and Latvia
special treatment, we will help them, we will support them because
this is an acknowledgment of their contribution to the world
balance of democracy.'' But no. We echo what the spokesman for
the opposition said just now: ``It is a matter of interest. We have
investments over there; they probably have some here. We sign. No
problem. A matter of interest. Not a matter of politics. Not a matter
of feelings. Not a matter of anything at all. Not of acknowledging
countries which have succeeded in gaining sovereignty, which have
lived through 50 years of communism and the Russian steamroller.
Which have survived all that. No, just a matter of interest. Well, all
right then.
Take the example of Hungary. We know what happened in
Hungary in the 1950s, an attempted revolt against the Soviet
empire. The Hungarians were crushed. Canada took many of them
in, to its credit. Although I was very young at the time, I remember
it because it made a strong impression upon me. But the bill does
not say ``We are entering into a protocol with Hungary because it
did great things during the 1950s and because there are many
Hungarians in Canada and so we will help them now''. No. They
say: ``No, we signed a protocol with Hungary because it is in our
interest to do so. Hungarians have investments in Canada, and we
have investments in Hungary. We want to continue to trade with
them, so we sign agreements. That is how things work at the
international level''. The same for Trinidad and Tobago. In fact, the
opposition critic explained that some harmonization was necessary
in our trade with Trinidad and Tobago. No problem at all.
So I read this bill and, speaking on behalf of the official
opposition, I say: ``We have agreements with Latvia, Estonia,
Trinidad and Tobago, Hungary and 55 other countries in the world.
Wonderful''. So I start off by saying: ``There are certain things that
are done involving large countries and small countries. Small
countries which Canada does not seem to look down on, which it
respects because they are sovereign''. That is the beauty of
sovereignty: you get respect. Whether you are big or small, when
you are sovereign, you are respected because there are
international conventions and practices, and the rules of the game
are clearly
established. And that is why certain countries want to become
sovereign. Today, Quebec is one of those countries. I say country,
because to me, Quebec is a country.
Look at Quebec. When you see Quebecers and hear them talk
and look at their history, you realize that, like it or not, Quebec is
different from other parts of Canada. This is not to denigrate the
people of Newfoundland, Franco-Ontarians, Westerners and
British Columbians, but Quebecers are a bit different, and today,
some of them are saying: At the international level, we are going to
make this country a sovereign state. And now, one of the arguments
being made in this debate is that Quebec will be in for hard times.
Daniel Johnson said: ``Oops, if you become sovereign, there go
92,000 jobs''. The very next day or three or four days or a week
later, when they had a chance to think about it, they realized that
92,000 jobs was perhaps not impressive enough. So a respected
federal finance minister told Quebec: ``92,000? Probably more like
one million''. Not 900,000, not 900,100 or 909,150 but one
million. That is impressive. We are ``millionaires'' in terms of job
losses. He is not saying: ``Oh, you will not lose one million jobs'',
but: ``You might lose one million jobs'', because if you ever do,
since you are not big guys but little guys, with a small economy,
you will definitely not be in the big league. If you are little, maybe
Canada, which is bigger than you, or the United States, which is
bigger than you, will say, we do not trade with the little guys, we
only trade with the big guys.
(1315)
So then there would be no more trade with Canada, no more
trade between Quebec and Canada, no more trade between Quebec
and the United States-this means a million jobs. Obviously it is a
million jobs, if nobody buys what we produce and we do not buy
what others want to sell us. Obviously, in trade and in production,
there are going to be losses, but that is the way it works.
How does it work internationally? It works the way it does in this
bill. Countries, states, make treaties and agreements based on their
interests. That is how it works. For sure, some people are touchy
because of certain events, they are unhappy, they say that things are
going to work differently, and we hope this is not the way it is
going to be.
The Leader of the Official Opposition, Lucien Bouchard, will
come and start negotiations. Maybe people will say they do not
want to negotiate with us, they do not like us, we are demagogues,
we are ethnic, we are out to do a number on ourselves and we are
shrinking our economy. We will say to them: well, we had a vote,
we want to reach an agreement with you, and we will reach it even
if we do not reach it on the basis of the friendship that still
developed over the years and centuries.
15589
Quebec and Canada, and Quebec and the United States are not
the same as Quebec and Latvia. With all due respect to Latvia, it is
not the same. I see a member opposite listening intently and rolling
his eyes skyward saying: ``Oh, what clever remarks''. The hon.
member was born in Hull, and I congratulate him on it. There are
members like us; the hon. member for Québec-Est was born in
Penetanguishene, Ontario. There are still ties. Perhaps there are ties
between my hon. colleague opposite and people in Quebec.
Perhaps he has ties with people living in Latvia and Estonia.
But it is not on that basis that we want to negotiate. We do not
want you to negotiate with us because you like us, because we were
with you for 130 years. It is not on that basis that we want to
negotiate. We want to negotiate on the same basis as that in Bill
C-105, which is not contentious and poses no problems. This basis
is the interests of nations negotiating as equals because they are
sovereign. This is the way things are done at the international level.
We in Quebec think we can do as well as Latvia, as Estonia, as
Trinidad and Tobago. Why? For two good reasons. The first reason
is that, if you look at what is currently happening in the world,
according to some theories, the most populous countries, the
countries with the largest domestic markets, are those that do best.
Then look at the most populous countries in the world and see
how they are doing. Let us look at the U.S., which has the highest
GDP. I will not talk about the other countries for fear of being
accused of discrimination: ``You said that France was No. 4 or 5.
You are discriminating against the U.S. You like France a little less
than the U.S. What is the matter?'' ``Would a Bloc member say that
he liked France less? He is more of a Franco-American; he is not a
francophile''. In a campaign like the one under way, one must be
prudent.
However, if we look at the world's countries on the basis of their
GDP per capita and their population, we see Switzerland, with 6
million people, in second place, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
in third place, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Iceland,
Norway, the Netherlands, Finland- Did I mention any poor
countries? These countries are among the top 20, and the top 10
include four or five countries with populations of five, six or seven
million. Population is no longer as important a factor as it used to
be.
(1320)
Empires expanded. The British Empire, that my hon. colleague
opposite is so fond of, expanded to increase business opportunities
for British merchants who wanted to gain access to the market in
India, Africa and so on. In those days, this was important, but it is
no longer the case today. The size of any given country is not
relevant. I am not theorizing. This is a fact confirmed in the
economic accounts of respected countries such as Switzerland,
Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, and Iceland,
which are not as large as some others.
The Austrian population is certainly not as large as the Chinese
population, yet Austria does very well for itself. Back in 1991,
Austria ranked 10th in terms of per capita gross domestic product.
That is not bad at all. This country, a former empire, has had its
problems and suffered greatly during the second world war. Today,
Austria is a player.
What I mean by that is that globalization is giving smaller
countries the change to enter the global markets. It is not up to their
neighbours to decide whether or not they can enter these markets.
There are international regulations for that as the OECD has
regulations governing treaties between various countries or tax
conventions. There are rules.
The size of the country is no longer the determining factor. The
main thing is to gain access to international markets. Second, and
this is a major factor, there must be a demand for what you
produce, your products must be well made and you must have what
the economists call a niche of your own, an area in which you
excel. You need not be great at everything, just in certain areas and
develop markets from there. That is why I think that, in terms of
size, Quebec, as a country, would compare favourably with
Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and the like, and do quite
well.
Quebec is not a poor nation. Some people seem to want to put up
a fence around Quebec, including the Minister of Finance who
says: ``Listen, when that fence is up, you will lose one million
jobs''. I am sorry but there will be no such fence, because this is not
the way things work. Why did the minister say one million jobs?
One million, as in the word millionaire. The Minister of Finance
knows about millionaires, but he would be better off talking about
the billions of dollars worth of freight transported on his ships, or
the millions in goods produced in his plants. It is inappropriate on
the part of a finance minister to tell Quebecers that one million of
them will become unemployed if sovereignty is achieved, and that
a fence will be built around Quebec.
The issue of Quebec's population in relation to the prosperity
which it can develop is not a factor here, because it is not for other
countries either. As I said, Quebec is not without assets. Its GDP
stands at 160 billion dollars. Quebec is a modern state with major
institutions, including a deposit and investment fund,
Hydro-Quebec and a pension board, and with large corporations
which developed over the years, even though, at one point, some of
these big entrepreneurs invested in Northern Ireland and in
Belgium, and said: ``In Quebec, we started off in a small village''. I
could mention the community of Valcourt, where a major
Canadian and Quebec multinational is based. One would think that
it is a Quebec company, but we were told: ``It is not a Quebec
corporation, it is a
15590
Canadian one. And if Quebec becomes sovereign, do not expect us
to stay here: we will move back to Canada''.
Over the last 30 or 35 years, Quebec developed industrial
structures and trade policies which will enable it to join the
countries which I mentioned earlier. We rank 16th in terms of the
GDP. This is quite something. Quebec is part of Canada. Our
friends across the floor say: ``Quebec is part of Canada. If you
leave Canada, you will become poor, while Canada will keep on
being rich''.
(1325)
That is all very fine, but the wealth of Quebec and the wealth of
Canada are similar in terms of domestic product. Quebec
sovereignty does not take our engineers from us. Quebec
sovereignty does not take our capital from us. Quebec sovereignty
does not take our administrators, our poets; it takes nothing from
us.
Quebec sovereignty gives us additional powers in terms of laws,
gives us additional powers in terms of treaties we can negotiate.
Treaties like those Canada has with 55 countries, we will have too.
We will have them because we have something to offer. There are
people in those countries who may come to invest in Quebec and
people in Quebec who may go and invest there. We will be able to
have as many treaties as you have managed to have.
That is why it is most appropriate to bring up the case of Quebec
in my intervention concerning Bill C-105, for it shows us that it is
completely normal for the Government of Canada to have treaties
with Latvia, with Estonia, with Trinidad and Tobago, with
Hungary, as it will be completely normal for there to be one
between Canada and Quebec, once its citizens have decided on
sovereignty. And we will have such a treaty.
We keep hearing ``But you are not telling Quebecers what you
will do afterward. What will the partnership be like? We do not
have much of an idea''. Just do a bit of reading. I imagine that the
hon. members have most definitely familiarized themselves with
Quebec's bill on sovereignty, that they are also aware of the
agreement signed this past June between Messrs. Bouchard,
Parizeau and Dumont on the matter of the partnership treaty
between Quebec and Canada.
And what will that partnership treaty cover? A customs union,
free circulation of goods, free circulation of individuals, free
circulation of services, free circulation of capital, monetary policy,
manpower mobility, citizenship. It is a treaty between sovereign
states. By the very fact that we shall be a sovereign state, we shall
have the possibility of signing treaties. If Canada wants to sign
treaties with Quebec in other areas, we are open to any and all
discussion.
My point is that once we are sovereign, even if our economy is
not as big as Canada's, we will be able to sign treaties just like
Estonia, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Latvia.
And they will be signed for the same reason they were signed
with the countries I just referred to, because it is in our interest to
do so. We claim, and I am sure that the people of Quebec will trust
us to do the right thing, that this is in the interest of Quebec and of
Canada.
Of course Canada will maintain up to the last minute that there
will be no negotiations and no agreement ever. Our Canadian
friends are so anxious to make this point that yesterday, when the
Prime Minister of Canada was in Quebec, he said: ``There will be
nothing, because Canada will disappear if Quebec leaves. We do
not know what will happen. There will be nothing left, because
once Quebec has gone, there will be no more Canada''. That is how
we understood Mr. Chrétien's speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I realize one tends to forget
this from time to time, but I may remind the House that members
are to be referred to by their ridings or departments.
Mr. Caron: This was of course an oversight, Mr. Speaker. We
always refer to him in conversation as Mr. Chrétien, but it is the
hon. Prime Minister.
The hon. Prime Minister-Mr. Speaker, do you not think this is
extraordinary? -the hon. Prime Minister of Canada said last night
in a speech in Quebec, and I should have brought the quote with
me, the hon. Prime Minister of Canada said there would be no more
Canada if Quebec were to leave. This is really incredible.
If the province of Newfoundland ever decided to withdraw from
Canada, would there still be a Canada? The people of
Newfoundland-I have met a number of members from that
province-are people of great warmth who was very attached to
their province.
(1330)
However, if Newfoundland were no longer a part of Canada, we
can assume there would still be a Canada, as there was in 1948 and
1945, when Newfoundland was not part of Canada.
Similarly, if British Columbia withdrew from Canada, saying:
``Listen, we are on the west coast, that is where the markets are'',
because it is always a matter of markets. Today, countries are
markets, and their purpose is to engage in trade, not to protect the
well-being of their citizens or ensure the continuity of nations. Let
us suppose that the people of British Columbia decide that they
face west, towards Japan, the Rockies are too big, there will
probably be no more train service through the Rockies, with
privatization and all that, the train costs too much. If they decide to
become a sovereign country and then, to improve trading with
Asia, they form a sort of North American Singapore, will Canada
still exist?
15591
I do not think the Prime Minister of Canada would go to
Vancouver and say: ``Do not leave Canada; if you leave Canada,
the country will no longer exist.'' But this is what happened
yesterday. The Prime Minister of Canada said that Canada would
cease to exist if Quebec left. Is Canada only Ontario and Quebec?
This is what we will end up thinking. It is as if this were 1840
and Canada were Lower and Upper Canada-joined later by other
provinces and territories-but they remained the heart of the
country. Ontario and Quebec form the heart of Canada, why,
because they are the two biggest markets?
Certainly, with today's mentality, that is what those opposite will
have us believe. Is it not, rather, that Canada at the outset was
Ontario and Quebec, because Ontario was English Canadian and
Quebec was French Canadian, and each country had minorities,
official language minorities different from the majority. That was
Canada.
Canada did what it could for minorities. Look at Quebec, there is
a very strong English Canadian minority that has its universities,
its school boards, its hospitals, its representatives in major
institutions. I would like to be able to say the same of our
Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Manitoban friends who had to fight
for their schools, and who still have to fight for their schools, and
for control over them. They are not fighting for control over
universities, they are fighting for control over elementary schools
and high schools, because that it where assimilation occurs.
We challenged, two days ago, statistics stating that there were a
million francophones outside Quebec in Canada. We said that, out
of the one million Canadians outside Quebec who claim French as
their mother tongue, 650 speak French at home. We did not mean
any disrespect to our Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Manitoban
friends or our friends in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. We
just wanted to say how sad we were to see the French language die
out outside Quebec. What we intend to achieve among other things
through sovereignty, besides allowing Quebec to develop with its
best interests in mind, is to ensure, through our own institutions,
that French will still be spoken in America in a hundred years and
that a French or Quebec culture will still be alive in Quebec at that
time.
That is what we want to do. We want to live on without
constantly having to protest, like our friends opposite do, just to
survive. It is important to be able to survive. But we think that there
are enough of us, and that we have enough education, enough
capital, enough stamina, and enough willpower to do better than
survive.
When I was in grade school, money was collected throughout the
Quebec school system, a dime at a time, for the survival of the
French language in Canada. Grade school children gave money for
use in Manitoba and Ontario. This was fine. But look at where they
now stand. It is sad in a sense to think that there are only 640 of
them across Canada, including Acadians.
(1335)
It is most unfortunate, but as a francophone and a Quebecer or a
French Canadian living in Quebec who calls himself a Quebecer, I
do not want anything to do with a system that will lead, fifty years
from now, to a situation where we have a nice official languages act
and many officially bilingual institutions, but where French will no
longer be a living language in Quebec.
People can say we are spiteful, I say that we are just stating the
facts. The fact is that Canada started off as a bicultural country, a
bilingual country, where you had French and English Canadians.
The very reason there is panic in some political back rooms is that,
yes indeed, this is what Canada was initially.
The Prime Minister said so: If Quebec goes, that is it for Canada.
Look, this is a basic issue. What is Quebec? It is not an economy; it
is a culture, and a language. With this culture and language gone,
Canada as we know it will no longer exist. This means that we have
reached the bottom line.
Canada is more than a checkerboard with ten squares
representing each of the ten provinces and that we call Canada. Try
as we may, and Reformers will insist that that is Canada and that
each little square should be assigned the same number of senators
and the same responsibilities, we have to admit that this view of
Canada does not agree with reality.
Initially, the real Canada was made up of French Canadians and
English Canadians. French Canadians did not benefit from this
agreement. And French Canadians in Quebec who are now called
Quebecers decided to withdraw from the agreement, to declare
themselves sovereign, that is to say, in control of their laws, taxes
and treaties, and then to propose a partnership treaty with English
Canada.
English Canada likes us so much that it is threatening to cut us
off. It is so pleasant to stay in a country like this one. They like us
so much that instead of telling us, ``Stay with us and everything
will be fine'', they say, ``If you vote Yes, we will cut you off; if you
vote No, nothing will happen and you will stay the way you are
now''.
It is over for French Canadians in Quebec who are now called
Quebecers, and I hope that, on October 30, these Quebecers will be
able to sign treaties such as this one, agreements with other
countries, so that they can benefit from international trade and
eventually have access to the economic instruments they need to
remain what they are, a French speaking people with their own
culture in North America. This is my dearest wish and I think that
the people of Quebec will listen to our proposal and vote Yes on
October 30.
15592
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope to
stick to Bill C-105 and keep it kind of short.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Silye: That is the second time in two years I have been
applauded by members opposite; I appreciate it.
The purpose of Bill C-105 is to implement the tax conventions
between Canada and the republics of Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and
Tobago and a protocol between Canada and the republic of
Hungary for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
income tax evasion.
It is just like Bill S-9. We are here debating bills and for all
intents and purposes they are already done deals. The agreements
have already been signed by the bureaucrats and diplomats and
now we have to give them a formal blessing. We have spent two
days doing that. It is important to do it, so let us get on with the
business of getting it done.
Tax treaties like this one along with their amending protocols
have two main purposes: the elimination of double taxation on
goods, services and people that flow back and forth across borders
and the prevention of fiscal evasion by the same people. The
treaties and protocols being signed are patterned on the model of
the double taxation convention prepared by the OECD. That is
supposed to be our guarantee that everything in here is wonderful,
good for everybody, and we do not even have to look into the
details. The Reform Party supports these and any initiatives that
help eliminate barriers to the globalization of our economy.
(1340)
However, in the debate on Bill C-105 I noticed when the
parliamentary secretary to the finance minister made his
presentation on the bill today that he said there was nothing
contentious in the bill. That almost made me want to look into it
and reread it, as if he were trying to hide some of the sneaky little
deals found in Bill S-9 that the member for Gander-Grand Falls
pointed out. That Liberal member pointed out how bad Bill S-9
was, that it was not really a Liberal bill, and that he was
disappointed the Liberal Party could support it.
That brings me to another point on the Liberal government. It
struck me interesting in reviewing and researching protocol bills
and tax concession bills between countries how the Liberal
government had flip-flopped on its anti-free trade policies of the
past. It is actually approving bills that lower taxes. It is actually
approving bills that eliminate the barriers to trade. It is actually
doing something they were against when in opposition and we are
for.
It makes me wonder whether the finance minister is in charge or
the deputy minister is in charge who worked for the Conservative
government? Which set of people, which grouping, the politicians
or the bureaucrats, is in charge of the government?
In 1991 when the finance minister was in opposition he gave his
opinion on trade conventions, treaties and tax concession
conventions. What did he ask the government to do? What did he
say to ensure the deals were in the best interests of all Canadians?
To put it in context, when in opposition the finance minister in
referring to the Conservative government said, as indicated in
Hansard:
In the free trade agreement this government, so desperate for a success even if
it was only paper thin, and so afraid of failure, sat down cowardly with the
Americans and gave up the ghost before negotiations started.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Martin: It made every single concession. Every point it
thought the Americans would raise at the table, it gave up before it
got there, because this indeed is a craven government.
He was referring to Bill S-9, what we approved yesterday. He
was criticizing the very bill that was passed in substantially the
same form. He did not agree that the Conservative government was
headed in the right direction.
That borders on the hypocritical. If a member who criticizes
something vehemently and strongly in opposition has the chance to
change it, to improve it, to fix it or to make it better when in power,
he or she should do so. But the government goes along and in the
course of the last two years has basically passed about 10
Conservative bills substantially in the form that were on the shelf
gathering dust. Its members just took them off the shelf, blew off
the dust, presented them in the House, put Liberal on them, and
now they are being passed.
I am sure some members of the Liberal government are deeply
hurt because their party said in the past that it would never cut the
deficit on the backs of the sick or the poor and this is exactly what it
is now doing.
The Liberals are cutting and transferring the debt from the
federal government to the provincial governments. They are
cutting health care and welfare services by $7 billion and are
calling it the social transfer bill or whatever. This is what they said
they would not do.
There have to be some Liberals over there who are hurting, who
are bleeding internally, because they are losing their roots. They
are losing what they are supposed to be doing in terms of protecting
the people who elected them. They are not protecting them. They
are going against their wishes. They are breaking a lot of the
promises they made in the red book.
During the election they said on free trade that they did not like
NAFTA and that they would renegotiate.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): This is not free trade.
Mr. Assadourian: Stick to the subject.
15593
Mr. Silye: I am sticking to the subject a lot more than the
previous speaker. I am straying a bit here when I am talking about
an agreement with another country.
(1345 )
Once again, when they got elected did the Prime Minister
renegotiate as he promised he would? He did not. He passed it in
substantially the same form it was in when the Conservatives
negotiated it. I find it ironic this government says one thing in
opposition and does another thing when in power which means it is
still the status quo. It means nothing has changed although we now
have a Liberal government instead of a Conservative one.
While we support Bill C-105, there are still a few questions I
would like to address. I would like to know why our diplomats
abroad can initiate legislation that makes our taxes lower and our
tax rules simpler when our politicians will not do the same.
Why is it that when the politicians approach the department
heads and say: ``We would like to make the Income Tax Act less
confusing, less complicated and less convoluted. We would like to
make it more simple. We understand it is fair but we would like to
make it fair in a way that everybody understands it, and could we
not lower spending a bit? Since they are making spending cuts they
could pass the benefit to taxpayers''. The bureaucrats say no
because any time we give up a tax point or two we never get it back,
so the answer is no. And that is it. That is as far as the politicians
go.
Except for the member for Broadview-Greenwood who since
1989 has consistently pushed for a simplification of the taxation
system, there is nobody else over there that has as openly, vocally
and energetically pursued this topic. I would like to be another one
of those people who pushes the government into doing it. To the
politicians: Do not let the bureaucrats say it will not work. To the
finance minister: Demand a review of the taxation system to see if
it can be changed.
We all know high taxes are an impediment to growth in the
economy. Why do we not remove the impediment? Why do we not
lower taxes with some spending cuts that the Liberal government is
now finally making? It is finally listening to us; it is finally doing
something to the benefit of many Canadians. Combine that with a
genuine review of the entire taxation system which will then help
to create jobs.
The opportunities for gains in the economy by implementing tax
reform are tremendous. By not doing it, by not exploring it, those
doors remain closed and the opportunity to restore faith, hope and
savings for taxpayers are eliminated. That debt will never, ever be
addressed by adding to it. We have to get to a zero deficit, not a 3
per cent of GDP and dig the hole slower. They are still digging the
hole and are just adding to the problem.
If we want to get rid of the problem, lower spending, raise taxes
to a zero point and the deficit is gone, if that is what the Liberal
government thinks is the problem. However, that is not the
problem. The problem is the debt and our high levels of taxation.
Diplomats recognize globally that we must have equality, that
we need to have the lowest rates of taxation possible to attract
investment and capital while reciprocating with other countries by
offering them the same deals in our country. They do that. Look
through those agreements with the incentives and the opportunities
between countries. It is great. It works well for exports and
imports. What is saving our economy today? NAFTA. Trade with
other nations.
We need to treat each of our provinces, including that wonderful
province of Quebec which belongs in Canada and will stay in
Canada, the same way we treat other nations. Let us make deals
among ourselves, province to province, that eliminate the barriers
to trade and introduce treaties. Let us have only one level of
government looking after a service. Let us define specifically
which level of government should look after which program. Let us
get some savings and some gains into our system so we can lower
spending thus lowering taxes, so we can remove the impediments
to our sluggish economy.
I am trying to make an analogy between the good aspects of
trade treaties we are making with other countries. Why do we not
use those diplomats instead of the politicians sitting over there in
the front row to make our negotiations with the deputy ministers in
order to implement the kind of reforms we need in this country?
These diplomats do a much better job than the elected politicians
because the elected politicians are afraid to stand up to the
bureaucracy. I encourage similar actions here at home in the form
of tax reform as we find in deals like this.
(1350)
In conclusion, I hope this is the last fluffy type bill we have
before this House and that we can get on with more important bills.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, you could put the question,
put the bill through committee of the whole and then we could
debate the health act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now go to the next
stage of debate where members will be entitled to a 20 minute
maximum, subject to 10 minutes questions or comments.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to
participate in the debate on Bill C-105, an act to implement a
convention between Canada and the republic of Latvia, a conven-
15594
tion between Canada and the republic of Estonia, a convention
between Canada and the republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and a
protocol between Canada and the republic of Hungary, for the
avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion
with respect to taxes on income.
As the bill states, the purpose of this enactment is to implement
income tax conventions that have been signed with Latvia, Estonia,
Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol to the income tax convention
with Hungary. As the bill says, these treaties have been signed. The
treaty with Latvia was signed in Ottawa on April 26, 1995. The
agreement with Estonia was signed in Tallinn on June 2, 1995. The
agreement with Trinidad and Tobago was signed in Toronto on
September 11 of this year. The protocol with Hungary was signed
back on May 3, 1994 in Budapest.
Tax treaties are designed to alleviate double taxation of income
earned in one country by a person resident in another country.
While the present position of Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago,
and Hungary limits the potential for additional investment by
residents of these countries in Canada, the tax treaties in question
will certainly be helpful to Canadian corporations and individuals
with operations and investments in those countries.
As the parliamentary secretary has already alerted this House,
these agreements contain provisions on withholding tax, on capital
gains, on non-discrimination-discrimination is prohibited but
only on the basis of the nationality of the taxpayers-pensions and
annuities, and double taxation relief.
These are important agreements. They now must be approved by
Parliament to make them official.
I have been in these countries, except for Trinidad and Tobago. I
have visited Latvia, Estonia and Hungary. I was in these countries
before they were sovereign countries, when they were forced to be
under the Soviet Union. I have visited them after they obtained
their independence. Canada was one of the first countries to
recognize the independence of the three Baltic states and Hungary,
et cetera.
I would like to differ with my colleague from Jonquière very
strongly. He tries to compare Quebec to these countries. I hope he
will read his history. Latvia and Estonia, which are mentioned in
this bill, were sovereign countries at one time but they had their
sovereignty taken away from them by the Molotov-Ribbentrop
agreement. That was not the people's choice; it was forced on
them. Now through democratic elections they are choosing their
own governments. That is why these countries are now ready to do
business with the western world and the entire globe.
I was in those two countries just last summer and in Hungary two
years ago. All of those countries are open for business. So is
Trinidad and Tobago, but I have never been there so I cannot speak
for it, but the other three countries are open for business. They do
not want handouts, although we have helped them a lot with our
technical assistance program.
(1355)
The technical co-operation program has been placed under
CIDA. We have helped those countries in language training for
example. Many people living in Estonia speak nothing but Russian.
In order to obtain their citizenship they must learn Estonian. There
is a big demand for learning Estonian very quickly. We are helping
Estonians with the technology for teaching languages.
I wish the hon. member would read his history and not compare
la belle province with sovereign countries like the three Baltic
states, Hungary, et cetera.
I was very shocked to hear the hon. member say that Canadians
want to see French disappear. Where has the hon. member been for
the last 10 years? I was in education for 27 years. The big trend was
to have children attend total immersion French programs. Children
from British Columbia to Newfoundland are graduating having
spoken the two official languages from as early as grade 3.
The hon. member was concerned that there is no preservation of
the French language. The Constitution of Canada preserves the
French language. If Quebec separates, that guarantee is gone. That
is why Quebecers have to be shown very clearly what they are
going to vote for on October 30. It is: Do you want to separate from
Canada, period? If you do, along with everything else Quebec may
lose is the protection of the French language and French culture.
I am very emotional about that because my wife happens to
come from Quebec. Most of her family lives in la belle province. I
am so pleased when my nieces and nephews write to me. I have a
card in my office which I invite the hon. member to come and see.
It reads: Mon oncle, je t'aime. My uncle, I love you. When my
niece sees me she tells me the same thing: ``Wujek, ja Cie
kocham''. She will also tell me: ``Uncle, I love you''. It is great that
in a province, le beau Québec, Canadians can grow up with three
languages. What more can we ask for? Not only protecting the
French language, but also allow young Canadians to grow up in
these other-
The Speaker: Colleague, I do hate to interrupt any member, but
you will have the floor after question period. It being 2 p.m., we
will now proceed to statements by members.
>
15595
15595
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as a former special constitutional adviser to several Quebec
premiers, I can understand the wish for a flexible federalism that
would readily and efficectively meet the particular needs of every
region of Canada.
My constituents in British Columbia make the same
constitutional claims. Consequently, let us build together a new
pluralistic and co-operative federalism for the 21st century. Vote no
in the referendum.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Thanksgiving Sunday in Coquitlam, a grandfather,
grandmother and their daughter were brutally murdered at the
hands of the common law husband. This heinous crime once again
illustrates the impotence of court orders in the justice system and
the tragedy of marital and family breakdown.
Three white coffins stood in the very church that was the centre
of this family's life and the tragic place of their death. I joined the
community of Maillardville there last week and shared their pain.
It is for the sake of such communities that we in this place must
find those measures that will strengthen and safeguard crucial
family bonds in our society. We must work together to promote and
implement measures in our justice and legal systems that make
peace, not war, in the difficult separation of family structures. We
must recognize that government policy does influence choice,
attitude, and action, and seek out the root causes of the distemper of
our times.
I wish to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences
to the grieving family and to the community. My thoughts and my
prayers are with them.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the federal Liberal government is proceeding with the
former Conservative government's plan to privatize the operations
of local airports.
This week the president of the Saskatchewan Aviation Council
reminded us of the continued importance of these airports and said
that the key to the financial survival of small airports in these new
circumstances is the ability to attract business to the affected
communities. He accurately points out that there is little
communities can do about the costs of running the airports, so they
must find ways to raise new operating money. That generally
means that the airports need to bring in more users.
The irony of the situation is that if new money cannot be found
the increased costs of operating the airports will have to be passed
on to the current airport users, resulting in less, not more, use of the
airports.
With this in mind, I urge the government to provide the resources
and support systems necessary to ensure that municipal
governments can successfully make it through this critical
transition period.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have always formed a united front to face common
challenges. Once more we are challenged to work together to
confront the issues of our time: jobs, economic growth, safety,
good government and unity. Together we shall prevail.
Together we tilled the countryside and built cities, went to war to
win peace and kept peace to prevent war. We made breakthroughs
in science and pioneered technologies for all citizens. We created
medicare so that all Canadians, rich or poor, have equal access to
top-notch health care.
I know that Quebecers and their fellow Canadians take pride in
the work we have done together to make Canada what it is today:
the number one nation in the world in which to live. May this pride
bring victory on October 30 to a Canada united in purpose and
committed to a renewed federalism that ensures we reach our full
potential in the 21st century.
Long live Canada!
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
recent weeks many concerned Canadians in my riding of Niagara
Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake have been talking about the
forthcoming referendum in Quebec and what it may mean for the
future of our nation. Emotions are high and opinions have ranged
from indignation to disbelief and even ambivalence. Many letters
written from the heart call for Quebec to remain in Canada as a
fundamental part of the Canadian family.
Yesterday a group of students from Niagara College wrote to the
citizens of Quebec expressing their deeply held belief that it is the
uniqueness of the people of Quebec that has helped Canada to
become the greatest country in the world.
15596
Let our greatness continue and our family remain united in
harmony to work towards a better future for everyone.
Vive le Canada uni!
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Thanksgiving weekend Waterloo, Ontario, hosted a Waterloo,
Quebec, delegation during Oktoberfest. On Sunday evening,
October 8, the two mayors signed a declaration officially twinning
the two Waterloos.
Mayor Bernard Provencher told the delegates of the two
Waterloos:
We are now living in the most critical period in the history of our country,
with a possibility of a break up. It is quite ironic that it is in the midst of this
crisis we are gathered here tonight to tell each other that if we could find a
magical way of bringing all English-speaking Canadians through the Quebec
province and do it in reverse the other way then we would not have to vote for
what we already own on the 30th. Long live the twinning of our two cities, may
they both remain forever in a united Canada.
The mayors of the two Waterloos, Bernard Provencher and Brian
Turnbull, are in the House today. Their actions have helped to
develop better understanding, mutual respect, and friendship
among Canadians.
Vive les deux Waterloos! Vive le Canada uni!
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the comments made yesterday by the Prime Minister in his speech
before the greater Quebec City chamber of commerce are
unequivocal and they clear up any misunderstanding. The federal
system will not be changed in light of Quebec's legitimate
aspirations.
The Prime Minister just abandoned all Quebec federalists who
still believed that it would be possible to reform federalism and
guarantee the respect and development of Quebec's distinctiveness.
Indeed, the Prime Minister just slammed the door on those who
still thought that federalism would take into account Quebec's
distinct and specific character.
It is now clear that the Prime Minister has nothing to offer to
Quebecers. The side which is promoting change is the only one
providing a vision that will allow Quebec to develop to its full
potential. Vote yes, it is the only logical choice.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last May I
wrote to fellow members of this House to encourage them to
include a picture of missing children in their householders. The
idea was to make these pictures of missing children more visible to
many more people, thereby increasing the probability of their being
found.
I am pleased to inform the House that this project has already
been successful. I was recently informed by Child Find Canada's
office in Edmonton that a missing teenager was safely located as a
direct result of tips arising from the people who had seen her
picture in a fellow member's householder.
Hats off to every member who is participating in Child Find and
other missing children's organizations. I encourage every member
to participate, because this program works.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the separatist dream merchants received a cold shower
from the United States. The U.S. secretary of state, Warren
Christopher, dispelled the separatist dream concerning the special
relationship that an independent Quebec would continue to have
with the United States.
Mr. Christopher said: ``The fact that Canada is a united nation is
an important aspect which explains our ability to get along with
that country, to do business with it, and to have a successful
relation''.
Separatist leaders can continue to generate confusion and sell
dreams wherever they go, but they will never succeed in fooling
Quebecers. On October 30, Quebecers will say no to a project
which would only isolate Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a meeting with the editorial team of
La Presse, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois described the sovereignty of Quebec
as ``inevitable'' and ``a required step''.
This statement by the separatist leader confirms what we have
long been saying: a yes in the referendum will guarantee only one
thing, that Quebec will become a separate country.
15597
The Bloc leader was not in a position to describe the partnership
in such categorical terms, since he knows very well that the
separatist blueprint is not realistic and he will find no one to
negotiate with.
Quebecers do not wish to see Quebec separate from Canada, they
do not wish to see Canada broken apart, and that is why they will
vote no on October 30.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
Quebecers are becoming increasingly aware that the separatist
leaders refuse to talk about the costs of separation. The separatist
leaders are attempting to cloak their plans for separation in
suppositions, hoping that they can thus slip them by Quebecers.
The leader of the Bloc has even gone so far in that arrogant
attitude as to state in an interview with La Presse yesterday: ``I did
not say that there were no risks, I said that there were no costs''.
Members of the yes team have even refused to acknowledge the
costs associated with separation. They have even refused to talk
about them throughout the entire campaign.
On October 30, the people of Quebec will show them that they
have not been taken in by this deception, when they vote no to
separation.
* * *
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that Canadians in the
rest of Canada had paid for 80 per cent of federal assets in Quebec.
The minister finds it exceedingly complicated for Quebec to retain
ownership of federal assets located on Quebec territory after
sovereignty.
(1410)
Naturally the minister neglected to add that, in fact, Quebec has
paid for 23 per cent of federal assets located elsewhere in Canada
or abroad. And custom and international law stipulate that federal
assets located within Quebec will become the property of
Quebecers ipso facto. Canada loses nothing in the transaction, as
only 17.5 per cent of all federal assets are located in Quebec.
Obviously, Quebec will want to deduct this shortfall from the
portion of the federal debt it will assume the day after a yes vote.
Once again, the minister has attempted to bend the truth about what
would happen in a sovereign Quebec the day after October 30.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are telling us in no uncertain terms that they want
something done about our justice system.
The justice minister talks a good game and keeps throwing out
feeble changes to the laws of the land, but where is the
enforcement? Strangers move in and occupy land they do not own
and nobody touches them. Bikers blow up property, each other, and
innocent citizens. Policemen work hard to bring criminals to
justice, only to see those same criminals walk out of court with a
slap on their wrists and a smirk on their faces.
Law-abiding citizens are fed up. Hundreds will rally tonight with
the Reform Party leader at the Civic Auditorium in Oshawa.
Reform has a strong, common sense plan to deal with this situation
and make public safety the number one priority of our justice
system.
The justice minister can either get the message now or voters
will talk to him at the ballot box.
I urge the government to listen to what Canadians will be saying
tonight in Oshawa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the referendum
campaign, Canadian citizenship and the Canadian passport are
issues that have been raised repeatedly by the Yes side. And almost
every time, the separatists try to make us believe that all Quebecers
who so wished would be able to keep their Canadian citizenship
and their Canadian passport after Quebec's separation.
However, when the PQ's chief negotiator realized that his
arguments were no longer convincing anyone, he started to back
down, and now he says he will not negotiate the issue of citizenship
for Quebecers. Furthermore, the leader of the Bloc is starting to
praise the advantages of a Quebec passport. The only passport the
separatist leader can guarantee is a passport to the unknown, a one
way ticket to separation. On October 30, Quebecers will again
confirm their ties with Canada and say no.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada was in
Quebec, in his own province, to deliver a very important message
15598
to Quebecers. The Prime Minister is intent on refuting the myth
dreamt up by the separatists that the rest of Canada would form a
monolithic block. Not so.
No one can predict how the other Canadian provinces will react
the day after a vote in favour of Quebec separation, let alone claim
that they will form a single block and ask the federal government to
negotiate with a separated Quebec. The Prime Minister has clearly
shown that the partnership plan of the separatists is just a scam to
camouflage their plans for separation. The people of Quebec know
that, and on October 30, they will vote no.
* * *
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, did anyone
forget to tell Daniel Johnson about the political events of the past
15 years? Daniel Johnson says in the brochure of the director
general of elections in Quebec that governments should continue to
reduce duplication, but does he remember his own inability to
negotiate a withdrawal by the federal government from manpower
training as demanded by everyone in Quebec?
Daniel Johnson says that he believes no constitutional change
should take place without Quebec's consent, but does he remember
that he has with him on the no side the man who orchestrated the
strong arm strategy of 1982? Mr. Johnson has a very poor memory
indeed. Fortunately, Quebecers do remember and will vote yes on
October 30.
_____________________________________________
15598
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in what
should have been his most important speech in the referendum
campaign, yesterday the Prime Minister simply gave Quebecers a
warning by refusing to promise any sort of constitutional change to
the present federal system. Once again, the Prime Minister has
been the passionate defender of the status quo.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that he is asking
Quebecers to vote no while refusing to commit to any
constitutional change, even though his Quebec allies on the no side
are rejecting the status quo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday to the people of Quebec that
the referendum vote is a very serious one and what the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are proposing is separation,
pure and simple. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said clearly
yesterday that he had no interest in any sort of union with Canada,
that he only wanted sovereignty. Perhaps he is in fact no longer the
chief negotiator, but he certainly is the chief separator.
I have always said that Canada is evolving all the time and that
there will certainly be changes-we make them everyday. But what
do they want, the people of Quebec and, like them, all the people in
Canada? They want an end to talk of constitutional problems. They
want us to work together with the governments of Quebec and the
other provinces, with business people and with all of society to
create jobs and to give workers back their dignity in Quebec and
elsewhere. This is why, after the voting on the referendum in ten or
twelve days, we can get down to the real problems.
As far as constitutional changes are concerned, the debate today
is not about that. We are answering the ambiguous question posed
by the PQ and the separatists. The question is separation. If
Quebecers understand well, they will understand that the issue is
separation and Quebecers do not want to separate from Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a surprise to hear the Prime Minister say in all seriousness
that he wants to solve Canada's real problems when, during the past
four weeks we have been sitting, the government has not tabled a
single major piece of legislation on real issues. There are limits.
We know he is keeping things until after the referendum.
The director general of election is distributing a brochure in
Quebec, under the Referendum Act, which sets out the yes and the
no positions. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the no side
position in the brochure distributed by the director general of
election accurately reflects his government's constitutional
position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always said that, as the federal government, we
wanted to make the Canadian federation work well, and it is vital
administrative arrangements be found to achieve the goals we are
seeking. The brochure states clearly that we are prepared to clarify
existing duplications. In fact, we have signed nine agreements with
the nine other provincial governments to end much of the
duplication. The only government refusing to sign an agreement to
discuss the elimination of duplication is the Government of
Quebec. It refused, because it had no interest in making the
federation work. It wants to make use of everything to delude
Quebecers into thinking they will remain in Canada when it wants
to get them out of Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
have appreciated an answer to my question, but, you will permit me
to remind the Prime Minister that it was Daniel Johnson and the
Minister of Labour, who at the time was a minister in the Johnson
government, who refused to sign the cut-rate agreement he was
proposing. He has a short memory. He has a very short memory,
15599
Mr. Speaker. Since I did not get any answer from the Prime
Minister, I will try for a more specific one.
(1420)
In the document tabled, we read that ``the Government of
Quebec must-be a willing party to any change in its relationship
with the federal government. This is the spirit of the federalism we
believe in''. This is the no position.
Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement of the no
side's position, a statement which calls for a veto for Quebec? Does
he agree?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my party supported a veto for Quebec. When René
Lévesque was Premier of Quebec and he met with the seven other
premiers, he was the one who opted for an amending formula that
gave all the provinces equal status. He rejected the Victoria
formula, which provided for a veto and which was proposed by this
government to combine with the others and create equality among
the provinces.
It was at this point that the veto we were proposing for Quebec
was dropped by the PQ, which the member belonged to at the time.
Instead of criticizing us for the situation, he should do a mea culpa.
For strictly partisan and short term reasons, Mr. Lévesque dropped
the veto for Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, René Lévesque made a single mistake: going to Ottawa
without a mandate and trusting the premiers of the other provinces
and the current Prime Minister, all of whom betrayed him. Never
again will we make the same mistake.
In a brochure sent to all Quebecers by the director general of
elections in Quebec, the no committee clearly demands a right of
veto for Quebec, and since members asked the question, I will
quote from the brochure once again to give them another chance of
hearing it: ``The government of Quebec must-be a willing party to
any change in its relationship with the federal government''. This is
what the no side and the Prime Minister are currently selling
Quebecers.
As an eminent member of the no committee, can the Prime
Minister tell us if he was consulted on the demand for a right of
veto as expressed, printed and conveyed by the no side? Is this what
he is saying or is he telling us stories once again?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the constitutional position of the Liberal Party of Quebec
is well-known. It was developed by the Liberal Party of Quebec.
For us, the question at this time is about the right of veto. We
offered Quebec a right of veto before, but René Lévesque turned it
down in favour of another amending formula.
When Mr. Johnson forms the new government after the next
election, he will be able to make the same demand if he wants to
and it will be submitted to the provinces. If the provinces agree, the
amending formula will be changed.
As for myself, if I was in favour of this amending formula in
1970, I will have no difficulty in approving it again. The Parti
Quebecois, however, has created a situation that will make it very
difficult to find a solution because they were the ones who rejected
the right of veto. It was rejected not by us but by them so they could
join forces with the other provinces in opposing the proposals made
by the government of which I was then a member. I have nothing to
learn from them. If a mistake was made, it is the Parti Quebecois
that must pay the price. They were the ones who rejected Quebec's
right of veto.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I say again to the Prime Minister that Lévesque's mistake
was to trust the premiers of the other provinces, who betrayed him
with the assistance of the current Prime Minister, an expert
manipulator. We know that he has nothing to learn in the area of
manipulation. He is Canada's number one manipulator.
I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straightforward answer.
There is a clear statement from the no committee, of which he is a
member. Until he tells us that he is no longer on the committee, he
is still on it. His Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his
Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the referendum, are also
on this committee. Do they agree with what is in this brochure?
This is a simple question. It is not hard to answer. Could he make
an effort, Mr. Speaker?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the truth hurts when we tell them that they were the ones
who rejected Quebec's right of veto. They have no right to blame us
at this time.
The truth is that they want to talk about something else. They do
not want to talk about their plans. For five weeks and even five
months they have tried telling Quebecers: ``We do not want to
separate, we want a partnership''. They are now changing their tune
at the last minute.
Their document clearly states that they want to keep their
Canadian citizenship and passports. And then yesterday, with a
wave of their magic wand, the Canadian passport became
something else for Quebecers. They have changed their tune. We,
however, are not changing our position. We want Quebec to stay in
Canada and we are not flip-flopping as the Bloc members are doing
because the PQ is suddenly changing its tune while still trying to
hide the truth from Quebecers. These separatists do not have the
courage to frankly tell Quebecers that they are indeed separatists.
15600
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
Washington the foreign affairs minister announced we will be
sending troops to Bosnia as part of the new NATO combat force.
Prior to the announcement there was no consultation with
Parliament or with Canadians.
It is outrageous. It is just like the Mulroney Tories, who the
Liberals often condemn.
In opposition the now Minister of Human Resources
Development said about the deployment of troops to the Persian
Gulf, and I quote: ``To deny the opportunity of this Parliament to be
heard or to represent the Canadian people is a dereliction of duty by
the government''.
I ask the Prime Minister, why has this government abandoned its
principles and adopted the same style of government as the hated
Mulroney?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should know that as of this moment we have
had three debates. The minister said ``if necessary''.
The Americans, our partners in the Bosnian situation, are trying
to achieve peace. If peace is achieved they would like it to be
maintained. The Americans, who have not yet put one soldier there,
are apparently willing to send in up to 25,000 soldiers. They have
asked us if we would participate. The minister said we would look
into it and if it is absolutely necessary troops would be sent.
However, before we make a decision we will come to cabinet and
the House of Commons.
The member should congratulate the ministers and all those
involved for the peace we are about to have in Bosnia. One of the
reasons we will have peace in Bosnia is because of our Canadian
soldiers and others who have been there for the last three years
developing a situation that is leading to that peace today.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if we are going to
have peace in the former Yugoslavia, which we all hope for, we
certainly would not be sending troops that are the biggest and
baddest junkyard dogs to take care of themselves over there; we
would be sending peacekeepers. That is what was promised in this
House.
This is a totally new role. The Canadian people demand to know
how many troops we are sending. What is the duration of their stay
there? What will be the cost? What will be the exact mandate of
these troops?
Will the Prime Minister agree that Parliament must be allowed to
establish the criteria for a dangerous mission like this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I do not
know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, but I remember that they
voted twice in this House for having troops there. They got up from
their seats and approved the actions of the government.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Fine, no. I am sorry, they just
made speeches in favour of that but they did not vote. When I say
something, I also vote that way.
(1430 )
It is a very useful situation at the moment. We said that
everybody wants to be involved and there will be even more troops
if a peace treaty is ratified to make sure the situation evolves
peacefully in Bosnia. We all want that to happen.
If Canadian soldiers are needed, Mr. Christopher was informed
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we will look into the
possibility. However, before we make a decision we will consult
the cabinet and the House of Commons where you can express your
views. Again I can expect that what you say is not necessarily what
you will vote for.
The Speaker: I ask my colleagues to please address the Chair.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we should
remember we are not voting during these discussions and that the
decision has been made before the discussions.
The defence minister said yesterday the force we are sending to
Bosnia will not have a peacekeeping role. That means the
government is sending Canadian troops into a combat role without
consulting Parliament, which is outrageous.
With the lives of young Canadians at stake will the Prime
Minister at the very minimum allow Parliament to have a free vote
on whether our men and women should be sent into a combat role
in Bosnia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member took this quotation
from but I assure him what we are expecting is peace at last in the
former Yugoslavia.
We are not getting ready to send combat troops. We feel it is the
profound sentiment of Canadians all across the country to support
UN peacekeeping missions. We have in the past and we will in the
future because that is where Canadians have been singled out as
among the best, a duty Canadian troops expect to continue in the
future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
15601
Speaking before the greater Quebec City chamber of commerce
yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that Quebec constitutes a
distinct society because it has its own language, culture and
institutions, but refused to give this fact formal recognition in the
Canadian Constitution.
If he is serious in making his own the notion of distinct society
as defined in the Meech Lake accord, can the Prime Minister tell us
why he has so far refused to make a commitment to amend the
constitution to include this definition of distinct society?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it takes some nerve on the part of an hon. member who
voted against a distinct society in the Quebec referendum on the
Charlottetown accord to rise in this House and ask me if I support
the notion of distinct society.
I have always said, and we voted accordingly, that these matters
were discussed in the collective document issued by the No side.
But the Bloc Quebecois and its members across the way all voted
against the distinct society clause when it was introduced. It was
included in the Charlottetown accord, yet they all voted against it.
It takes some nerve to come and blame us for that today. In
rejecting it, for all kinds of reasons, they actually sided with the
Reform Party against the Charlottetown accord. We, on the other
hand, voted for and believe in it.
As for the constitution, it will be amended if and when
discussions are held on the matter. The existing amending formula,
as proposed by Mr. Lévesque, requires the consent of at least seven
provinces. The federal government really cannot speak for the
provinces because, as Mr. Lévesque put it at the time, all the
provinces are equal and must take part in the constitutional
amendment process.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
support the concept of distinct society when it really means
something.
Must we gather from the Prime Minister's refusal to make a
commitment to recognize Quebec as a distinct society in the
constitution that he not only does not believe in it himself but that
he is also unable to get a sufficient number of provinces to agree on
this issue?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is beyond me how the hon. member, who voted against
the distinct society clause, can ask me to make all kinds of
promises in this respect. She was against this concept and voted
accordingly. Now she claims that it was not really the concept of
distinct society, that it was not the right term. The question that was
just put to me was: Do you support the concept of distinct society?
My answer is Yes and I might add that the hon. member voted
against the distinct society clause.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I
hope he knows his cabinet colleague announced the government's
intention to send our troops back to Bosnia without consultation
despite a number of serious shortcomings in the Canadian Armed
Forces, including inadequate equipment, low morale and the
current troop rotation. Some of our troops have been there for the
third time.
How can the minister even consider sending our troops back to
Bosnia without addressing these concerns?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not really sure what the hon. member's question is
pertaining to.
I am perplexed by his question. As a previous member of the
Canadian forces he knows the resiliency of the Canadian forces and
their capacity to do what is asked of them despite adverse
conditions and despite tasking.
I do not think anybody would disagree that our troops have had
more than their fair share of work. The Prime Minister has
indicated the work they have done has saved millions of lives and
we should be very proud of that.
The hon. member is suggesting the Canadian forces do not have
the capacity to participate in whatever decision is being made.
Inasmuch as that decision is being made, I would prefer not to
comment on it right now.
However, I assure him that if the government decides to
participate in the NATO peace implementation plan, in the
reconstruction of Bosnia or in the help for refugees it will be able to
do what it plans to because the Canadian forces will have the
capacity.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, evidence is increasing that our troops in Somalia were
let down by their leadership.
Canadians have confidence in our troops in the field but they
have serious reservations about the senior chain of command. It is
the privates and the corporals who must bear the burden of this lack
of leadership.
Canadians are asking is it wise for the government to volunteer
our troops before the Somalia commission has reached its final
conclusion?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has already indicated that before
decisions are made, whether there is a vote or not, we will have a
discussion in the House.
I repeat, the Canadian forces will be capable of doing what the
government asks them to do. If the member is suggesting morale is
15602
not good in the Canadian forces, he is not doing anything to help
the morale by suggesting that Canadian forces are not capable of
doing what their government asks of them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In the brochure distributed to every Quebec household by the
director general of elections, the No committee says that the
Quebec government must have full power in the fields which fall
under its jurisdiction.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, far from putting an end to the
federal spending power in fields of provincial jurisdiction, Bill
C-96, which deals with manpower training and education, is an
even greater interference in these sectors?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone knows, I want to make sure that the Canadian
constitution is complied with. Sometimes, there are sectors in
which our respective jurisdictions have a bearing on one another.
The spending power has been in our constitution since 1867 and, at
this point in time, we cannot really abuse it, since we have little
money.
(1440)
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the Prime Minister intend to convince Quebecers of the
virtues of administrative arrangements when even his federalist
ally, Daniel Johnson, and his labour minister have rejected the
administrative agreement on labour, calling it a cheap
arrangement?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong.
It was the present minister of employment, Madam Harel. When I
wrote to the ministry offering specifically to transfer institutional
training to the province of Quebec, as with other provinces, we
received absolutely no response. It would be very useful for the
hon. member to check her facts.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
landmark agreement on harmonizing environmental issues is
floundering.
The minister has blamed the provinces, especially Alberta.
According to a recent CCME publication, she knows the federal
government walked out, not the provinces, contrary to what she
said.
Will the minister now admit she stalled this process and
apologize to the provinces?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the difference between the
member for Beaver River and me is I was at the meeting.
I did not pinch a transcript and then claim it was something else.
In front of at least 10 witnesses I offered to publish 10 of the 11
indexes to the public the day after that meeting. The offer was
turned down by Mr. Ty Lund.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
regardless of who did what, we need to get on with this.
This needs to move forward, not backward. Let us not cast
aspersions and blame. Let us move forward. This process is being
totally held up. On August 25 all the premiers with the exception of
the Quebec premier urged the Prime Minister to tell the Minister of
the Environment to meet with her counterparts and get on with this
draft agreement.
Next Monday the minister will meet with these counterparts
again in Whitehorse. Will she stay at the meeting and will she
commit to producing a draft agreement and get on with it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly prepared to
restate the commitment I made in Haines Junction. I hope the
minister of the environment for Alberta will be open enough to
begin the public discussion. The federal government asked very
early in this process for public participation. That was turned down
by the province of Alberta.
It is also interesting that the member for Beaver River said all
the provinces with the exception of Quebec. She will know very
well there was a formal letter written by the province of Quebec
asking the CCME not to take action on that initiative at that
meeting, a letter which conveniently her minister, Mr. Lund,
chooses to ignore.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the same document distributed by the director general
of elections, the No side says that we must continue to reduce
duplication.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that his government's
decision to establish the human resources investment fund totally
15603
contradicts that statement by the No side, since, with this fund,
Ottawa will interfere even more in the manpower sector?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we continue to see the facts
being turned on their head.
The hon. member knows, as I have already stated in the House,
that several months ago I wrote to a minister of the Government of
Quebec, Madam Harel, suggesting we get together to study the
issue of overlap and duplication so that we could clarify roles and
responsibilities. Again, no response, rien à faire. I guess Madam
Harel started ``poofing'' before the Leader of the Opposition did.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in my opinion, the best way to avoid distortions is to give
back to Quebec full authority over manpower training, along with
the related funding, and thus create a single-window service.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that his government's
measure, namely Bill C-96, contradicts the position held by the No
committee in the brochure distributed by the director general of
elections, since Ottawa is increasing duplication in the manpower
sector by eliminating the UI fund?
(1445 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the members of
the opposition are now recycling their questions from last week.
I will simply give them the answer we gave last week, which is
no, Bill C-96 simply consolidates the authorities that were under
the existing acts of the four departments that were brought in as
part of the human resource development ministry. That is all that
took place, nothing more than that. We were simply doing what
was done before but consolidating into the new ministry.
I would say, seeing as the hon. member raises this wonderful
publication, that I am very glad to see that the members of the Bloc
Quebecois have it in their possession. Maybe they will read it and
find out what a co-operative federation strategy really looks like.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just
like larger corporations, now a majority of small and medium size
businesses in Quebec are making a stand against the separation of
Quebec. Can the industry minister explain to this House the main
economic reasons why those who really create jobs in Quebec want
to stay within a united Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is not at all surprising that small and medium size businesses are
against the separation of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
Mr. Manley: They do not want to say so, but it is true. An
uncertain climate creates problems for businesses and in this case
the uncertainty stems from the fact that separatists cannot answer
questions on the interprovincial trade agreement and on NAFTA,
they cannot give answers to the thousands of Quebecers who
depend on foreign trade.
They also understand this when business people go outside
Canada. I saw this when I was in Geneva two weeks ago: there were
several small and medium size telecommunication businesses from
Quebec there. All those people were proud to be Canadians. They
all support the maple leaf. They understand that it is a very
valuable trademark on world markets. That is what they
understand.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
appears that the same social policy wizards who brought us training
programs for jobs that do not exist and who totally mismanaged the
TAGS program have now undertaken a $44,000 airlift of Cape
Bretoners to a big Ontario city to try to find work.
I ask the Minister of Human Resources Development if mass
evacuation is his solution to the problems facing Atlantic
Canadians.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know
her history well, coming from the distinguished province of
Alberta. Much of the investment and building of that province took
place because workers came from all parts of Canada to help build
the oil fields in those areas.
It seems to me that one of the great strengths of this country, one
of the great strengths of our federation, is that we have no fences or
walls between provinces and that people can move freely between
these provinces so they can go to work. The most important thing is
to find good ways to get people back to work.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the minister that Ontarians have their own unemployment
problems.
15604
This is just an admission that the programs the Liberals have
been spending millions on do not work. Now all they can do is
say to Atlantic Canadians: ``We've cut your benefits and your
programs, give up and move to Ontario''.
Is this government now asking taxpayers to buy airline tickets
for every unemployed Atlantic Canadian?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, oftentimes the problem with
the questions we receive from members of the Reform Party is that
they are based purely upon a meanspirited exaggeration.
The fact of the matter is that we provide a wide variety of
opportunities for Canadians by offering training to get jobs, by
working with local business to get jobs, and oftentimes by moving
to other parts of Canada to get jobs.
I was in Fort McMurray and saw some great work being done by
residents of Manitoba, of Newfoundland, of British Columbia in
helping to build the oilsands project in that area.
(1450 )
I find it really incredible that the Reform Party, which says it is
trying to solve the problem of unemployment, would deny the
opportunity for people to be able to get jobs throughout this
country. That is what Canada is all about.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister will not make a commitment to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society as defined in the Meech
Lake accord, to give it veto rights or to remove federal spending
powers from jurisdictions exclusive to Quebec, and he even refuses
to reduce duplication. His position is a direct contradiction of the
position defended by the No committee in the brochure distributed
to Quebec households by the director general of election.
How can the Prime Minister allow the No committee to circulate
a brochure describing a position taken by the No side that directly
contradicts the position taken by the Prime Minister, the real leader
of the No side?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are on the No side, and we have a very clear policy on
what has to be done now, and it is to vote in the referendum and
stop the political and economic uncertainty hovering over Quebec
and Canada because of the determination of members opposite to
separate Quebec from Canada. They do not even have the courage
to say they are separatists. In this brochure, the No side has
presented a text that reflects the consensus reached by all members
of the No committee. Spending powers and so forth are all
proposals that were accepted and which the members of the Bloc
Quebecois turned down. They voted against the Charlottetown
accord which included all that. We supported the Charlottetown
accord, and this particular text reflects the Charlottetown accord.
You were against it. You might as well stop talking because you
keep contradicting yourselves.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister obviously refuses to correct the
information contained in the brochure of the director general of
election to make it conform to his position.
Are we to understand the Prime Minister feels very comfortable
with the illusory position taken by the No side, since it gives him
another chance to cheat Quebecers, as he did in 1980?
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, we are starting to use
language that is pretty strong, even for the House of Commons. I
would ask all members to please tone down their comments. Be
very careful with your choice of words.
I will let the Prime Minister answer the question, if he is willing.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not very impressed by the hon. member's
exaggerations, because at a time when we are facing a very serious
situation in Quebec, members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois refuse to tell Quebecers that they want to separate. In
the public opinion polls, 30 or 40 per cent of the people who say
they will vote yes believe they will keep their Canadian passports
and Canadian citizenship and are convinced they will stay in
Canada and that there will still be federal members in Canada.
They are not telling them otherwise. They will tell them after the
referendum instead of telling them the truth before.
That is why in my speech yesterday I told Quebecers that reality
is not a magic wand that will deal with the problems, not a leader
who appears and disappears, like the one we have now. He was
supposed to come to the House to crush us, and now he has
disappeared. Poof, we do not see him any more.
The important thing is to realize that when Quebecers have to
pay their bills at the end of the month, they do not need a magic
wand but jobs and prosperity. Everyone in Quebec knows perfectly
well that the Canadian alternative is the only one that will provide
prosperity, security and progress for Quebecers.
15605
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled that Kwong Hung Chan's fear of forced sterilization in his
native China was not sufficient grounds for a refugee claim in
Canada.
(1455 )
In light of the supreme court's decision, does the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration consider this decision to be a general
precedent, that China's one-child policy is not a basis for refugee
claim in Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I too was informed that the decision of the supreme court
was handed down.
If we want to do the issue justice, because it was a very
important issue and the court deliberated for an extended period of
time, I think we should do it the proper way and at least look at the
decision, read the judgment, and then craft policy accordingly,
before making speculative statements before one has had a chance
to not only read the decision but also evaluate it and analyse it in
the greater context.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned that the minister does
not take the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with the
seriousness with which it deliberated over it.
I would like to ask the minister if it is his intention to proceed
with the deportation process against Mr. Chan and other refugee
claimants who are using the one-child policy in China as their
claim of refugee status in Canada.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take any decision of any court
very seriously. That is why I have tried to tell the hon. member that
I think we should be cautious before speculating before a minister
of the crown has had a chance to read the decision in its entirety.
Second, with respect to the individual claim, if the individual's
appeal has been turned down and the individual has gone through
the complete system and there is no H and C claim, of course that
individual will be subject to removal. As she knows, refugee
determination is done on an individual case basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The American Secretary of State has made a statement on the
significance the U.S. attaches to its special relationship with
Canada. What are we to understand from Mr. Christopher's words
when he says that we ``should not take it for granted that a different
kind of organization would just obviously have exactly the same
kind of ties''?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the words of the American Secretary of State are clear
evidence of how important the very close and very profitable ties
between our two countries are to the United States. The arrival of a
third player in the game might complicate things considerably. An
eternal triangle is certainly not something the U.S. would wish for,
if I read the American Secretary of State correctly.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
There is a proposal before the minister's department to change
the tendering system for moving companies who move employees
of national defence. Will the minister assure this House that his
department will not move toward a one bidder take all system,
which would create a monopoly in the moving business and destroy
an industry of over 800 companies across this nation and put many
thousands of people out of work?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is aware
that this has been the subject of debate in the House for the last two
years. I want to tell the House that it is still being debated and the
discussion continues to go on.
I will tell the hon. member that the department has met with the
Bureau of Competition Policy and with all the main players
involved. I will have to tell her that a decision will be coming in the
very near future on this matter.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of public works. During this summer's
15606
renovations to the Peace Tower, the general contractor, Fuller,
subcontracted to Karmash, who contracted Ray Wolfe to do
masonry work. Wolfe's female engineer, Anne Raney, was
subsequent harassed off the job by Karmash.
(1500 )
Given the government's commitment to equity in the workplace
and given this workplace is within the jurisdiction of Parliament
Hill, literally outside our doors, why did the minister of public
works subsequently reward such unacceptable behaviour by
granting Fuller and Karmash contracts for the rest of Centre Block
even after the Raney incident?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
The hon. member will know that our contract is with the main
contractor and not with the subcontractors. There is no, what they
call in law, privity of contract between the Government of Canada
and the subcontractor. However I instructed my deputy minister to
apprise the main contractor to try to resolve the issue as
expeditiously as possible. We have sent communications to him
and we are hoping the matter which occurred will not occur again.
With regard to subsequent contracts I assure the hon. member as
well as other members of the House that, notwithstanding the fact it
is beyond the legal ramifications of the Government of Canada in
terms of the privity of contract, we will ensure this kind of
behaviour is not tolerated. Therefore we will have to look at all
contracts awarded in that manner.
The Speaker: This will conclude question period. I have a point
of privilege followed by a point of order. Before I recognize the
hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, I might ask him
whether his point of privilege arises out of today's question period.
Mr. Richardson: Yes, it does, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The member for Red
Deer referred to the Canadian soldiers that we send abroad as ``big,
bad junk yard dogs''. What a terrible and unfair characterization of
the members of the Canadian forces who have served our country
and the UN for decades.
There seems to be an attempt by the members of the third party
to smear the Canadian forces.
The Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The hon. member
for Red Deer has been named and I saw him getting to his feet.
Does the hon. member have something to add to the point before
the House?
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. First I quote
the minister of defence when he said: ``Our force would have to be
robust and tough''.
In my question I said that we were not sending peacekeepers,
which is what the defence minister went on to say. The U.S.
defence minister said that the force has to be the biggest, baddest
junk yard dog.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Once again I urge members to be very judicious in
the choice of words we use in the House of Commons as they can
be interpreted in various ways.
I believe the House of Commons is a place where we have very
strong feelings and from time to time we use very strong words. I
would hope this is not an indication of things to come and I would
like the matter to rest where it is. It is not a point of privilege.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on what I think is a genuine point of order. It is on
the same subject with a slightly different twist.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stinson: You are twisted.
Mr. Mifflin: I beg your pardon?
An hon. member: I heard that.
Mr. Mifflin: The hon. member for Red Deer in his question to
the Prime Minister in the context of another country used the term
``meanest junk yard dogs'' in reference to members of the
Canadian forces.
(1505 )
My concern is not just that he used that term; but in reference to
the tenor of the questions from the third party that morale in the
Canadian forces was so bad that perhaps we may not want to send
the troops, this was totally out of context. In that context I ask the
member to withdraw that statement.
The Speaker: We had a point of privilege which I ruled was not
a point of privilege. The hon. member for Red Deer rose to his feet
to give some explanation. I said I wanted to let the matter rest
there.
The hon. parliamentary secretary raised the same point on a
point of order. I would rule at this point at least-I do not want to
15607
get into a debate-that members of Parliament should not be
curtailed by the Chair any more than is absolutely necessary when
they are giving some opinions.
There are some words that are offensive to the House in total.
There are some words that are inflammatory to some members.
Once again I would appeal to members that the more they push
their Speaker to making decisions on the comments they make by
bringing it right up to the end, the more difficult it is to conduct a
civilized question period, if I might use that word.
I urge all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of
words and I would rule it is not a point of order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in keeping with tradition, might I ask the house leader to
tell the House what will be on the program in the coming days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will continue this afternoon with Bill C-105 which ratifies a
number of international tax conventions.
I understand there have been discussions and as a result all
parties have agreed to complete debate on this bill at all stages in
the House of Commons. I thank the other parties for their
co-operation in this regard.
When that is completed we will then proceed with second
reading of Bill C-107, the British Columbia Treaties Commission
bill. I expect that will carry us into tomorrow or even Monday of
next week. When second reading of Bill C-107 is completed, we
will then call report stage of Bill C-93 respecting cultural
properties.
I will want to examine what further legislation is reported from
committee before I set the program for after Bill C-93 is
completed.
_____________________________________________
15607
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-105,
an act to implement a convention between Canada and the republic
of Latvia, a convention between Canada and the republic of
Estonia, a convention between Canada and the republic of Trinidad
and Tobago and a protocol between Canada and the republic of
Hungary, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conventions we were
talking about this morning under Bill C-105 are actually patterned
to a large extent on the model double taxation convention prepared
by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
Under the convention a general rate of withholding tax of 5 per
cent will apply to dividends paid to a parent company and on
branch profits and 10 per cent on interest and royalties. The rate of
withholding tax on other dividends is set at 15 per cent. The
convention also provides for a number of exemptions in the case of
interest.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade is holding many meetings with small and medium size
Canadian companies. These companies are already exporting
Canadian goods to other countries or are interested in penetrating
the export market.
(1510 )
I compliment the committee for taking on the task to stimulate
exports where $1 million in trade can create over 30 or 35 jobs. If
we want to create more jobs in the country, which is the mandate of
the government, there are two ways of doing it: first, by increasing
our exports for companies that have never been in the export
market and, second, by encouraging those who are exporting to
increase their exports by 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent.
We were very pleased that some of the witnesses who appeared
this morning talked about trading with companies such as the ones
mentioned in the bill.
The fact that we have Canadians who came here from countries
around the world makes Canada a great country. We have to
capitalize on our strengths. Some Canadians understand not only
the languages of Hungary, Latvia and Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago
but the cultures. It is very important when trading with a country to
know its culture. This is why it is important to preserve our policy
of bilingualism and multiculturalism.
Before question period I debated with the hon. member for
Jonquiére who tried to compare the province of Quebec with small
countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, et cetera. He
was really comparing apples and oranges because la belle province
is a beautiful province within Canada. When I think of Canada I
include the territories and all the provinces.
I reminded the hon. member that better protection there would
not be to preserve the French language than having it entrenched in
the Canadian Constitution and in our overall policy. That language
will never die in Canada if we stay united and keep our country
strong. However, if we start splitting up the country and if Quebec
separates, that guarantee of the French language and French culture
15608
will no longer be there. When the people of Quebec vote on
October 30 I hope they will take that into consideration.
The referendum is glossed over with fancy language. The
referendum question should read: Do you want to separate from
Canada? Yes or no. If it were worded that way I think we would
find that the majority of Canadians living in Quebec, regardless of
origin, would vote no. Canada has been twice declared by the
United Nations the number one country in the world in which to
live. Canada has been identified as the second richest country on
the planet, next to Australia.
Why would any Canadian or any province want to separate? It is
nonsense. That is why we need bills like Bill C-105 so that all
Canadians interested in exporting, be it to Estonia, Latvia or
Trinidad and Tobago, have the freedom to do so and at the same
time have the protection of not being double taxed, of not losing
their profits and of not being taxed unfairly.
These are agreements we have already signed with 55 other
countries. It is nothing new. I am pleased that the official
opposition and the third party, if I heard correctly, will be
supporting the bill.
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. I remind
all Canadians, especially people living in la belle province, that we
have something no other country in the world has. Let us keep it
that way.
(1515 )
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I stand before the House to speak on Bill C-105,
an act to implement tax conventions between Canada and Latvia,
Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol with Hungary.
Canada has such agreements with more than 55 countries. This
type of agreement is very normal in today's business environment
because the global economy is becoming smaller. The barriers for
trade are coming down. The fences that were built between
countries are no longer in existence. The trend is that there will be
more and more trade. There will be more investment among
different countries.
When Canadian companies invest in other countries they have to
look at the tax implications that exist. Obviously those companies
are making a profit there and when they do we have to have certain
rules on withholding taxes. The same is true when investments are
made here by companies outside of Canada. We have to have rules
and regulations to govern how those moneys can be taken out of the
country.
Bill C-105 provides the legislative authority for the
implementation of the tax agreements which Canada has signed.
The tax treaties are designed to alleviate double taxation of income
earned in one country by a person resident in another country.
Obviously it would not be beneficial for someone to invest in
another country only to have to pay the full taxes of that country
and then once again pay taxes in their resident country. That would
not be an incentive to invest.
This is very good for Canada. We are a trading nation. One out of
every five jobs in this country is related to trade. Trade will be
increasing.
In the criteria used as to which countries we should and should
not have these types of agreements with, three primary factors are
to be considered when negotiating a tax treaty with a particular
country.
One is how much Canadian investment is planned for that
country. Obviously if we have a much larger amount of capital and
investment going into another country, there is a greater urgency. If
we have very little, then it is not that apparent to have a tax treaty.
The second requirement is Canada's desire to encourage economic
reforms. If we want to encourage economic reforms, that is an
additional reason to ensure there is a tax treaty. Another
requirement is a country's interest in expanding its trade and
economic relations with Canada.
We are building new relationships all the time with other
countries. For example, there are companies investing in the
tourism business and mining in Cuba. To ensure that those
investments are encouraged and that we have an understanding
with Cuba, we need to look at tax treatments, to ensure there is a
fair tax treatment for both countries, for the other country and for
Canada.
There is also the capital gains situation. There has to be a way to
ensure that when a foreign company or an individual in another
country comes to Canada that the tax is paid on their profits here
but that they are also treated so that there is equity in the tax being
paid. In other words, a company paying taxes back home does not
have to pay twice. This is an advantage for both countries.
(1520)
Bill C-105 is neither earth shattering nor housekeeping
legislation. Rather, it is workaday legislation which addresses the
dual issue of fair taxation and good international relations.
In this era of governments reappraising their roles, particularly
their economic roles in an increasingly interdependent open global
economy, reciprocal tax treaties make good common sense. They
certainly do not hinder economic competition, which for Canada is
an important fact of life. Canada is above all a trading nation. We
must keep expanding our trading boundaries and our relationships
with other countries.
A few items in the bill apply to all four treaties. First, while tax
treaties vary from one country to another, because there are special
circumstances, each treaty must be negotiated individually. These
proposed conventions are similar to other treaties already
concluded by Canada. They are patterned on the model of the
double
15609
taxation convention prepared by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Second, each treaty has been negotiated individually and has
taken into account the relevant policies in each country.
Third, Bill C-105 provides an equitable solution to the double
taxation problems which exist between Canada and these countries.
Double taxation occurs when international transactions result in the
same income being taxable in the hands of the same person by
more than one nation.
In addition, the protocol brings the convention with Hungary in
line with the current Canadian tax policy, particularly with regard
to the rates of withholding taxes.
Here are some of the technical aspects of Bill C-105 which apply
to the treaties with Estonia, Latvia, and Trinidad and Tobago.
There will be a withholding tax rate of 5 per cent on dividends
paid to parent companies and on branch profits, 10 per cent on
interest and royalties, and management fees in the case of Trinidad
and Tobago. A 15 per cent rate of withholding tax will apply on
other dividends. The conventions also provide for a number of
exemptions in the case of interest. For Estonia and Latvia, a zero
rate will apply to interest paid to the governments, the central
banks, the Export Development Corporation, and from sales made
on credit. I could go on with more of the technical details of this
bill, but I would like to talk about taxation in general.
Because there is more and more trade happening around the
world, and for very good reason, we as a country want to ensure
that our energies are put into doing the type of economic activities
in which we have a trade advantage, where we are more
competitive and have the resources, the skills and the technology
which will enable us to be more competitive than other countries.
We would be able to produce that product at a lower price than
other countries that may not have the same advantages. As we see
more and more trade developing around the world, some of the
costs will decrease.
One of the most important things is taxation in general. As
Canadians we have to ensure that we do not burden our companies
and our business people with high taxes which would make it more
difficult for them to compete in the international community.
Canadians are overtaxed and our tax system is too complicated.
We have to work on both of those areas to ensure that we simplify
our tax system and that we reduce the tax burden. If we do not do
that, we will find it more and more difficult to compete around the
world. If our neighbours or our trading partners have a much lower
tax rate, obviously our companies and our business people will not
have the same advantages.
(1525 )
As trade develops and the barriers come down, as we saw with
the world trade agreement, we will need to focus more on taxation,
on our rate of taxes and on the complexity of our taxation system.
We will also need to ensure that our duties and excise taxes are also
very competitive and consistent so that we can compete efficiently
with the rest of the world.
Our finance minister will ensure that some of those areas get
attention so that we can continue to be a strong trading nation. In
doing that, we will continue to create employment and
opportunities for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise this afternoon to say a few
words about Bill C-105, at second reading.
This piece of legislation implements tax conventions between
Canada and Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago and a protocol to
the tax convention signed with Hungary.
Canada has signed tax conventions with 55 countries; Bill C-105
allows for the implementation of conventions with four of these
countries. The purpose of these conventions is simply to avoid
double taxation of income. This means that an individual would not
be required to pay taxes both in Canada and Trinidad and Tobago,
for instance, or in Canada and Hungary.
Indeed, some engineering companies in my riding do business in
such countries, where they plan and build bridges and other things.
I refer to civil engineering, of course. The purpose of this bill is to
avoid things of this kind.
I must say that I was rather taken aback by the remarks made by
the Bloc member this morning in the House. The member for
Jonquière, I believe, used the time he had been given to speak on
Bill C-105 to extol the virtues of separation.
The member opposite had a great time explaining that Bill C-105
meant that Quebec would automatically have access to all the
international agreements signed by Canada. This is stretching the
truth, to say the least. Indeed, it is true that Canada has agreements
with several countries in order to avoid double taxation. But to say,
as the member is claiming and as he mentioned in some of his
statements, that Quebec, if it were to separate, and I hope that never
happens, would automatically have all the rights or most of the
rights that it now has within Canada in terms of international
agreements, that is not only an exaggeration, but as we would say
in Hawkesbury, ``that is stretching it quite a bit''.
I say to the member opposite that, what he would want
Quebecers to believe is that, in fact, Quebec would automatically
have the
15610
right to join NAFTA, for instance, or other trade agreements such
as the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
That is simply not true. Yesterday, Mr. Christopher said clearly
that, if Quebec were to separate, things would not be necessarily
the same at all.
(1530)
Of course, the Deputy Premier of Quebec has attempted to give a
different twist to all of this. Last night, on the news, we saw him try
his best to put other words in Mr. Christopher's mouth. But it did
not work, of course. Mr. Christopher's words are clear. Besides, a
few days ago, we saw the Roh report, which was even tabled in this
House and which indicated, once again, that agreements signed
exclusively between Canada and the United States or Mexico are
not automatically offered to other countries, including Quebec if it
became a country. And I repeat that I hope that this will not happen.
I hope we will remain a united country, the great country we live in.
However, that would not be automatic, and the Minister of
Finance made it clear. The minister mentioned that one million
jobs in Quebec depend on trade. He clearly said that those jobs are
at risk. He did not say that they would all disappear. He did not say
that. The member opposite knows that and so do his colleagues.
But it is true that these jobs are threatened. Does that mean that
some would have to take salary cuts, while others would lose their
jobs, their benefits, or whatever else? I do not know, but there is no
doubt that jobs are at stake. There is a potential loss for one million
workers. This is not to say that they will all lose their jobs.
Absolutely not. The member knows that too.
However, it also does not mean that everything will remain the
same as it is, and the member is also aware of that. There are
potential losses and there are great risks. As we saw, the
referendum campaign went through various stages. For example, at
the beginning, these separatist members told us about sovereignty,
without elaborating. Then we saw one separatist leader give way to
another and, at the same time, we started hearing about a new
union, a unifying separation, if you can imagine.
According to the Leader of the Opposition, this unifying
separation would lead to all sorts of agreements, imaginary or
otherwise with the rest of Canada, in addition to ensuring that
Quebecers would enjoy all the benefits resulting from Canada's
international agreements and prestige, including the Canadian
passport, if you can imagine that for one second.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to admit it
may not be quite that way. Trying another tack, he said that, maybe,
the passport will not be a Canadian passport. It may turn out to be
something else. We can see that he is starting to sing another tune,
once again. Separatists are shifting like that all the time. It is a case
of moving targets.
What takes the cake, concerning agreements and privileges that
some separatists envision, is that they used the Canadian dollar, the
loonie with the word Canada on it, to replace the ``o'' of ``oui''. It is
very hard for me, and probably for you too, to imagine they had the
gall to do that, but it goes to show how low the separatists across
the way have stooped during the referendum campaign.
Last weekend, I campaigned in the Saint-Janvier area, near
Mirabel. Senior citizens told me and some of my colleagues that
separatists had told them that voting yes meant voting for Canada.
That is what they were told by separatists.
(1535)
How awful. This shows how little conviction they have on the
other side if they go around telling people the opposite of what they
think in order to get their vote.
That is what I witnessed last week. This is the sort of thing going
on. They tell senior citizens that voting yes means voting for
Canada. That is what I have seen in that area. Members opposite
must not be too sure of their arguments if they are willing to tell the
opposite of the truth to win votes. It is even worse than the unifying
separation the Leader of the Opposition was talking about last
week. That is the kind of thing we have heard.
This morning, the hon. member tried to rewrite history when he
said that the province of Ontario and Quebec have been together
only since 1867, only for 130 years is what he said, when he knows
full well that the Union Act of 1840 was signed-guess when,
ladies and gentlemen-in 1840. That is why it is called what it is
called. Being a teacher yourself, Mr. Speaker, you know that is so.
The pages here in the House of Commons are all students who
have learned that the Union Act of 1840 was signed in 1840. It does
not come as a great surprise to them, but it seems that the Bloc
members have to revisit the past, because the rest of their
arguments does not hold so good either.
Let me tell the hon. member opposite who spoke this morning
that the agreements referred to in Bill C-105 are not side
agreements nor are they similar to agreements made under the
Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA signed by Canada,
the United States and Mexico.
U.S. trade representatives, whether it is Senator Dole, Mr. Roh,
and even Mr. Christopher no later than yesterday, have all clearly
stated that there will have to be concessions for a sovereign Quebec
to keep the prerogatives it now enjoys within a unified Canada.
That is why Canada must remain unified, if for no other reason than
15611
to serve the commercial interests of the country and the interests of
all the workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
That is what the prime minister said, that is what the Minister of
Finance said, and that is what other ministers said. All of my
colleagues as well as Mr. Johnson and the Chambers of Commerce
have said it. A united Canada will bring us prosperity, but a divided
Canada will bring us adversity.
This must not be. We have all been elected to this House to help
build this great country, to make it better and more prosperous.
Those are the commitments we made in the red book and that is
what we will do as a government. This is why we urge Quebecers to
vote no in the referendum, so that we can continue to build this
country, to build an economy for each and everyone of us.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I believe you will find
the unanimous consent of the House that the bill be referred to
committee of the whole to be dealt with immediately. I understand
one of the chairs of the committee of the whole is preparing to enter
the Chamber shortly in order to take over that measure should the
House give its consent.
(1540 )
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous
consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the
chair.)
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.)
[Translation]
On clause 6
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, would it not
be appropriate, since it is a regulatory power being granted the
minister, to see to it that the minister consults the House or the
appropriate standing committee before issuing the regulation?
[English]
Mr. Walker: Could we have the question again, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Even so, Mr. Speaker, clause 6 makes provision for
a regulatory power. I believe that departments often go too far in
the definition of what constitutes a regulation. I believe that it
would be worthwhile and even appropriate for the Standing
Committee on Finance to be consulted when a regulation
pertaining to this bill is issued.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: We have had technical
problems and I appreciate the member for Jonquière's cooperation
in kindly repeating his question.
Mr. Walker: Thank you. Now we understand the question.
[English]
The reason this particular piece of legislation and the tax treaty
would come to the House in this form is to ensure that the House is
clear as to what is being delegated to officials in terms of
regulatory authority. However, the House of Commons has,
through other committees, regular review of regulation. Any time a
member feels this is not within the normal course of activities they
can bring it to the attention of the House through that committee,
but there is no particular regulatory reference back to the House of
Commons finance committee.
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clauses 6 through 22
carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 6 to 22 inclusive agreed to.)
(Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.)
[English]
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
(1550)
[Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the
bill be concurred in at report stage.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read
the third time? With leave of the House, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (for Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to speak today at third reading of Bill C-105, the Income Tax
Conventions Implementation Act, 1995.
Hon. members will recall that Bill C-105 implements reciprocal
income tax conventions between Canada and Latvia, Canada and
Estonia, Canada and Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol to the
15612
current income tax treaty between Canada and Hungary. The tax
conventions and the amending protocol this bill will ratify are
patterned after conventions previously approved by this chamber.
They break no new ground.
Tax treaties have two main specific objectives: the avoidance of
double taxation and the prevention of tax evasion. More broadly,
tax treaties facilitate investment and trade between the treaty
countries and can help encourage reforms.
The treaties in the legislation before us are part of an ongoing
series of tax treaties that began in 1971, when the reform of
Canada's income tax legislation required Canada to expand its
network of double taxation conventions with other countries. They
also reflect Canada's willingness to reduce or eliminate certain
forms of withholding to meet international norms and to advance
our economic interests, including the competitiveness of our
technological industries.
The treaties are patterned on the model double taxation
convention prepared by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development. Each treaty has been negotiated
carefully and individually. Each takes into account the relevant
policies of the country with which we are undertaking this treaty.
The treaties will provide an equitable solution to the double
taxation problems that currently exist between Canada and these
countries. In addition, the protocol to our treaty with Hungary
brings the existing convention with that country into line with
current Canadian tax policy, particularly in the area of withholding
taxes.
Let me briefly restate during this third reading debate some of
the technical provisions of Bill C-105 that apply to the treaties with
Estonia, Latvia, and Trinidad and Tobago. First, there will be a
withholding tax rate of 5 per cent on dividends paid to a parent
company and on branch profits and 10 per cent on interest and
royalties, which in the case of Trinidad and Tobago includes
management fees, and also a 15 per cent rate of withholding tax
that will apply on other dividends.
The conventions also provide for a number of exemptions in the
case of interest. For Estonia and Latvia a zero rate will apply to
interest paid to the governments, the central banks, the Export
Development Corporation, and from sales made on credit. For
Trinidad and Tobago, a zero rate will apply to interest paid for
government indebtedness and on loans or credit from the Export
Development Corporation or its equivalent there and for interest
paid to pension plans.
(1555)
Canadians will benefit from any future changes extended by
Estonia and Latvia to other OECD member countries with respect
to withholding tax on copyright and patent royalties. Trinidad and
Tobago will maintain the exemption on copyright royalties.
Pension payments and annuity payments in the case of Trinidad
and Tobacco will be taxed at a maximum rate of 15 per cent in the
source country. However, war pensions in Trinidad and Tobago will
be exempted. In addition, social security pensions will be taxed in
the originating country and the withholding tax rate on annuity
payments will be dropped to 10 per cent.
Also with respect to Trinidad and Tobago, the two-year
exemption for visiting teachers will no longer exist and seasonal
workers will not have to pay Canadian tax if they earn under
$8,500.
I return briefly now to the protocol negotiated with Hungary,
which is also part of Bill C-105. As background, I should mention
that the Income Tax Act amendments in 1976 increased the rate of
the withholding tax paid to non-residents from 15 per cent to 25 per
cent unless reduced by a tax treaty.
The existing treaty between Canada and Hungary reduced the
withholding tax rate to 10 per cent on dividends paid to a parent
company and 15 per cent in all other cases. However, that
convention was negotiated before the 1992 budget announced
Canada's willingness to reduce its withholding tax on direct
dividends to 5 per cent. The revised protocol before us today
reduces that rate and the rate of branch tax to 5 per cent by 1997.
There are no changes in the rates of withholding tax on other
dividends.
I would like to point out that the Government of Canada will lose
no revenue as a result of the provisions in these treaties. Not only
will Canada gain from increased trade and investment, but we will
gain too from the reduced withholding tax rates and other
concessions we have gained from these negotiations.
There is nothing contentious in this bill. I would like to take a
moment to thank the House for its co-operation today, for
providing for second reading in committee of the whole and now
third reading. It is very much appreciated that the opposition
parties that are participating in this debate today understand that
this is a good step forward for the government.
This is a workaday legislation that will expand trade and
investment opportunities between Canada and the countries with
whom we have made this deal. Canada already has tax agreements
with 54 nations. This bill will increase the number to 57.
I call upon the House to give its support and bring a conclusion
to this debate on third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
15613
Mr. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my
understanding that one of our members wishes to speak to third
reading of this bill. Perhaps that could be accommodated.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Certainly. We are still at the
debate stage. Resuming debate.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
privilege to speak once again on Bill C-105.
This bill shows that you need to build an infrastructure whenever
you deal with trade with other countries. That infrastructure takes a
substantial amount of effort to create so that there is trade and
investment taking place among different countries.
(1600)
Looking at the legislation, as I said earlier in the debate, there is
an agreement with 55 countries. I know members of the Bloc think
it is very simple and easy to build a relationship with other
countries. They think it is very easy to set up treaties, make
agreements and develop trade with other countries. It takes a very
long time to build the infrastructure and the treaties. It takes a long
time to make agreements and create the organizations to develop
trade and exchanges, rules, regulations and understandings among
different countries.
It does not take a genius to know that if the infrastructure is
broken, if those agreements are broken sometimes they cannot be
renegotiated. For example, some people in the Bloc think it would
be very easy to negotiate a new NAFTA. That simply is not the
case. Look at the world trade agreement. It took years and years to
negotiate that, to develop a consensus among so many countries.
This bill shows that as a country, Canada needs the tremendous
infrastructures we have built in trade, transportation and
organizations. These were not created overnight. They took years
and years to develop. It also takes expertise.
I sometimes wonder what the people in the Bloc are thinking
when they say that they can do the same thing overnight and that
they will be able to set up all the agreements the next day and do all
the things it took Canada so long to do. It makes no sense.
Everyone knows that when political uncertainty is created,
business people are not willing to invest where there is uncertainty.
One way to judge that is what has happened in real estate, the
business I was involved in. It is a very good indicator of the
investment climate and of the uncertainty that exists. If we drive
across the bridge over to Hull we will see that real estate prices are
lower because of the uncertainty in Quebec. They are substantially
lower because of the political uncertainty created by members of
the Bloc.
The jobs that are created, whether they are in Canada or other
countries, the investment and the foundations that are laid are
because of stability. We need political stability to ensure that we
create a climate for investment and for business.
This bill is an indication of another infrastructure, another
agreement we are developing as a nation. All Canadians will be
able to take advantage of this. It will become easier to invest in
other countries and easier for other countries to invest in Canada.
If that infrastructure is broken, it creates problems. We will not
have the built in systems. Those systems take a long time to
develop. As a country we have to recognize that. I think the people
in Quebec recognize that they cannot duplicate overnight what took
so many years to build. That is going to be a disadvantage. When
we have those types of disadvantages we cannot compete. If we
cannot compete, the reality is that jobs will be lost. Anybody who
says that if Quebec is no longer part of Canada no jobs will be lost
does not have a clue about the reality that exists out there.
Thousands of jobs are going to be lost because it is taking away the
system, the infrastructure, the communications, all the things that
have been built up.
(1605)
There are many examples around the world where countries have
been torn apart. What happens is that the prosperity is not there.
Racial harmony is a key to prosperity. At this time, the stronger the
unit we have, the greater our ability is to negotiate and fulfil
agreements, to have financial strength and to have a critical mass
where we can talk to other countries because of our fiscal strength.
We can talk to other countries because of our technologies and they
will want to talk to us about the economy, trade and making
exchanges.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the member finished his address?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker. I see the hon.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is here so I
will conclude my remarks by saying that as a country we have to
recognize, as do all the people of Quebec, that we will be stronger
if we are united as Canadians. We will be able to create jobs and
have a future for our children if we stay together. We will not be
strong if we are divided. We will be strong if we are united and we
will be able to build a strong future for the generations to come.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15614
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-107, an act respecting the
establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to
begin debate on second reading of Bill C-107, an act respecting the
establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.
The legislation confirms Canada's obligations under the B.C.
Treaty Commission agreement signed in September 1992 by the
Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia and
the First Nations Summit. It is an obligation we have inherited
from the previous government, but its aims and objectives lie close
to the heart of this government.
Our government is committed to building new partnerships with
aboriginal people based on trust and mutual respect. In the 1993
election we addressed aboriginal issues in the red book. We stated
what a Liberal government would do.
In the red book we stated that our goal was: a Canada where
aboriginal people would enjoy a standard of living and quality of
life and opportunity equal to those other Canadians; a Canada
where First Nations, Inuit and Metis people would live
self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique
peoples; a Canada where all Canadians would be enriched by
aboriginal cultures and would be committed to the fair sharing of
the potential of our nation; and a Canada where aboriginal people
would have the positive option to live and work wherever they
chose. Perhaps most important, the red book set out our goal for
Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in secure families
and healthy communities with the opportunity to take their full
place in Canada.
(1610 )
As a result, we also said that the resolution of land claims would
be a priority. That is our vision and we have been moving step by
step to bring it alive. In two years we have already made
considerable progress. On August 10, I and my colleague, the
federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status Indians, announced
the government's approach to the implementation of the inherent
right of aboriginal self-government.
We have fostered greater economic development opportunities
for aboriginal communities through co-management agreements
and support for business ventures. We have committed an
additional $20 million annually to the Indian and Inuit
post-secondary student support program. We have settled some 44
specific claims and have seen five comprehensive claims come into
effect. By any measure we have achieved a great deal in living up
to the commitments we made to the people of Canada in the red
book.
Perhaps the most complex challenge is the one that the
legislation before us addresses: treaty making in British Columbia.
I would like to remind the House that British Columbia is unique in
Canada in that the process of signing treaties has never been
completed. Only a handful of treaties were signed in the
pre-Confederation period. They cover parts of Vancouver Island. In
1899 Treaty No. 8 was signed with the First Nations in the Peace
River area in northeastern B.C. However, in the rest of the province
the issue of aboriginal rights remains largely unresolved.
The First Nations have wanted to resolve these issues.
Repeatedly they have pressed for treaties, but only until this decade
did the provincial government have the willingness to negotiate. It
maintained previously that there was no need to negotiate. It said
that whatever rights to land and resources the aboriginal people
may have once had were extinguished long ago. The result was
decades of legal acrimony. The First Nations sought settlement
through the courts of what they had been unable to achieve through
the negotiation process.
In 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked whether
aboriginal title to the Nisga'a traditional territory had been
extinguished. It was the Calder case. The six judges were evenly
split on the question. The Government of Canada then adopted a
policy to enter into negotiations to resolve comprehensive claims.
The courts for their part have expressed repeatedly and in the
strongest terms that the issues brought before them ought to be
settled at the negotiation table, not before the bar. They should be
settled through negotiation, not litigation.
In the case of Delgamuukw v. Her Majesty for example, Judge
Macfarlane wrote:
Treaty making is the best way to respect Indian rights-.The questions of
what aboriginal rights exist-cannot be decided in this case, and are ripe for
negotiation.
The learned judge went on to observe:
During the course of these proceedings, it became apparent that there are two
schools of thought.
The first is an all or nothing approach, which says that the Indian nations
were here first, that they have exclusive ownership and control of all the land
and resources and may deal with them as they see fit.
The second is a co-existence approach, which says that the Indian interest and
other interests can co-exist to a large extent, and that consultation and
reconciliation is the process by which the Indian culture can be preserved and
by which other Canadians may be assured that their interests, developed over
125 years of nationhood, can also be respected-. I favour the second approach.
15615
I agree with the learned judge. I too favour the second approach.
I am certain that members of the House would agree that the
co-existence approach, based upon consultation and reconciliation,
is the appropriate course. It is this government's course. It is the
course preferred by the vast majority of Canadians and the vast
majority of aboriginal people.
We have undergone a turbulent summer of protest and pain.
Issues which have been left unresolved for decades have erupted
into violence. Negotiation, not confrontation, resolves issues. This
legislation provides the framework for these negotiations in B.C. If
we do not negotiate, we leave the field to those who believe in the
all or nothing approach. We leave the resolution to those who have
little regard for the law.
(1615)
The B.C. Treaty Commission establishes a solid foundation for
consultation and reconciliation. It lies at the heart of the
co-existence approach. This legislation confirms the creation of the
B.C. Treaty Commission as an arm's length body with a mandate to
ensure the three parties are adequately prepared for the
negotiations.
Some members across the floor criticize the BCTC because they
maintain it will concede too much to First Nations. They monger
fear and misunderstanding by removing facts from the context.
How many times on radio shows and at town hall meetings have
they used the process of negotiations to instil suspicion and
resentment in the hearts of British Columbians? How many times
over the past few months have we heard that the First Nations of
British Columbia claim 110 per cent of the province?
The hon. members who raise these issues ought to know better.
They know the claims overlap. They know they are simply opening
positions that take into account the history of the various First
Nations. They know the final solutions of these settlements will be
very different from the opening positions. Yet they persist in
stirring up fear and misunderstanding by repeating the 110 per cent
figure as though it were an outrageous demand upon the common
sense of the people of British Columbia. They claim the
Government of Canada is ignoring other interests affecting
negotiations. They spread misinformation.
These hon. members are the kinds of people who themselves
favour an all or nothing approach. They do not espouse the same
cause as those described by Judge Macfarlane, the view that
aboriginal people have exclusive ownership, but their philosophy is
the same, all or nothing. They have no patience for reconciliation
or consultation. Their approach will lead us inevitably to the
confrontation and lawlessness that we witnessed in British
Columbia over the past few months.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I see I have their attention now.
The role of the commission is to facilitate, not negotiate modern
day treaties. Its main functions are to assess the readiness of the
parties to begin negotiations, allocate and negotiate funding to
aboriginal groups, assist parties to obtain dispute resolution
services at the request of all parties, and monitor and report on the
status of negotiations.
This House will be pleased to hear that 47 First Nations groups
are involved with the BCTC process. They represent over 70 per
cent of the B.C. First Nations. Two First Nations, the Teslin and the
Gitanyow, are about to complete the third stage of the negotiation
process. Their framework agreements have been initialled by
negotiators and I hope to be in a position to sign these agreements
soon. Soon they will begin negotiating an agreement in principle.
I have also had occasion to sign the Sechelt, the Gitxsan, the
Wet'suwet'en, and the Champagne Aishihik transboundary claim
framework agreements. This is significant progress and I would
like to thank the negotiators for all parties for making it possible.
We are well down the road of consultation and reconciliation that
provides the foundation for a coexistence approach to settlement of
land claims. I want to make one issue very clear, particularly to
those members across the floor who would stir up misinformation
and distrust. Our approach of consultation, reconciliation, and
coexistence applies to all interested groups in British Columbia,
not just the three parties at the negotiating table. Many different
groups, organizations, and individuals have a major stake in how
the land claim settlements are resolved. We are dealing after all
with land and resources that provide the livelihood of British
Columbians from many walks of life in all regions of the province.
All British Columbians will benefit from seeing these
longstanding issues resolved. The negotiations will remove the
uncertainty that has held back development. Resolution opens the
doors to new investment and jobs in the province.
(1620 )
To ensure the negotiating process remains accessible to the
public the openness protocol is negotiated for each treaty
negotiation. A typical protocol will list specific measures the
federal and provincial governments or the First Nations must take
to an open and productive treaty process. These protocols keep the
community and the media informed about what is happening at the
negotiating table.
As of June 15, 11 negotiations have completed the openness
protocols. For the negotiations to be fair the voices of all interested
British Columbians must be heard. We have launched a
province-wide consultation process to advise both the federal and
provincial
15616
governments on the views of those who cannot be at the negotiating
table but whose interests must be represented there.
The process functions at two levels. A 31-member treaty
negotiation advisory committee, TNAC, brings the perspective of
municipal governments, business, labour, fishing, wildlife, and
environmental groups to the treaty-making process. Each
committee member sits on one of four sectoral groups representing
lands and forests, fisheries, governance, and wildlife. The members
ensure that the interests and expertise of their organizations are
understood and are taken into consideration in treaty negotiations.
I have met with these advisory committee members. So has our
colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East. The BCTC
commissioners and the federal and provincial negotiating teams
provide updates to the members on the process of negotiations.
The second level of consultations brings the diverse interests of
the various regions of the province to bear in the land claims
process. Regional advisory committees are being struck in each
treaty negotiation area to represent local interests. In fact as part of
the land claims process the BCTC requires a regional advisory
committee be struck before Canada and B.C. are declared ``ready to
negotiate'' a treaty with First Nations. These committees work
directly with federal and provincial negotiating teams by providing
input on the formulation of interest and comments on the options
for discussions at the negotiating table. For example, we have
formed committees in Bulkley-Skeena, West Coast Vancouver
Island, Westbank Kelowna, and the lower mainland.
In the months ahead British Columbians will have an
opportunity to participate in an historical process. They have the
opportunity to correct an imbalance. For generations the people of
British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, have lived in a
legal no-man's land of claims, conflicting claims, and refusal to
acknowledge deep-seated historical wrongs.
We are setting up a process whereby hundreds of years after the
first interaction of two civilizations we can find a just and equitable
resolution on how land and resources are to be shared. The all or
nothing approach is not a solution for the 1990s. All parties, with
good conscience, openness to new ideas, but with a new tough
resolve to protect what is most important to each of us, must now
sit at the negotiating table. We must talk. If we do not talk and if we
do not resolve these issues through consultation and reconciliation
we leave the field open to those who believe that the only
resolution is all or nothing.
I have maintained all along that self-government agreements
work best when designed from the ground up with the input of the
people they affect. Now is not the time for land claim settlements
by government decree or constitutional amendment. Now is the
time for creativity and flexibility for modern treaty making. It will
be a slow, painstaking process. It will require a great reservoir of
goodwill among all parties in the negotiating process. The process
is harmed immeasurably by the kind of fearmongering and
controversy we have seen stirred up by those who want to score
short-term political points.
I am confident that the negotiation process will succeed in
British Columbia. I am confident because I have been working with
my provincial colleagues, with the leaders of the First Nations, and
the members of the treaty negotiating advisory committee. I know
that these are people of goodwill who are dedicated to reaching an
equitable solution.
Canadians and British Columbians must settle this unfinished
business. I urge this House to support this legislation and give the
federal commissioner the power to get on with the job.
(1625 )
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, considering that
the government only presented the Reform members with this bill
after 3 p.m. yesterday, which is in typical fashion, I would like to
seek consent of the House if we may have the opportunity to
question the minister about the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I think the
correct thing for the member to do is wait until he speaks on behalf
of his party. Then he might ask the minister, if the minister will
permit with unanimous consent, some questions and answers. It is
entirely a matter for unanimous consent of the House.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, we ended treaty at the Alberta border,
and for 100 years we said we would come back and deal with these
people who have lived there for 10,000 years.
Succeeding governments have tried to and made movement to
start a process. But when I walk through these doors, as we all must
at some point in our lives, the one thing I will be proud of is that in
October 1993 this government was elected and in December 1993
the B.C. Treaty Commission doors were opened for negotiations.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, of course
Bloc Quebecois members will support Bill C-107.
However there are a few concerns that should be addressed in the
debate. Having always made a point of seeing for myself how
aboriginal people live, I feel I am better able to speak, perhaps with
a bit more assurance, about aboriginal issues, including the bill
before us.
As recently as last summer, I had the great privilege of visiting
British Columbia and meeting with some aboriginal nations, some
communities which were deeply concerned about the negotiation
and the British Columbia Treaty Commission.
15617
Among others, I met with the Nisga'a nation, the main party
to the negotiations in British Colombia. I had the extreme
privilege of visiting, with Mr. Adams, five Nisga'a communities
settled in an a marvelous area. A few hundred years ago, two
Nisga'a communities were wiped off the map when a volcano
erupted in that part of the country. Today the Nisga'a people revere
the ruins of these ancient villages and are really anxious to reach
an agreement.
This is no exception to the usual attitude among the communities
I met in British Columbia. Up to now, they always chose the path of
negotiation in good faith rather than confrontation. Why do I
mention the Nisga'a? Because, as I said in my opening remarks, I
think they are at the centre of these negotiations. As you know the
Nisga'a band is probably-in fact, it is-the only nation that is not
under the umbrella of the British Columbia Treaty Commission
because they had started their negotiations even before the
commission was created, and the federal government recognized it.
I will give a short overview of the commission's progress in a
few moments. As a matter of fact, having begun to negotiate before
any other band, the Nisga'a are they necessarily a length ahead the
others now.
However, they feel it is important for the negotiations to
progress as fast as possible. Unfortunately, they are now blocked,
both at the commission and with the Nisga'a.
Speaking of concerns in this regard, both the Chilcotin band and
the Carrier-Sekanni band I visited told me that, if the negotiations
with the Nisga'a did not progress, the commission's efforts to
negotiate agreements with nations and communities of British
Columbia could grind to a halt. This is why I feel we should take an
interest in what is happening to the Nisga'a, who right now are
having a really bad time.
(1630)
Personally, I witnessed the terrible devastation of the forest
environment. A certain territory has been recognized as belonging
to the Nisga'a as part of their ancestral land or aboriginal territory.
We know what the terms ``aboriginal territory'' mean. The Nisga'a
are asking for only 8 per cent of this territory recognized by the
court.
However, despite the fact that their claim is rather modest and
reasonable, the Nisga'a are witnessing today the plundering of their
forests. Between 100 and 200 trucks a day are taking away freshly
cut logs. They are asking themselves: ``My God, are we ever going
to come to an agreement to put an end to this plundering, and
manage to protect our hunting and fishing rights recognized by the
Canadian constitution?'' I have, in my office, videos which show
the dreadful consequences of the clear cuts in British Columbia
where, once the loggers have gone through, there is nothing left,
neither trees nor beasts. Very often, the damage is irreparable.
Such forests will take hundreds of years to recover.
In their opinion, had such forest been burned to the ground it
would recover faster than it will in the present situation.
It is a race to clear cut as much of the forest as possible, and the
Chilcotin, the Carrier-Sekkani and the Nisga'a, have a feeling that
governments are allowing this wanton destruction, this mad race
for profit, this rush to clear cut everything. When it is all over,
when all the resources are gone, they believe they will be told:
``Now, we are ready to resume negotiations and we are willing to
give you the territory'', a territory which will have been emptied, as
I just said, of all its natural resources.
The Nisga'a are extremely concerned. I even wrote to the
premier of British Columbia, asking him to put an end to this
plundering. As you know, British Columbia is a big province, as
big as Quebec, if not bigger. You have to travel by plane to reach
these native communities. One can see the damage done by logging
companies through clear cutting.
I take this opportunity to say that I, for one, find shocking this
complete waste of a province's natural resources on what will
probably be considered native lands, and recognized as such. We
remain silent before the devastation, and the natives must wait for
the negotiations to continue. In the meantime, they see that their
lands keep deteriorating. It was worth mentioning, I think.
I also noticed a general shortage of housing in the communities;
several generations live under one roof. There are health problems.
Finally, there is a pressing need to conclude treaties in British
Columbia. I will talk about Quebec native communities later. In
this regard, Quebec is a model. British Columbia would benefit
from imitating the Quebec government, which has great respect for
natives, in spite of what is reported in the media. I can assure you
of the contrary, as I will demonstrate. I wish good luck to the
people of British Columbia, hoping they will follow in Quebec's
footsteps with regard to native peoples.
Let me talk a little about the Chilcotin people from British
Columbia, because they are very outspoken. Something funny
happened. When I told them that the official opposition critic
wished to meet them, it apparently created quite a commotion in
the community. The fact that a nasty separatist from Quebec, even
though a critic for Indian affairs and as such in a position to put
questions regularly to the minister, wanted to come to talk with
them about their problems made them rather uneasy. They were a
little concerned. However I found them to be great people, and
warriors. I call them ``warriors'' because the Chilcotin pride
15618
themselves in having been the only native nation in Canada to have
fought a war against white people and won.
(1635)
As you know, all the natives in Canada say they might have
fought wars, one side against the other, but in the case of the
Chilcotin, it was definitely the case and they are proud of it. They
even mentioned the names of warriors who took part in the battle. It
was clear to them that the Chilcotin had defeated the white people
who wanted to invade their territory, but of course they were unable
to hold out for long after that first victory. From then on, there was
a gradual invasion of their territory.
Promises had been made to them at that time. It is worth noting
that these were not necessarily agreements signed between the
Prime Minister, Her Majesty the Queen and some representative of
the natives. Even the courts are now beginning to recognize that the
verbal agreements and commitments made at the time were legally
binding, because natives were absolutely not able to
understand-they needed translators to have white people's words
translated into their language and white people needed translators
to understand what the natives were saying. Thus verbal
agreements were binding. Courts are beginning to recognize it.
At that time, those natives were told: ``Listen, we recognize the
Chilcotin nation, we recognize the Chilcotin Valley as your hunting
and fishing grounds''. What happened to the Chilcotin has
happened to many native communities in Canada.
Over the years, over the decades, over the centuries, there has
been a gradual invasion. Today this proud Chilcotin nation is
reduced to six small communities on small reserves.
To look at the population figures, I believe that since 1987 the
population of these communities has doubled. Now the people are
living in cramped reserves, threatened with prosecution by the pulp
and paper and forest companies if they go off their reserve to hunt.
There are huge problems, therefore, and the Chilcotin are
impatiently waiting for the British Columbia treaty commission to
get moving to ensure them of the few natural resources remaining
to them.
The same situation exists with housing. Sometimes there are
three generations living under one roof. The Chilcotin would
therefore like to see the negotiating process get not just started up
but speeded up.
Another example they spoke to me about, and one in which I
have had to intervene, was that the military base in the Chilcotin
valley is testing artillery on Chilcotin land. They have been trying
without success for years to get this testing stopped.
The situation is therefore this: overpopulated reserves, an
inability to have any say about such vital issues as housing and the
free disposal of property that ought to be theirs, since they were the
original inhabitants, an inability to have any effective impact on a
military base which continues to pillage their natural resources.
Needless to say, the Chilcotin are anxious to see the whole thing
settled.
They too have agreements, and this is where we see the sense of
responsibility among the aboriginal nations. The Chilcotin have an
agreement with Fisheries. Some twenty people are involved with
fisheries, the salmon fisheries among others. Conservation is
primary among the priorities set. The concept of conservation is
assured.
Then there is the concept of subsistence fishing, and thirdly there
is commercial fishing. The Chilcotin have demonstrated that when
they are given these responsibilities not only are they excellent
conservationists but they can also obtain their food from
subsistence fishing or hunting.
There are many such examples, and there is great anticipation of
the day when everything can all be translated into agreements. At
the moment, unfortunately, everything is at a standstill.
(1640)
I will tell you a little later on where I think negotiations have
stalled. I believe the federal government has a responsibility, but
the Government of British Columbia also has a responsibility. I
think both sides have to agree if there is to be any progress, because
these aboriginal communities are ready to start negotiations, but
we are now seeing obstruction on the part of the Government of
British Columbia, and the federal government, instead of putting
the pressure on to get things moving again, just sits there and says:
``Well, I am going to wait until the Government of British
Columbia pulls the switch and starts negotiating in good faith''.
The trouble with the Premier of British Columbia is that when he
came to power, with the NDP, he was very, very receptive to
aboriginal issues. But recently, probably under pressure from the
Reform Party, he is starting to say: ``Listen-''. They started by
setting a deadline for the Nisga'a, and they said: ``If no agreement
is reached by that date, the deal is off''. Of course the deadline
passed and now all negotiations have been on hold since last
summer.
Because of growing support for the Reform Party in western
Canada, the Harcourt government is backing down and
unfortunately, it is not only backing down but, as I said earlier, it
allows this wholesale destruction of natural resources to continue.
Meanwhile, the aboriginal peoples have to watch this exodus of
natural resources from their communities without being able to
intervene.
I also met the Carrier-Sekkani in Prince George. We had a very
frank discussion about sovereignty. These aboriginal peoples,
although they happen to be in British Columbia, 5,000 kilometres
from Quebec, are concerned about the economic and political
status of their brothers and sisters in eastern Canada, and I am
referring particularly to Quebec. We had a very good free ranging
discussion about the sovereignty of Quebec, and I think the
Carrier-Sekkani understood that the quality of life of aboriginal
15619
peoples in Quebec was clearly to be envied, compared with the
quality of life of aboriginal peoples elsewhere.
I think we agreed on that. We also agreed that Quebec was
certainly not going to build the Berlin wall the day after
sovereignty is proclaimed to prevent aboriginal peoples or the Inuit
from maintaining their contacts with their brothers and sisters in
Canada and elsewhere, including Antarctica and the United States.
Those contacts already exist and will continue to do so.
So, therefore, we each assured the other. They asked me as well,
naturally, for support. They were very concerned about the British
Columbia Treaty Commission. They said: ``You know, Mr.
Bachand, the commission will never get off the ground so long as
there is no progress in the negotiations with the Nisga'a''. If these
negotiations blocked at the point they had reached, the others'
negotiations at the first stage could almost certainly not be
expected to catch up with the Nisga'as'. The Nisga'as are 20 years
ahead of the other communities in their negotiations. Therefore the
bill before us today is of major concern in British Columbia.
I want to say in passing-I was talking about the Carrier-Sekani
earlier-I would like, while we are before the cameras here, to
salute Camille Joseph, elder of the Carrier-Sekani nation, who is
well into his 90s. I simply sent him a congratulatory note, but I will
take a moment during my speech to note it in passing, because I
think it should be mentioned.
The three communities I have just talked to you about are on the
mainland. I went to the Island as well. The same concerns are to be
found on Vancouver Island. Members of the Mid-Island Tribal
Council expressed their concerns to me about the progress in the
Nisga'a negotiations and the systematic blocking they are currently
facing.
I thought it important to situate the context of this bill's passage,
a bit. There is nothing like speaking when one has been there
personally and has met them and discussed all these questions with
them, often over a number of hours. So I think it appropriate to
mention it here. British Columbia is very rich in native culture.
(1645)
You know, as everywhere else, there are 200 reserves, 200
communities there and whether the people are Chilcotin, Nisga'a,
Haida or others, all these nations are different and even
communities within the same nation differ from one another.
Therefore, it is important to know. I went to the museum in
Victoria, and the whole place, the complete two story museum, is
dedicated to relations between the white people and the aboriginal
peoples. There we can see that the aboriginal peoples of British
Columbia really had an impact on cultural values in that province.
I will not hide the fact that there is some hostility now. It is true,
but maybe it is because some people provoke that hostility. I can
tell you that the natives feel no hostility whatsoever towards the
white people. But they have been waiting for 150 years for issues to
be settled, and it has not happened yet.
It is important to realize, to see, and it is important that I can
attest to the cultural impact of the native people and to their
contribution to the life of the white people in British Columbia.
You can see it in all the stores, the museums and the schools. The
native culture is omnipresent, it has a direct impact on white and
non aboriginal values and I think that, with the creation of this
commission, time has come to make sure we reach an amicable
agreement with the native people of that area, just as we are trying
to do in Quebec where I think we are well on our way.
According to my notes, Europeans have been present in British
Columbia for 140 years now, and during that time, 14 treaties
covering approximately 358 square miles on Vancouver Island
were signed, involving the Hudson's Bay Company. Since
Confederation, there has been only one treaty, in 1899; it is one of
the numbered ones. In total, there are ten numbered treaties in
Canada and that one is number eight; it covers the Peace River
region and the northern part of Alberta.
It is important to note that treaty negotiations have been essential
for native peoples in British Columbia for the last 140 years. Their
chiefs went to London to see the king. They regularly came to
Ottawa, and went to the Court in London, to try to solve their
problem, but to no avail. Worse yet, we, the non-natives, made
serious mistakes concerning them, and British Columbia is no
exception.
Moreover, I have here some notes indicating that in 1927 and
1951 they were prohibited from going to court. That meant that
these people, who were trying to negotiate their land claims in good
faith, could not even go to court when the negotiations appeared to
be deadlocked. In spite of it all, native peoples have persevered,
sometimes breaking the law, and today the situation is such that we
have to find a solution. Of course, now they are allowed to go to
court and, in British Columbia, things are following their course.
I have a few examples here. In 1973, the six judges of the
Supreme Court were split on whether to recognize native land
titles; consequently, the federal government said: ``Listen, we have
to settle this whole thing. We have to start negotiating''.
In 1982, there was another turning point with the patriation of
the constitution which, by the way, Quebec did not sign, and never
will after all, I believe. This constitution contained provisions
dealing with native peoples; aboriginal rights and treaty rights were
15620
recognized; the last remnants of British colonialism crumbled,
imperialist policies started to fall apart, and then, the injunctions
preventing aboriginal peoples from going to court naturally
became null and void.
For the past 15 years, we have been trying again to find solutions
through negotiations or through the courts, if negotiations are not
possible.
I believe that the decision we will make today when we pass
C-107, will be a vindication of this long struggle and will enable us
to finally put an end to a history of confrontation which has plagued
British Columbia for the past 150 years.
(1650)
There is also an history to the commission. There was a report
from a task force on claims in British Columbia and the creation of
the commission was discussed at that time. The creators of that
commission had really identified the need to enter into treaties with
the first nations. I quote from that report: ``that a new partnership
be developed to recognize the importance of natives and first
nations in Canada, based on voluntary negotiations well carried
out, where natives, the provincial government and the federal
government would be on an equal footing''.
In September 1992, an agreement in principle was signed
between the three authorities. This agreement implemented 19
recommendations made by the task force I mentioned earlier,
including recommendation No. 3 which, at the time, called for the
creation of the British Columbia Treaty Commission that was set
up a little later and that we will confirm, because the federal
government had not yet confirmed its participation, although that
was happening in practice.
Today, or in the next few days, with the passing of Bill C-107, we
will have confirmed the participation of the federal government in
this issue.
In the history of the commission, it is also important to mention
that at the provincial level, it is only in 1993 that British Columbia
got its Indian Affairs Department. That was long overdue,
considering all the problems that exist in British Columbia. It was
not long ago that the department was established. So, it is
important today that we have a recognized department, a
recognized minister in British Columbia, a counterpart of the
federal minister to be able to thoroughly discuss the issues.
The First Nations Summit would also be a principal to the
commission. The first nations have given themselves a negotiation
tool called the Summit, which is part of the agreements leading to
the commission. This Summit is very active and several of the
groups that I was mentioning earlier are participants in the Summit
and defend the interests of natives, which will lead, they hope, to
treaties.
How does this work? There are six different steps in the process.
I think that it is important to follow the course of these steps. The
first stage consists in submitting a declaration of intent to
negotiate. I will get back to this later on. Forty or so first nations
have already done so.
The second stage is the stage at which negotiation arrangements
are made, first meetings held and evaluations conducted to
determine if the first nations are prepared to negotiate. A first
meeting takes place, where one group asks the other: ``Are you
ready to negotiate? How soon can we start?'', and so on. A number
of first nations, of whom I wanted to give you the list, are already at
stage 2.
Stage 3 is the negotiation of a master agreement. The further
along I get into this process, the less progress is made on these
issues in terms of first nations's participation.
Stage 4 is the negotiation of an agreement in principle; stage 5,
the negotiation of a definitive treaty; and stage 6, the
implementation of the definitive treaty.
I told you that 43 first nations were taking part in the process. To
date, 14 claims have passed stage 1. No individual group has gone
further than stage 3 at this point in time. It should be noted however
that the Nisga'as have taken an approach to negotiations that is
different from the normal approach used by the commission. The
Nisga'as negotiated for 27 years just to get to the equivalent of
stage 3. Unfortunately, and I must digress here to say this,
negotiations have stopped since.
As I indicated earlier, when the BC premier was elected, he said
that the issue had to be settled. Finally, they agreed to set up the
commission. Now, we can see that, with a provincial election
impending in British Columbia, the premier is backtracking on his
promises. The result is stalled negotiations with the Nisga'as,
which in turn stalls the entire negotiation process with the other
first nations of British Columbia.
(1655)
Let us now turn to Quebec. We should wish to the BC first
nations that their negotiations can eventually reach as advanced a
stage as was reached in negotiations with their Quebec
counterparts. Unlike British Columbia, Quebec has been signing
modern treaties for the past 20 years, including the famous James
Bay Agreement.
Twenty years ago, the Crees, the federal government and the
Quebec government signed this historical agreement, which has
become a standard agreement for the rest of Canada. More
accurately, any time first nations seemed to be on the verge of
achieving self-government or asked the federal government and
their respective provincial government: ``Could you spare a piece
15621
of jurisdiction that we could take over?'', the James Bay
Agreement was quoted as a reference.
As far as I am concerned, it is still a reference, and just to show
you how open-minded Quebecers are, they are now saying: ``Even
if we are always leading the way, under the present circumstances,
we agree with the Crees on the need to update the James Bay
Agreement model''. This goes to show how open-minded
Quebecers are concerning first nations and how far they are ready
to go to meet native claims in Quebec.
I have some statistics before me that I should share with you
because they come from the assistant to the Minister of Indian
Affairs, Professor Bradford Morse, who, in a study he submitted to
the task force, gives examples of a new constitutional partnership.
As recently as 1992, Professor Morse wrote on the subject of land
claims that Quebec was the first Canadian province to accept the
continuity of aboriginal titles and to recognize them by trying to
negotiate land claim settlements. Professor Morse concluded that,
compared with the other provinces, Quebec has adopted a
comprehensive position that can be seen as much more favourable
to aboriginal people and their rights over their traditional lands.
I think that Professor Morse thus recognizes that the people of
Quebec are ahead on land claims. They are so much ahead that,
when this study was done, we had already concluded the model
agreement I referred to earlier, the James Bay Agreement.
However, the proposal that has just been made to the
Attikamek-Montagnais was not yet on the table. This proposal
would recognize what we call native areas, over which native
people will have full jurisdiction. We will negotiate an agreement
with them on how to divide the territory, over which they will have
complete freedom with regard to, among other things, joint
management of natural, non-renewable and other resources.
As far as these native areas are concerned, our proposal to the
Attikamek-Montagnais even provides for a 40,000 square
kilometre buffer zone, which we have agreed to share with the
Attikamek-Montagnais. This shows once again that Quebec is in
the vanguard of the drive to improve living conditions for Canada's
native people.
On the question of self-government, Professor Morse goes on to
say that, of all provincial governments, Quebec is the one that did
the most to accommodate the desire of native people to exert more
control over their lives and their community affairs.
The James Bay Agreement recognizes whole areas of
jurisdiction that now come under the exclusive control of the Cree.
These areas include culture, education and health. Instead of telling
native people that they must go to all-white hospitals, follow the
department's educational programs and comply with the directives
from Environment Canada, the James Bay Agreement has put
whole areas of jurisdiction under Cree control, and I think it is
important to point this out.
(1700)
The same goes for the language component. I just talked about
culture, which is often closely related to language. Indeed, we
Quebecers have known for a long time that our culture and our
language are closely intertwined. We recognized that was also the
case for aboriginal peoples. In that regard, it is rather interesting to
see that, for several years now, the Supreme Court has been
targeting Quebec's charter of the French language, Bill 101. Yet,
that legislation must stay, and I want to tell you about some of its
more interesting provisions. Quebec's charter expressly recognizes
the right of aboriginals, Indians and Inuit to protect and develop
their own language and culture.
The fact that Bill 101 even includes provisions which protect
aboriginal languages in our province is an indication of how open
minded Quebecers are.
This explains why, as professor wrote, aboriginal people in
Quebec are much more successful in terms of preserving their
language than those who live elsewhere in Canada. This is a
perfectly normal and accepted way of doing things in Quebec
where, for a long time now, young Crees have been taking Cree
language classes with their own school board, while young
Montagnais do the same in Pointe-Bleue or elsewhere.
It must be emphasized that Quebecers have always attached a
great deal of importance to aboriginal cultures. We recognize the
fact that aboriginals were here before us. We also recognize the fact
that they have given us enormous wealth. In order to keep whole
segments of these societies from disappearing, Quebecers strongly
encourage the protection of aboriginal languages and cultures.
Incidentally, a while ago, Mrs. Beaudoin, the Quebec minister of
intergovernmental affairs, submitted a claim to the federal
government, which has not yet acted on it. As you know, the James
Bay agreement deals with the sharing of costs relating to Crees and
Naskapis. There is the James Bay agreement, but there is also the
Northeastern Quebec agreement, which primarily concerns
Naskapis.
Under that agreement, Quebec pays 25 per cent of the costs
related to Crees and Naskapis, while the federal government pays
for the rest. In the case of the Inuit, the proportions are reversed.
However, some changes have occurred since 1987 regarding the
sharing of these costs. Since that year, the birth rate among Crees
has increased tremendously. Consequently, there are many more
children attending school.
A special effort was made to develop education programs for
adults. There is an increased demand for specialized education,
including for young Cree children with special needs. The Quebec
government pays for that component in the case of non aboriginal
15622
children, but there is an increased demand up there, and we must
provide the additional services required.
For some time, there was no problem with the federal
government concerning the payment of these costs each year. Since
1987, however, the government has changed its way of doing
things. It wants to index its contribution to the annual inflation rate
and sticks to this rate instead of abiding by the provisions of the
James Bay agreement which were negotiated in good faith by the
federal government, Quebec as well as the Crees, the Naskapi and
the Inuit.
Unfortunately, for the Quebec government, this meant a loss of
$199 million in income. What did it do? It could easily have said to
the young Crees, as some provinces did to other native groups:
``Look, since the federal government, which has the fiduciary
responsibility for the fees incurred on the reserves, is not paying its
share, we are no longer able to financially support education for the
young Crees, under the James Bay agreement. Tell them that some
children will not be able to go to school this year''.
I said earlier that the same thing goes on elsewhere in the United
States. The people covered by the Treaty No. 7 in central Canada
are being told that they can forget about post-secondary education.
``We cannot send your children to school this year, because we ran
out of money''.
(1705)
We could have done the same thing in Quebec, but the Quebec
government met its responsibilities and took upon itself to foot the
bill. Now, it is asking the federal government, the current Liberal
government, to pay its share. I must say that I think it is unfortunate
that the claim made by the government of Quebec has not been
settled. We are talking about $199 million. It cannot just be
shrugged off.
Professor Morse, an assistant to the Indian affairs minister, also
says that Quebec has shown great leadership in promoting
economic development. There are some economic development
provisions in the James Bay agreement where it is recognized that
significant compensation must be paid to the native communities
following the construction of hydro-electric dams, and that was
done. Their hunting, trapping and fruit-picking rights were also
recognized. We are also leaders in economic development.
Furthermore, there is a happy combination of traditional
activities, like hunting and fishing, and marketing. It is also worth
mentioning that there are local outfitting operations managed by
natives.
In health care, we see the same thing. The Quebec government is
the leader. Natives in Quebec are in much better health than their
counterparts in the rest of Canada.
Finally, I hope for the benefit of British Columbia natives that
the federal government will adopt Bill C-107 and will go further
and use its influence and its fiduciary role to force the Harcourt
government to go back to the negotiating table. I also hope that the
negotiations concerning the Nisga'as will be resumed and that the
participation of the federal government as a party in the British
Columbia Treaty Commission will be accepted so that natives in
that province can one day benefit from as much generosity as
natives in Quebec.
[English]
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, a request has been made by the
hon. member for Vancouver East that she be able to use my time as
she has commitments tomorrow. I have no problem with that.
The Deputy Speaker: Everything is possible with unanimous
consent.
[Translation]
We could proceed this way with unanimous consent.
[English]
It would be understood, presumably, that the hon. member for
Vancouver East would speak today for 20 minutes with a 10-minute
question and answer period and that the Reform Party
representative would have 40 minutes without a question and
answer period the next time the matter comes up for debate.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Surrey North for allowing me to speak.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for letting me
speak now.
[English]
The bill before us marks the culmination of a long and at times
difficult struggle. It is born of British Columbia's unique history. It
is the product of many years of hard work and goodwill. Fairness,
clarity and justice are not issues of party politics. They are
elements of principles which we all share as Canadians.
Over the decades many people have played a part: people from
various parties and political ideologies, people who shared little in
common except a desire to see justice done and to get on with
building a brighter future for British Columbia.
15623
To understand why in 1995 we are still talking about negotiating
treaties we need to look to our history. Unlike most other
provinces where treaties were signed to clarify jurisdiction over
land and resources and forge new relationships between First
Nations and the newcomers to this great land few were ever
concluded in British Columbia. As a result some 124 years after
becoming a province, the key question of unextinguished
aboriginal rights remains unresolved and the majority of the
province remains subject to outstanding aboriginal land claims.
Few treaties were signed because of the position historically
taken by the Government of British Columbia. From the late 1800s
the position was that aboriginal rights had been extinguished prior
to B.C.'s entry into Confederation in 1871 or, if these rights did
exist, they were the exclusive responsibility of the federal
government.
(1710)
In 1990 under the leadership of Premier Vander Zalm, a Socred,
B.C. reversed its longstanding position and the way was opened to
resolving these issues.
I think it only fair to point out that one of the key players in
convincing the provincial government to reverse its historic
opposition to negotiating treaties was the then B.C. minister of
native affairs, Mr. Jack Weisgerber. I know that many of my
Reform Party friends would recognize Mr. Weisgerber's name. One
of the early and enthusiastic architects of this process, Mr.
Weisgerber now leads the provincial Reform Party in British
Columbia.
Following on the heels of the B.C. government's decision, the
Government of Canada and the B.C. government acted quickly to
advance the process. Later the same year the federal Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. Tom Siddon,
along with Mr. Weisgerber and Bill Wilson, chairman of the First
Nations Congress, agreed to establish a task force to make
recommendations on the mandate and process for treaty
negotiations.
By June 1991 the B.C. claims task force had released its report.
One of its key recommendations was the creation of an arm's
length B.C. treaty commission.
In the 10 months that followed, representatives of Canada, B.C.
and the First Nations summit negotiated the B.C. treaty
commission agreement which was the blueprint for the
commission. On September 21, 1992, Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney, Indian Affairs Minister Tom Siddon, both
Conservatives, B.C. Premier Mike Harcourt and native affairs
minister Andrew Petter, both New Democrats, joined with the First
Nations summit leadership in signing the B.C. treaty commission
agreement. We had all the parties on board.
In the three years since, the commission has made great
progress. If there was ever any doubt that the commission was
necessary, one need only look at the response it has had for the
aboriginal population of British Columbia.
To date, 49 first nation groups representing 79 per cent of B.C.'s
aboriginal peoples have submitted a statement of intent to
negotiate. One of the terms of the agreement creating the treaty
commission was a commitment to establish it in the legislation. In
May 1993 both the aboriginal summit and the province fulfilled
their part of that commitment.
Now the time has come for the federal government to honour its
part of the bargain. These then are the events which have led us to
this legislation and to this debate. I welcome all members to this
great partnership.
Across the years and across party lines people have joined hands
in a common cause. It is their vision and determination that we
celebrate and formalize today. Their cause was simple: the desire to
bring justice to aboriginal people and certainty to their province.
The costs of that uncertainty has been high. In a Price
Waterhouse study prepared in 1990 it was estimated that $1 billion
in investment had not occurred because of unresolved land claims.
Three hundred badly needed jobs had not been created and $125
million in capital investments had not been made. Yesterday we
had the mining industry in town and they were talking to me about
the same problem.
Since the time of that study the price has continued to be paid
year in and year out. That has been the price of denying the
problem or pretending it would go away. That is the price of the
status quo for the people of British Columbia. It is a price we can
no longer afford. With the passage of this legislation we will be on
the way to no longer having to pay.
But, if the price has been high for the general population of B.C.,
for aboriginal people it has been far higher. For aboriginal people it
has meant great hardships and shattering poverty. It has meant the
denial of historic rights and future hopes. It has meant generations
of dreams deferred and promises unkept. It has meant a quality of
life few of us can imagine and none of us should tolerate.
Conditions are appalling. Almost a third of aboriginal homes on
reserves lack running water. Diseases such as hepatitis and
tuberculosis virtually eradicated in the non-native population
persist in aboriginal communities. Death from fires are three and a
half times the non-aboriginal level because of unsafe housing and
lack of proper sanitation.
(1715 )
Aboriginal people are more than three times as likely to die a
violent death and about twice as likely to die before age 65. The
15624
suicide rate among aboriginal people is 50 per cent higher than
among non-aboriginal people. That difference is even more
pronounced in the age group of 15 to 25.
This country can simply not afford to lose another generation of
aboriginal people able and willing to make a contribution to this
country. The young aboriginal people of today can be our
professionals, our trades people, our inventors of tomorrow. They
represent our past and our future. If we lose them it will be an
incredible waste.
We cannot afford to continue to condemn aboriginal peoples to
lesser lives in lesser lands. We cannot afford to judge any longer.
We must start facilitating a process that is indispensable.
In my riding of Vancouver East I have one of the largest
aboriginal urban communities in the country. It is an active
community. Its members are engaged in bettering their situation by
making everybody aware of their past and their plight. In
Vancouver East there is the Aboriginal Friendship Centre and the
Native Education Centre which help us understand them.
The people of B.C. have told their government to get on with it,
to negotiate fair and just agreements which protect the rights of
both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike, and the sooner the
better.
We must do it in an organized manner and this is what the B.C.
Treaty Commission has been doing and will continue to do. It
wants to establish a stable economic climate which in turn will help
to bring in investments, dollars and opportunities for all British
Columbians and bring peace to our forests, our waters, our lands.
[Translation]
My colleague from the Bloc has explained very well how
important aboriginal peoples are in British Columbia and I thank
him. I also want to say that native peoples are very important to our
culture, our past and our future in B.C. In fact, they are an
extremely important part of the history of British Columbia, which,
as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a wonderful part of Canada, where
aboriginal peoples, anglophones, francophones and other
communities from around the world all live in harmony.
[English]
In 1993, speaking in favour of the legislation creating the treaty
commission, Jack Weisgerber recounted his experience in 1989 as
a member of the premier's advisory council on native affairs: ``It
became clear to us as we travelled and met with groups around the
province that if we were going to address the root of the social and
economic problems we had to deal with the land claim question''.
Those are wise words from a man who now leads the Reform
Party in British Columbia, words echoed by members of all parties
in the British Columbia legislature when that great body passed its
own enabling legislation; words I commend to my friends across
the floor today, words which we now have the opportunity to
honour through our actions.
The history of this legislation is a story of partnerships between
cultures, between political parties, between generations. Let us
continue in that same spirit of partnership now as we open the way
for a brighter future for all British Columbians and a prouder day
for all Canadians.
We have already waited too long. We should have settled this
problem long ago. We now must ensure peace and harmony with
our aboriginal brothers and sisters by working with them on the
settlement of their land claims and on their needs.
In the last two years we have done a lot of work and with
everybody's co-operation we will be able to solve a long and
overdue problem and ensure peace and certainty in British
Columbia.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-107 and in support of the
comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Bill C-107 creates the legal framework for the British Columbia
Treaty Commission to act as an arm's length body and facilitate
treaty negotiations with British Columbia's First Nations.
(1720 )
I support the creation of the commission and its mandate. As
hon. members are aware, very few of the First Nations in B.C. have
ever signed treaties with the crown. In lower Vancouver Island
several First Nations signed treaties with Governor Douglas in the
mid-1800s. By the end of the 19th century the Peace River district
was included in treaty number 8 signed with the federal
government. Obviously it is well known to people from B.C.,
although it may not be known by other people in Canada, that was
the last one. There have been no treaties signed in this century.
In recent years the Nisga'a Tribal Council has been actively
negotiating with the federal and provincial governments. When
those negotiations are complete and an agreement is signed it will
be the first treaty with a B.C. First Nation signed this century, and
we are almost in the next century.
The people of B.C. want to enter the 21st century knowing we
have completed the unfinished business of the 19th century. The
land claims of B.C. First Nations have to be resolved. Some people
would ask why. Resolving these issues creates an environment of
certainty which means economic growth and job creation. Settling
land and resource issues creates the environment needed for
increased investment and local economic activity.
15625
In recent years real progress has been made toward resolving
100-year old unfinished business. In 1990 Ottawa, B.C. and the
leaders of B.C.'s First Nations established a task force to
recommend a negotiation process that could accommodate the
numerous First Nations in B.C. that want to negotiate settlements.
The task force presented 19 recommendations in June, 1991, all
of which were all accepted by the First Nations summit and the
federal and provincial governments, a major achievement in itself.
One of the key recommendations was to establish the British
Columbia Treaty Commission as an arm's length minder of the
process. The agreement committed the three partners to establish
the BCTC through federal an provincial legislation and a resolution
of the First Nations summit. In the meantime commissioners have
been appointed by order in council and summit resolutions. They
began their work in December, 1993 and have made considerable
progress.
As a member of Parliament who represents 46 First Nations
communities I can tell from firsthand experience of the importance
of having a process to deal with longstanding grievances and issues
of specific land claims and, more important, in B.C.'s case of
treaties that have never been signed. It is a major undertaking of
tremendous importance, probably more important than anything
the B.C. government will have done in the term of its involvement
over the past number of years.
There are 47 First Nations involved in the BCTC process to date.
They represent over 70 per cent of the First Nations of the province
and more are likely to become involved soon. The BCTC has five
commissioners. Two are nominated by the First Nations summit,
one by the B.C. government and one by Ottawa. The chief
commissioner is selected and appointed by consensus of all three
partners.
The First Nations summit includes all B.C. First Nations that
have agreed to participate in the BCTC process. It provides a forum
for those First Nations to meet and discuss treaty negotiations. It
worked closely with Ottawa and the provinces to develop the treaty
negotiation process and to establish the BCTC. As one of the
partners in the process it continues to provide direction.
In Kenora-Rainy River, no different than in B.C., we have our
treaties: treaty 3, treaty 9 and treaty 5. The minister responsible for
Indian and northern affairs has also undertaken some significant
changes to the lives of First Nations people and has tried to
improve the affairs of individual communities by getting involved
and trying to deal with First Nations and specific land claims.
(1725 )
From firsthand experience, in order for us to get involved in
what is most important, the next generation, the economics and the
social well-being of First Nations for the years to come, these land
claims and these processes must work.
To get into the next century with some hope and aspiration for
the young First Nation people not only in my riding but across the
country and in B.C. we will have to assure them the grievances of
the past will be rectified in order to get on with the future.
I, like many others who represent First Nations, have had
roadblocks. I have had First Nations people tell me they are
frustrated and fed up. They are not willing to wait much longer.
They no longer want the federal or provincial governments to sit on
their hands while they wait for a miracle. They would like that
process to start.
I take this opportunity to tell the House, the people of
Kenora-Rainy River and the people of B.C. that they can thank
the government and the minister responsible for moving an agenda
which from the last term was basically stalled or going in reverse.
We are now starting to see some significant improvement for all the
hard work and efforts of not only the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development but the chiefs and councils of the First
Nations.
B.C. will be dealing with a six stage treaty. In this negotiation
process the stages something like this: a statement of intent;
preparation for negotiations; negotiation of a framework
agreement; negotiation of agreement in principle; treaty
finalization; treaty implementation.
The commission will assess the readiness of parties to negotiate.
This involves ensuring the First Nations have the resources needed
to make their case and ensuring the federal and provincial
governments have struck regional advisory committees so that the
local non-aboriginal residents have a voice.
This brings me to a very important point and the obvious wisdom
of the positions of the government and the First Nations of the
involvement and the voice of non-aboriginal residents. I will use an
example of a community in my riding which is over 50 per cent
aboriginal. Sioux Lookout is thought by a lot of people to be a
non-aboriginal community but it does have a lot of aboriginal
people. It would like to participate when we get involved in
specific land claim policies and negotiations with First Nations so
that when the agreements are made there is a recognition that all of
us, native and non-native, will be able to live with the results.
Therefore it is very important that advisory committees are set
up with local non-aboriginal residents to give them a voice so we
can be assured that in the end the agreements we get will be a
win-win situation and not win-lose or lose-win.
I commend again the individuals who put in this process in B.C.
because with it I think the results will be much longer lasting than
if this process did not have non-aboriginal people in it.
15626
These regional committees in B.C. are part of an extensive
commitment to keep the public and all other affected parties
informed of developments and to make sure that advice from all
sectors of B.C. society are considered. Other efforts include news
letters, public meetings, an 800 number, speaking engagements,
information brochures, other publications and participation in
trade shows.
The BCTC also allocates loans to enable First Nations to fully
participate in the process. In other words, it works in partnership
with all parties to ensure that the job gets done properly.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, but he will have
10 minutes remaining the next time the matter is called.
It now being 5.30 p.m., the House will proceed to consideration
of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15626
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 20, 1995, consideration of the
motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should
support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving
the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at
least that of primary treatment facilities, and of the amendment of
Mrs. Guay.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great interest that I rise today to debate Motion M-425
brought forward by the member for Comox-Alberni. In this
motion, my colleague proposes that the water we use be treated at
the primary level instead of being discharged directly into the
environment, as is the case today.
In developed and industrialized regions, pollution has altered the
natural quality of this valuable resource. Because of growing
urbanization and because of the obvious inadequacy of our sewage
treatment facilities, we have to worry about the quality of the large
quantity of water we consume daily.
Not only is water a necessity of life, but it also contributes to our
quality of life. I am very aware of this fact when I look at my
riding, the riding of Manicouagan, that borders the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Water is the principal driving force in my region. This
natural resource has attracted several industries employing a large
number of workers to this area.
Unlike many other vital resources, water has no substitute in
most of the activities and processes where it is required, both in
industry and in nature. Yet, despite its increasing scarcity and
despite the fact that, over the last few years, we have become aware
of the seriousness of the water pollution problem, we have not
taken the necessary measures to deal with it.
Everyone agrees that our current sewage treatment systems will
have to be modernized. I support the motion brought forward by
the member for Comox-Alberni because it is clear that our waste
water needs a minimum amount of treatment. We cannot go on
thinking that we can discharge sewage directly into our lakes and
rivers without harming the environment.
Sewage treatment systems are essential to the social and
economic functioning of modern communities. The major part of
polluted waste found in water comes from sewage and municipal
sewage treatment installations and from numerous industries which
use those installations to dispose of their waste.
In the last ten years or so, the growing awareness of
environmental issues has sparked considerable interest for the
protection of waterways. Provinces and municipalities have
therefore been spending tremendous amounts of money to develop
protection programs for those resources. Motion M-425 proposes a
national program. Yet, it has always been clear that municipalities
are responsible for providing drinking water, sewage treatment and
waste disposal services.
The motion proposes federal interference in a provincial
jurisdiction, which is of course totally unacceptable for the Bloc
Quebecois. I wonder if the author of this motion is aware of the
danger of allowing the federal government to impose its own
standards on municipalities.
Motion M-425 proposes that the federal government establish a
nationwide program of improving the treatment of municipal
sewage to the point of meeting a minimum national standard. In the
area of environment, the federal government has always had a
tendency to centralize power in Ottawa, supposedly because of the
national interest the need to modernize environmental programs.
Yet, under the constitution, environment is not explicitly the
jurisdiction of one level of government more than another.
(1735)
The courts have declared it what is termed an ancillary power,
derived from the areas of jurisdiction allocated to each
government. Even before the mid-eighties the government of
Quebec, which has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of a local or
territorial nature, played a lead role in environmental matters, an
area over which it was for the most part responsible.
The federal government was satisfied at that time, as set out in
the constitution, with intervening in complementary areas. It was
only in later years that it began to interfere in environmental
matters. As soon as that happened, duplication and overlap began
to crop up increasingly, moreover. This has been perpetuated and
15627
aggravated since the election of the present Liberal government,
which is attempting to centralize decision making in Ottawa, with
all due deference to my colleague from
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The truth is not always easy to
hear, but there you are.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the present government,
regardless of what it says, is seeking to centralize and concentrate
power in Ottawa still further. Under a federal regime, there must of
necessity be a division of areas of jurisdiction. In Canada, however,
such a division often leads to inefficiency. At this very moment,
there is a need for the federal government to enter into
administrative agreements with the provinces. The current
situation simply clouds the issue and makes it extremely difficult to
identify who is really responsible if a policy does not bring results.
Are we to blame the federal government, the author of the
standards, or the provincial government, which may have been
remiss in implementing those standards?
Since Canada maintains that it has jurisdiction over some areas
of the environment because of the so-called national interest, this
means it is in a position to enter into international agreements and
to find global solutions along with its partners. Why then could the
provinces not do the same with each other and with a sovereign
Quebec?
The inefficiency of a system in which responsibility is not
clearly identified lies in wasted energy due to duplication and is
certainly not any guarantee of sustainable development. In fact,
under the current federal system it would be unthinkable to
guarantee any kind of sustainable development, since the
government in Ottawa seems to have an abiding tendency to
centralize powers and to interfere with matters that are the sole
responsibility of the provinces.
Although Quebec recognizes the very real concern we should
have for the environment, it is not prepared to let the federal
government once again intrude in an area over which it has no
jurisdiction. Responsibility for municipal sewage lies clearly with
the provinces and the municipalities.
The Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion, not because it
is against protecting the environment, and I would like to say that
we appreciate the good intentions of the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni. As I said, the Bloc would vote against the
motion, and it will do so not because it is against protecting the
environment but rather because it believes that the environment is
better protected when each government deals with the problems for
which it is responsible, so that it can set priorities that make sense
and as a result be truly effective.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too am pleased to participate this afternoon in this debate
on Motion M-425.
Notwithstanding what we just heard-and I am not sure that the
motion has this much importance in a sense-I must say that the
remarks that were just made do not reflect what I would call the
truth.
[English]
First, the motion before the House says that the government
should support the undertaking-it says support, it does not say
establish it themselves-support the undertaking of a country-wide
program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a
minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.
The motion does not even talk about establishing one national
standard, as was alleged by the hon. member from the Bloc
Quebecois. Second, it is totally false to allege that it does anything
else, which the member has also indicated.
(1740)
[Translation]
Second, there is an amendment, and I wonder whether it is really
in order. It must be in order if the Chair accepted it. I must tell you
that this amendment has no connection with the main issue, since it
deals with a right for all provinces to financial compensation. One
has nothing to do with the other.
The motion simply calls upon the federal government to support
certain initiatives to guarantee a minimum level of waste water
treatment. That is all this motion is about.
Once again, today, the Bloc Quebecois was caught in this House
making things up and stretching the truth to an incredible extent.
[English]
Sir Winston Churchill once said that the opposite to the truth had
never been stated with greater accuracy. I guess one could apply
that to the speech the House just heard with respect to what the
intention of the motion really is.
I want to speak a bit about the infrastructure program. We get
mixed messages from Reform MPs on infrastructure. The motion
by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni invites the federal
government to support infrastructure programs concerning sewers
and the like. I have to admit that we have been getting mixed
messages from Reform Party MPs on that subject. Come to think of
it, we have been getting mixed messages from the Reform Party on
just about every issue.
I have an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen, the valley edition, of
August 14, 1994, which speaks of the Reform Party position on
infrastructure. It is entitled ``Reform Sings the Blues'' and states
that ``The Reform Party seems to have changed its tune after
advocating the nurturing of infrastructure before the election''.
15628
It works something like this. Before the election the Reform
Party was in favour of ameliorating the infrastructure and of the
federal government supporting it. After the election Reformers
started criticizing this. You might ask what is wrong with that, after
all, they are Reformers and it should be expected that they will
contradict themselves every now and then. That might be true, but
there is a certain limit beyond which it becomes odd, even for
Reformers.
We have the spectacle of the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.
That is a spectacle if I ever saw one. He wrote a letter regarding an
infrastructure program in his riding. I want all my colleagues to
know it was a coincidence that it was in his riding. The letter, which
was to the President of the Treasury Board, stated: ``I am writing to
further offer my strong support for the project because of the
significant job creation this project will provide. One of the main
objectives of the infrastructure program is to promote public and
private sector partnerships that will not only improve the local and
regional economic climate, but also will help Canada as a whole to
attract corporations by providing prime business opportunity'' and
so on.
That was the hon. member for Simcoe Centre, who was at that
time writing in praise of an infrastructure program that just
happened to be located in his riding. After that was over the same
member-
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are
supposed to be discussing the amendment that was put forward by
the hon. member for Laurentides. What the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is talking about now has no
relevance to the amendment. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that he
would speak to the amendment.
(1745)
The Deputy Speaker: The member is referring to the standing
order regarding relevance. I am sure the hon. member will make his
remarks relevant, if that was not the case, very soon.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the motion is in regard to supporting
infrastructure programs. The amendment refers only to how one
should fund these infrastructure programs. Of course the member
for Simcoe Centre was writing in support of funding an
infrastructure program which is exactly what the amendment is
about.
Let us get back to the member for Simcoe Centre because I like
him a lot. The member for Simcoe Centre in commenting to a
reporter said ``of other infrastructure programs''. By coincidence,
these other projects were not in his riding, but here is what he said
about them. Remember, let us not be cynical. These other projects
to which I am going to refer were in someone else's riding. He said
about those: ``It is not infrastructure; it is a make work project.
They talk about the short term jobs this is creating but those jobs
can be anywhere from one day to one month''. He was explaining
how these things were wrong, among them renovating the coliseum
in Edmonton and building facilities and arenas elsewhere.
All those other arenas were wrong but the arena in Barrie was
right. It just happens to be in the riding of the member for Simcoe
Centre. It was worthy of support and all the praise I brought to the
attention of the House a moment ago. It constituted all those
virtuous things I described to the House, such as promoting public
and private sector partnerships, and so on.
How could that be? How could it be that infrastructure projects
are worthy when they are in the hon. member's riding but virtually
identical projects in someone else's riding are not worthy of similar
praise? I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for this and we
will hear it soon.
Let us talk about the infrastructure works program. The city of
Calgary has put out a publication on the Canada-Alberta
infrastructure works program. It is called ``Calgary at Work''.
Calgary of course is where the ridings of the leader of the Reform
Party and other Reform members are located. I wonder if they will
pay attention to this because we might ask them questions later.
The publication ``Calgary at Work'' lauds all the virtues of the
infrastructure program and all the things that have been done in
Calgary. Here are some of the things-
Mr. Johnston: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you
could confirm quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not a quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 29(4), I
would ask those members present to approach the table and have
their names recorded in the journal.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 29(3), as we do not have a quorum,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(There being only 13 members present, including the Deputy
Speaker, the names were written down, and the House adjourned at
6.03 p.m.)