TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 1, 1994
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4691
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4694
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4695
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4695
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4695
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4695
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4696
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4696
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4696
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4696
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4697
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4697
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4697
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4697
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4697
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4697
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4698
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4698
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4699
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4699
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4699
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4699
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4701
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4702
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4702
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 4715
Bill C-34. Motion for second reading 4715
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 155 4722
4691
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 1, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, straddling
the 200 nautical mile limit there is a fish stock which is of great
importance to the existence and well-being of many coastal
communities in Atlantic Canada.
Designed to avoid crisis in the fisheries, the law of the sea
affirms the responsibility of all nations to co-operate in
conserving and managing fish in the high seas. It is in the
interests of Canadians that the Government of Canada ratify the
law of the sea convention.
Canada should join the other 60 nations in the sustainable
management of fish and bring destructive overfishing to an end.
I call on the Government of Canada to ratify the law of the sea in
1994.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, National Access Awareness Week is an excellent
opportunity to remind this House of the extraordinary
performance of our disabled athletes at the last Winter Olympics
for the disabled.
Unfortunately, their outstanding achievements did not receive
the attention they deserved. In fact, the nine medals won by
Canada were mentioned only in a 30-minute television
presentation by CTV. That is hardly enough to acknowledge the
courage and perseverance of these athletes, for whom life itself
is an achievement.
The Summer Olympics will be held two years from now, and I
am confident that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will
demonstrate that, in Canada, integration of the disabled is a fact
and not merely wishful thinking, and urge the CBC to provide
adequate television coverage of our disabled athletes at the next
Summer Games.
In doing so, we will express the admiration and respect which
their exceptional achievements deserve.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we had the introduction of Bills C-33 and
C-34 which would ratify land claims and self-government
agreements in Yukon. Last week we were told the government
wished to have these bills introduced later in June with the
understanding that MPs would have time to prepare properly.
These bills represent the culmination of 21 years of mostly
behind closed doors work without the involvement of federal
parliamentarians. Today, 24 hours after tabling, Parliament is
being asked to debate these bills at second reading.
This is an obvious abuse of power. The Liberal red ink book
speaks of the integrity of Parliament. Surely assimilating over
nine inches of text overnight with a rushed departmental
briefing this morning does not speak well for the integrity of
Parliament or the interests of all Canadians. This action is a
travesty of Parliament.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to congratulate the 1993-94 NHL western
conference champions, the Vancouver Canucks, for reaching the
Stanley Cup finals for the second time in their history.
Coach Pat Quinn has done a remarkable job, as have the rest of
the Vancouver organization and the players. In particular, goal
tender ``Captain'' Kirk MacLean, Pavel ``The Russian Rocket''
Bure, and Captain Trevor Linden have shown great leadership
and poise throughout the playoffs.
In getting to the finals, the Canucks upset their long time
rivals, the Calgary Flames. They handily defeated the Dallas
Stars and then beat the Toronto Maple Leafs. Last night they
won their first game with the New York Rangers, the best team
in the regular season.
4692
With their talent, hard work, determination and the support
of all Canadians, I know they will meet the challenge and
ultimately succeed in keeping Lord Stanley's cup here in
Canada.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like again to wish the
Vancouver Canucks, the players and the organization who
play-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to inform the House of the Prime Minister's appointment this
morning of Dr. Art Carty as president of the National Research
Council.
Dr. Carty is a highly appropriate choice for this position. He
has nearly 30 years experience as a professor and researcher at
the University of Waterloo since 1967. His experience and
leadership in the domestic and international scientific
community are a fitting match with Canada's foremost research
facility, the National Research Council.
Dr. Carty has been a director on various boards and has been a
consultant to companies. Dr. Carty is therefore a model of the
type of co-operation between the private sector and academia
the government wants to promote.
Dr. Carty's appointment demonstrates the government's
commitment to applied research which serves as one of the
pillars of Canada's economic strategy in the new economy.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the
organizers and those who participated in Show Off East Hants. It
was a two-day trade fair which was recently held in Lantz in my
riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
(1405)
The trade fair drew 3,500 people from throughout the riding
and other parts of the province. People came to see over 100
local businesses show off their first class products and services.
The bringing together of these local businesses to achieve a
common goal provides an important link between economic
development and job creation. All participants should be proud
of their efforts in promoting East Hants as an excellent place to
do business.
I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating
those who added to the overwhelming success of Show Off East
Hants.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, it is now
public knowledge. Moody's, the U.S. bond rating agency,
judged yesterday that Quebec's economy was sound and
confirmed the province's credit rating.
This is a far cry from the apocalyptic scenario described by
the Prime Minister, who is trying to scare Quebecers by
claiming that the economy is suffering as a result of the political
instability caused by the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. Speaker, the real
cause of instability in Canada is the Liberal government's
failure to cope with the deficit and unemployment.
While Quebec's credit rating has been maintained, Ontario's
rating has gone down, and Canada's rating is being reassessed. If
Quebecers want economic growth on a sound and stable basis,
they must opt for sovereignty, not for maintaining ties with a
weak and irresponsible government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, 50
years ago on the first day of June there was frenetic activity in
England. Final preparations were being made to launch the
largest military force ever embarked on, for at dawn on Tuesday,
June 6, 1944 D-Day, the invasion of Nazi occupied France,
would commence. In May 1945 victory in Europe would be
declared and freedom returned to the continent.
In commemorating the longest day we pay tribute to the
thousands of our military killed or wounded in battle and the
hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who sacrificed here
at home during the war.
It is also appropriate that we consider how the course of
history can be affected for the better by people and nations
determined to fight evil.
Just prior to that war there was some wavering of resolve and
failed attempts at appeasement. In the end, it was only through
determined effort that freedom and democracy triumphed.
History teaches us that it is not easy to stand up to tyranny. We
salute those who did.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, on May
22 I had the pleasure of assisting at the opening of the Rideau
Canal for another season.
4693
Completed in 1832 to give access to the Great Lakes from
the nation's capital, the canal today offers 202 kilometres of
clear, pristine waters through a total of 47 locks. Hundreds of
pleasure craft annually move leisurely along through the canal
and pages and pages of Canada's history.
As the holiday season starts in Canada in a few weeks I
encourage Canadian boaters who are looking for a relaxing
holiday to try travelling the Rideau this summer. It is not a fast
way to get to Kingston from the capital, but it is one which will
take them through a beautiful part of Canada and one they will
always remember.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Royal Canadian Legion members voted
against allowing turbaned Sikh veterans and Jewish veterans to
enter legion halls. I applaud the resignation of Dominion
Command Chairman Robert Ford over the issue.
Turbans are not hats; they are very important religious
symbols of the Sikh faith. Sikh soldiers fought and died wearing
their turbans. Therefore Sikh veterans and Jewish veterans
should be allowed equal access to Canadian legion halls to
honour their fallen comrades.
Yesterday was a sad day for religious tolerance and racial
understanding in Canada.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, this week
marks the seventh anniversary of National Access Awareness
Week in Canada.
It is important as legislators in the House to be aware of the
needs of the disabled community. When planning community
events we must support the establishments that are accessible so
that handicapped people can be included.
Inclusion is what National Access Awareness Week is all
about: from the ramps to Braille, to traffic lights that alert the
blind, to the sign language interpreter who covers question
period on the parliamentary channel. We must as legislators
always be responsible and aware of the needs and concerns of
those who have special requirements, for without those tools we
shut out a significant part of our citizenry.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, Mrs. Reine Johnson passed away yesterday in
Montreal. As the wife of one Quebec premier and the mother of
two others, she was the heart and soul of a family that has made a
major contribution to politics. Widowed in 1968 upon the death,
while in office, of Premier Daniel Johnson Sr., she saw
admirably to the education of her two daughters, Diane and
Marie, and her two sons, Pierre-Marc and Daniel to whom she
passed on the torch of public commitment.
On the death of this great lady whom I had the honour of
meeting, how can we not have a moment's thought for the
spouses of those who enter the political arena. Every day, they
play a vitally important role behind the scenes. They share the
trials and experience the harsh blows of political battles, but
very rarely do they get the credit they deserve.
Speaking personally and on behalf of the members of the Bloc
Quebecois, I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the
current Premier of Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson, to my friend
Pierre-Marc, and to their sisters, Diane and Marie.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, this morning's news carried reports of the Royal
Canadian Legion rejecting the proposal to allow turbans. Of the
several commentaries I have heard, most condemn this action
and once again we hear divisive accusations being hurled by
each side.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration I have spent many days now listening to the
varying opinions of experts and non-experts alike. What is our
mandate as we review the Citizenship Act? Indeed, what is the
mandate of every Canadian citizen as they identify with
Canada?
The strength of our country lies in the agreement of all
citizens to come together. That is, we ask no citizen to forsake
their cultural inheritance but that each accept and give equal
value to the cultural freedom of others.
The legion controversy is two sided. No matter what their
cultural or religious background, all Canadians should be
confident that their values are respected by others.
In this month of the 50th anniversary of the supremely noble
sacrifice by many Canadians, let us recognize the freedom to
identify and maintain our respective traditions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, with great
regret I mention the passing of Reine Gagné-Johnson, who died
yesterday after a long illness. Her contribution to political life is
important, since she was the wife of a Quebec Premier and the
mother of two Quebec Premiers, including the present one, the
Hon. Daniel Johnson. We remember her as a lady of great
dignity.
4694
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to offer
her whole family, her many friends and all the people of Quebec
our sincere condolences.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, the sleazy tactics of the separatist element in the
Quebec media have been exposed.
Mme Ginette Johnson, chair of the French language section of
the Kingston, Frontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman
Catholic Separate School Board, was contacted by media outlets
concerning the French language secondary school in Kingston.
She indicated to the media: ``I told them I felt this was not a
language issue. After that they were not interested in talking to
me''.
There are separatists in the French language media in our
country who have aligned themselves with the Bloc Quebecois
in an effort to poison relations between Canada's two largest
linguistic groups.
[Translation]
Mrs. Johnson also let the office of the Leader of the
Opposition know her position when she was called earlier this
week.
[English]
The situation in Kingston is clearly a controversy over
planning between the city council and the school board. It is not
a dispute about language rights but the right to establish a
French school in our community.
The attempts by some elements of the media to suggest
otherwise are dishonest. The use of this material by the Leader
of the Opposition and his colleagues is deceitful.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
on May 16, 1994 someone said: ``An effective criminal justice
system, one that holds people accountable for harmful conduct,
simply cannot be sustained under conditions where there are
boundless excuses for violent behaviour and no moral authority
for the state to punish. If people know that they are not going to
be held accountable because of myriad excuses, how will our
society be able to influence behaviour and provide incentives to
follow the law? How can we teach future generations right from
wrong if the idea of criminal responsibility is riddled with
exceptions and our governing institutions and courts lack the
moral self-confidence? A society that does not hold someone
accountable for harmful behaviour can be viewed as
condoning-or even worse, endorsing-such conduct''.
(1415)
These words were not spoken by a Reformer but by U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Would the Minister of Justice please take note.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have a riddle for you. What city has the longest annual parade in
North America, if not the world? Mr. Speaker, your share of my
minute is up. The answer is Hamilton in my riding.
Last Saturday it hosted its 56th annual scout and guide parade:
9,500 children and leaders took part, 230 guiding groups, 220
scouting groups, cubs, scouts, brownies, sparks and beavers. It
took two and a half hours to pass the reviewing stand, a colourful
procession of boys and girls as far as the eye could see.
This event, unique to Hamilton, was inspirational. I wish all
my fellow MPs could have been there to witness it with me. It
would serve to remind us all that our duty to Canada is to its
future, to its children.
The Speaker: I might tell the hon. member I knew the answer.
_____________________________________________
4694
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Criticized by the provinces that refuse to be excluded from the
National Forum on Health considering that they are the ones
primarily responsible for health-care organization, the Prime
Minister confirmed yesterday that the National Forum on Health
would be postponed. This postponement, which comes on the
heels of the delay in social program reform, was explained by
the fact the Prime Minister wished to examine the situation of
the provinces.
As chairman of the National Forum on Health, will the Prime
Minister commit to seeking the direct participation of the
provinces, as equal partners of the federal government, as
requested by Quebec and New Brunswick among others?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this is a national forum in which we want stakeholders to
participate in order to determine what exactly the long term
goals are for the people of Canada in the area of health. We are
presently consulting with the provinces, but we do not want this
forum to turn into a federal-provincial squabble. There is a
health ministers' meeting scheduled, to deal with day-to-day
4695
problems. We do want the provinces to participate, but above
all, we want all other stakeholders who want to make their views
known to participate in the forum. This conference must not be
confused with the meeting of federal and provincial health
ministers, who get together on a regular basis.
Five provinces made recommendations in anticipation of
their participation. The Minister of Health said she had
approved some of these proposals. The provinces then
submitted more proposals, which we are currently examining.
But the fact remains that this process cannot replace the health
ministers' meeting.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand that the federal government is
refusing to clearly authorize the formal and direct participation
of the provinces in the forum to avoid having to debate publicly
with them the consequences of its decision to withdraw from
free, accessible and universal health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker, because there is a clear and unequivocal
commitment on the part of this government to free and universal
health care across the country. More and more -and even the
provinces recognize this- Canadians want this health system
which is the envy of the Americans and others to be maintained.
We spend 9 per cent of our gross national product on health
care, as compared to 14 per cent in the United States. We want to
make sure that the objectives of this system, which has been
working well but has developed a number of problems like any
other system after a few years of operation, are maintained in the
interest of all Canadians.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, how can the leader of the government try to make
himself look good by imposing national standards on the
provinces, while his government is reducing its contribution to
health care, which puts the provinces in an impossible situation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we did not reduce our funding at all. No cuts in transfers to the
provinces were made in the Minister of Health's budget.
The position which we put forward during the election
campaign and the Minister of Finance adopted in his budget is
that we are going to maintain transfer payments at the level they
were when we came to power.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
we learned this morning that the Liberal government is thinking
not of eliminating the GST as it promised but of replacing it with
another GST that would be even more complex than the first
one, an odious, hidden tax that goes directly against the
provinces' fiscal autonomy.
My question is for the Minister of Finance: Does he confirm
his government's intention to implement a GST that would be
even worse than the first one and that could apply to currently
tax-free products such as food, health care and medicine, which
amounts to a systematic attack against the sick and the poorest?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is on
the finance committee which is drafting the report. We eagerly
await this report, as I have always said.
I have no intention of commenting or anything until I have
had a chance to read it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I refer to an article in this morning's newspaper and I ask the
Minister of Finance whether he intends to promote a systematic
attack against the provinces' fiscal autonomy, as well as a
hidden tax that would be easier for his government to increase in
a deceitful, odious and hypocritical way at consumers' expense.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of
commenting on newspaper articles, but we will certainly
comment after reading the official report of the finance
committee. If the finance critic is the author or the source of the
article in La Presse, he should be the one commenting.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Earlier this week the Prime Minister acknowledged that
increasing uncertainty caused by the debate over Quebec
sovereignty was hurting the Canadian economy. At the same
time the study released by the C. D. Howe Institute points to
growing uncertainty about the government's ability to hit its
deficit targets, which also hurts the economy.
The C. D. Howe study says the government would have to
make further spending reductions of $7.2 billion just to restore
confidence in its current deficit projections.
4696
Does the minister accept the C. D. Howe study analysis and
is he actively searching for an additional $7.2 billion in
spending cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Develop-ment-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the study referred to by
the leader of the Reform Party was one of four articles in a
document that by and large was very good.
The objectives set out in the article by Mr. Richards are
certainly objectives we share.
Unfortunately when Mr. Richards did his study he did not take
into account the measures that we did in the February 22 budget
and as a result his study is based on a set of numbers which are
no longer valid.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Two big sources of uncertainty are driving interest rates up,
undermining confidence in the dollar and shaking investor
confidence. One is uncertainty about excessive deficits. The
other is uncertainty about Quebec.
(1425 )
The Prime Minister says that little can be done in the short
term to control uncertainty over Quebec, but surely more can be
done to control uncertainty over the deficit. It is the controllable
factor.
Does the finance minister agree that the growing uncertainty
over Quebec now gives him an added reason for coming to his
colleagues and coming to the House and demanding stronger
action on the deficit and the debt? Is he prepared to do so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Develop-
ment-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear, as has
the Prime Minister, that as a government we take our deficit
targets very seriously. We are prepared to take whatever action
is required in order to hit them. That is the commitment of the
Prime Minister; it is the commitment of the government and it is
a commitment on which the House can rely.
What adds to the uncertainty is the fact that over the last 10
years governments have not hit their targets. We think it is very
important that a government hits its targets, and we are going to
hit our target.
I certainly share the view of the leader of the Reform Party
that the country's excessive indebtedness weighs heavily on it
and is a cause of some uncertainty. I also share the view of the
Prime Minister that the irresponsible statements made by
certain members of the Bloc Quebecois and the leader of the
Parti Quebecois are doing a great deal to damage our ability to
create jobs.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
we do not disagree with the fact that one of the government's
problems is created by the uncertainty generated by the
sovereignist option. I suggest that one of the government's
bigger problems-
An hon. member: The separatist option.
Mr. Manning: One of the government's bigger problems, Mr.
Speaker, is that it does not really have a strong mandate from the
public to cut the deficit to the extent that it should be cut. The
government did not seek that mandate in the 1993 election. It
downplayed the seriousness of the deficit and now it is paying
the price.
Do not the growing uncertainty and the need to address it
more seriously give the minister an additional basis now to go
out and rally public support for deficit fighting? In other words,
is there not now an opportunity to go out and get the public
support he did not get during the election to tackle the deficit in
a new way?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Develop-
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we certainly have a mandate to clean
up the nation's finances. The Prime Minister made it very clear
throughout the election campaign that our interim goal was a
deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP within three years and that our
ultimate goal was to eliminate it. That is what we said to the
Canadian people and that is what we are going to do.
At the same time we also made it very clear, unlike the
Reform Party, that we understood the economy is complex and
there are many ways to approach the objectives. Cutting
government expenditures is not the only way. Nor is it a way that
will do it on its own.
What must be done if we are going to eliminate the deficit is to
put Canadians back to work, and that is what we are going to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, regarding
the situation in Kanesatake, the minister of Indian affairs
indicated that he had no intention of paying the three million
dollars asked by chief Jerry Peltier as a precondition to
negotiating. It appears that, instead, the minister is about to
acquire some land from the Oka municipality which he will then
give to allow for the expansion of the cemetery.
Will the minister confirm that the government is about to
acquire that land from the Oka municipality, and can he tell us
how much it will cost?
4697
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, my director general has been
negotiating directly with the village. It is in the range of around
$200,000.
I am glad the member asked me this question because I think
this is part and parcel of the negotiations.
(1430 )
As of now, the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake has issued a
press release saying the Mohawk cemetery expansion is
suspended at Ottawa's request. I am very pleased that the
Mohawks have suspended their clearing operation at the
cemetery as an indication of their good will of negotiating.
Again, as I have said, we do not create a crisis. Our party is
committed to recognizing a problem, going in, dividing it up
into its components and solving those components. This is good
news for me.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is also for the minister of Indian affairs.
Could the minister tell us if he intends to give a favourable
reply to the urgent request made by the Quebec government to
participate in the negotiations, or will he conduct these
negotiations alone and ignore the provincial government's
wish?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the Quebec
government be at the negotiating table with the Mohawks and
the Government of Canada and with the very fine mediator and
negotiator, both of whom are already working there.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday we received conflicting economic signals: interest
rates are up; GDP growth is up. Does the minister agree that
higher interest rates due to Quebec uncertainty threaten to choke
any economic recovery? How does the minister intend to
respond to this circumstance?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Develop-
ment-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the very strong numbers that the
member mentions for the month of March occurred during a
period of rising interest rates. At the same time, as the member
knows, the recovery began when interest rates were in fact
higher than they are at this stage.
I think it is very clear that the recovery in Canada is
sufficiently well anchored that in most areas of the economy,
certainly those that are creating jobs like goods production, the
high interest rates have not yet begun to stifle the recovery.
In terms of the uncertainty that has been created by statements
made by certain people who are pursuing an unpalatable
political option, there is no doubt in my mind that those
statements are destroying jobs.
I think that one should appeal to all political leaders to desist
from the kinds of things that are taking food out of the mouths of
Canadians.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
appreciate the minister's answer. It is very true there are
statements that are affecting our economy and potential growth.
This was supported by senior economists from Wood Gundy and
Patty Croft as of yesterday's statement which was very clearly
stated.
Higher interest rates are seen to be there because of the
separatist discussion that is going on. It is threatening the
government's 3 per cent deficit reduction targets. I believe that
is happening.
Are the minister and the government prepared to bring about
additional expenditure reductions for adjustments to the budget
to meet their target and to assure us that they will?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Develop-ment-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the
House, we are going to take whatever actions are required to hit
those targets.
The credibility of the government's economic projections are
very important if we are going to re-establish any kind of
equilibrium in public markets. We are going to hit our targets
and we will take the steps required to get there.
The Speaker: I remind my colleagues to always remember
me in their statements and answers.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, teachers at the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean
who may be transferred to Kingston are very concerned about
the quality of French language education their children will
receive in Kingston. Today,
Le Devoir reported what was said by
their spokesman, and I quote: ``It is like a third world
country-the school's is housed in shacks without toilets or
running water, and this has been going on for six years''.
4698
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How can the minister responsible for implementation of the
Official Languages Act continue to tolerate the obstruction by
Kingston's municipal council concerning the plans for building
a real school for francophones in Kingston, when the minister
has already approved the expenditure of over half a million
dollars for the construction of a cultural centre attached to the
school, right on the controversial Olan Mills site?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, this decision reflects the Canadian government's
determination to support Kingston's francophones. There will
be a school.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister
of National Defence. Does the minister still claim that Kingston
is a showcase for bilingualism in Canada, and will he confirm
that, so far, none of the teachers at the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean have agreed to sign a contract for their transfer to
Kingston?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know where the hon. member is getting her information. We
have been having some very fruitful discussions with the
commanding officer at CMR who, as I have announced, will be
going to Kingston, Brigadier General Emond, Mr. Carriere, who
has been the principal at Collège militaire royal, and the
members of the faculty about their transfer to Kingston.
I do not get the same sense of disquiet from those officials of
our department at the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean or
the professors that the hon. member has.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, Thursday the health
minister was asked to give a more formal role to the provinces in
the national health care forum. The answer was not likely.
Tuesday the Prime Minister said that he was much more
flexible.
My question is for the health minister. Can we have today's
version?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the member to get Hansard and read the Prime
Minister's answer. It is the same as mine.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the provinces are
the major players in health care. They deserve formal status.
Will the minister give up her co-chair to allow the major
stakeholders official status?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me remind the hon. member, as the Prime Minister stated earlier
today, that the forum is not meant to take the place of the
federal-provincial conference of ministers of health. The forum
is meant to be a dialogue between different people in Canada,
individuals, and it is meant to advise the Government of Canada.
I repeat that we must not let intergovernmental squabbles
deter us from the real work of the forum which is to enhance and
protect the health of all Canadians in the 21st century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, Amnesty International yesterday condemned the
Canadian government's attitude to human rights violations in
China. Amnesty says: ``Canada's public silence is interpreted by
Chinese government officials as recognition that they were
justified in crushing the democratic opposition in 1989''.
Arbitrary detentions and trials are thought to be the norm and
cases of mistreatment and torture are regularly reported. In 1993
alone more than 1,400 prisoners were summarily executed.
(1440)
I ask the Prime Minister if we are to understand that, for the
sake of commercial interests, Canada has chosen to close its
eyes on the thousands of Chinese still languishing in jail, a few
days from the sad fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this government's policy has always been clear: we deplore
regimes that do not respect people's freedom.
We have told the Chinese government this at every
opportunity. However, there is no international boycott of
China. All countries in the world do business with China. We
believe that the best way to open that society is to open it to the
world. After trading extensively with Western countries, the
Chinese themselves will recognize that Western values for the
protection of human rights are the best. That is the best way to
proceed, because if China is completely isolated and cut off,
there will be more and more abuse.
We believe that the method used by this government of
condemning those people for what they do but continuing to do
business with them, as all countries in the world do, and to offer
them North American, Canadian or European technology is the
best way to bring them to accept western values. Completely
isolating them is not the way to do it.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime
Minister. If, as the Prime Minister says, the government has not
given up on human rights will the Prime Minister solemnly
undertake to
4699
publicly raise the issue of human rights violations when he goes
to China in the fall?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
whenever I met representatives of the Chinese government, I
always raised the problem. I did so in Seattle and I talked about
it to the press then and I will do the same thing.
However, it is quite clear that the best solution for the western
world is to open China to western values and in that way the
Chinese will have no choice; as happened in the Soviet Union,
when people became aware of what was happening in the west,
the Berlin wall fell. The same thing will happen in China.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.
As preparations for D-Day memorial services are under way
many Canadians are taking the time to honour the over 5,000
Canadians who died at Normandy. This weekend different
constituents of mine advised me that France, the United
Kingdom and the United States have each minted several
commemorative coins to honour those who fell in the battle and
that these coins are available in Canada.
I would like to ask the secretary of state whether or not
Canada has minted any coins and, if so, where Canadians may
buy those coins.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the hon. member because it is of interest to a number of
Canadians.
I am very pleased to report that the Royal Canadian Mint has
three issues of commemorative coins available to Canadians
that commemorate the D-Day operations. The first is a one
dollar proof coin that has the War Memorial on the back. There
is a six-medallion bronze set depicting various war scenes and a
14-carat gold quarter ounce coin entitled ``The Home Front''.
All these are available at the Royal Canadian Mint and at
various coin collectors.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last Friday the Minister of Indian Affairs answering on
behalf of the health minister said that the national workshop on
infectious disease notification had been postponed because
there was no agreement on an agenda. There is much speculation
that the workshop was postponed as a result of pressure from
special interest groups.
I want to know two things. First, why was this workshop
postponed? Second, when will it be rescheduled?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me repeat what was said last Friday.
The conference was postponed because there was no
agreement on the agenda. We are continuing to work with the
stakeholder groups to ensure that there is a conference and that it
is held in a timely fashion, hopefully in the fall of this year.
(1445)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, every day in the country emergency response
personnel, paramedics, firefighters, nurses, and physicians run
the risk of contracting contagious and infectious diseases.
The United States has already proceeded with a national
protocol on the matter and the previous Parliament's standing
committee on health made numerous recommendations on just
such a policy.
Given these precedents, will the minister present a strategy to
protect the health of emergency response personnel, and what
will this strategy be?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is
our intention always to work with the groups affected and
concerned about these very serious issues. That is the reason we
have asked that this conference go ahead so that we can hear its
recommendations on how best to handle these very serious
questions.
Meanwhile work does go on. There are guidelines. There are
policies on how to act in these particular circumstances.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Recently, we learned that the Montreal refugee assistance
committee had lodged an international complaint against
Canada concerning the improper deportation to Zaire of a young
pregnant woman who was given a sedative without her consent
and this, in violation of sections 219 and 265 of the Criminal
Code of Canada as well as Section 11 of the Quebec Civil Code.
4700
The minister had ample time since the question was put to
him to make the necessary inquiries. My question is as follows:
Does he still maintain that medication was given to only 12
people before they were deported, while his own senior officials
admit to 20 such incidents?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It is very crucial to keep in mind that no immigration
officials administer or are permitted to administer medical
assistance or prescribe any medicine for those who are being
removed or deported.
The only individuals who are permitted to do that, to
recommend it, and to implement it are medical practitioners.
In the particular case of the woman the member raises, it was a
medical practitioner and for medical reasons that administered
medical attention, not immigration officials.
Second, at the time that this issue came to the fore
approximately 9,000 individuals were removed from Canada
last year.
I asked my officials to give me an approximate number very
quickly so that I could respond to the member and the officials
told me that 12 of the 9,000 individuals who were removed
necessitated some medical attention on the advice and
recommendation of medical practitioners and not immigration
officials.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, our
information differs. Considering how serious this issue is and
since the minister has admitted that 12 people received such
treatment, will the minister commit to holding an independent
inquiry, as required under international agreements, to shed
light on possibly illegal behaviour on the part of immigration
officers?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, no, I am not going to have an
inquiry for something that this member throws very loosely
across the floor. If he has information that anyone has
perpetrated illegal acts then he has the duty and the obligation as
a member of Parliament to provide me with that information.
Second, under no circumstances does any medical application
get administered to any individual routinely for removals. When
I put in perspective the 9,000 who were removed, approximately
12 last year received some medical application. It was on the
recommendation of doctors for individuals who for the most
part were on medicine or had an ailment or a disease of some sort
in order to take precautions during the flight.
(1450)
In addition, the member also failed to say that a Canadian
nurse accompanied the woman from Zaire in order to make sure
her ailment would not aggravate the situation.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
Yesterday a colleague of mine asked about prisoners in
federal institutions receiving various forms of social assistance
and he was told that the solicitor general was looking into it.
We have looked into it and discovered that not only are the
prisoners receiving OAS and CPP payments but they are
receiving GST rebates even though they do not meet the
qualifications of the Income Tax Act.
Will the Solicitor General act immediately to rectify this
outrageous situation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member will give me the names of the people he says
are receiving GST rebates I will take it up immediately with the
Minister of National Revenue.
As I said yesterday with respect to the matter of elderly
inmates receiving CPP and old age pensions, I am looking into
that as part of my review of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act to see how this can be dealt with in an appropriate
way.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear some of that.
I would like to suggest that if it is up the opposition to supply
all this valuable information to those who are supposed to be
doing the job, let me know. I am up for hire. I will supply those
names. I do have them and we will supply them.
I would like to ask the solicitor general to be just a little more
specific and tell Canadians exactly when hard pressed Canadian
taxpayers will be able to expect some relief and when prisoners
will stop receiving GST payments.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have to check into the facts of the situation with the Minister of
National Revenue and I will do that very promptly. I appreciate
the hon. member's offer to help but I do not want to put him in a
conflict of interest situation.
4701
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
In the 1970s many homeowners insulated their homes with
urea formaldehyde foam or UFFI. In the 1980s it was alleged
that UFFI caused health problems. After a lengthy court battle
no health problems were proven. Although CMHC and other
lenders now make no distinction between homes with or without
UFFI fear still lingers.
Would the minister consider a public information program to
correct the misconception about UFFI?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Unfortunately I cannot give a specific answer
as the matter is presently before the courts.
As he alluded to in his question, the matter did receive some
adjudication in the early 1980s. However, there has been an
appeal launched and is due to be heard before the courts in
September 1995. Pending the outcome of that particular
decision I would be prepared to review with the hon. member as
well as other members of the House the information in that
particular decision to Canadians across the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. In 1988, Canada made a
commitment to participate with other partners in the
international space station program, which is to put up a huge
experimental laboratory in orbit around the Earth. This station
will have a significant impact on scientific progress in many
areas. However, the Martin budget announced a substantial
reduction in Canada's participation in this project.
Can the minister give an update on the status of negotiations
with NASA, so we can see how Canada could maintain its
partnership while reducing its financial contribution over the
next 10 years?
(1455)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to see that the hon. member is interested in the
Canadian Space Agency because it is a very important part of
our general science program. We have completed our
negotiations with the United States on the space station and later
this week I will announce the details not only of the space station
but also of the long-term space plan.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, could
the minister still tell us whether the reduction in Canada's
contribution to this project will have consequences on Canada's
ability to conduct experiments in space and what impact this
decision will have on scientific progress in Canada in areas such
as pharmaceuticals and materials engineering?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
will be able to provide the member with details respecting some
of those concerns later this week.
I assure him that in our preparation of the long term space plan
and our negotiations with the United States over Canada's role
in the space station we have endeavoured to a very great extent
to protect the key interests of Canadian companies in their
participation in the space program.
We expect to see the ability of Canada to continue to
participate in the space program enhanced by a more general
program which emphasizes our important interests in satellite
communications, earth observation and remote sensing.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister responsible for Infrastructure.
Yesterday the minister stated that he would reallocate some of
the infrastructure funding to cover the federal share of highway
416. Leeds-Grenville where the construction is to be done is
only allocated $4 million under the program.
Will the minister tell the House what areas of the province
will find cuts so that he can find the extra $56 million?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there are some 722 million federal dollars in the province of
Ontario for infrastructure which, when we add the provincial
and local government shares, means a program of over $2 billion
in that province.
There are allocations that are tentatively in the province for
different municipalities. There are going to be, however,
moneys that will not be taken up in the allocation, and certainly
the municipalities are welcome to do that. There will be moneys
available for reallocation.
We are committed, if the province brings forward an
application for this project, to providing the funds so that we can
do this much needed project of highway 416.
4702
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, apparently
the municipalities are not lining up for this funding under the
infrastructure program. There must be something wrong with
the program.
Will the government now reverse its decision to add $2 billion
to the national debt for a program that is not working?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for that supplementary question because
it gives me an opportunity to say that there is in fact very good
takeup of the funds. We have now reached the billion dollar
mark of the $6 billion program.
We well knew when we entered into this program and with the
province of Ontario established September 30 as the deadline
for the initial round of applications that not all would be taken
up in the initial round. It is a two-year program and we fully
expect there will be further allocations. We are committed to
providing the funds for 416. The member for Leeds-Grenville
in the House has had a lot to do ensuring that much needed
project gets going.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport and has to do with the
request that the Minister of Transport has received from the
United Transportation Union concerning the alarming number
of derailments that have taken place lately. The minister will
have received a letter from the UTU on that matter.
(1500 )
In light of its concern and the concern expressed by a railway
carman about changing practices with respect to maintenance
and inspection of rolling stock, I wonder if he could tell us what
his response will be to this request.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member brings a question of great interest to people
who work on the railways, people who travel on the railways,
people who ship goods on the railways. We have been through an
extremely difficult winter.
The incidents that have occurred have been investigated, as
the member would know, under the legislative and statutory
requirements. We expect to respond to it. Both railways have
indicated their very deep concerns about the number of incidents
that did occur.
I will make sure, in response to the member's request as well
as representations made by the unions and others, that we look
very carefully at the matter because it is of very serious
importance to anyone who understands what has taken place
through this very rigorous winter.
The Speaker: It seems we are going to have a rather full
afternoon. I have two questions of privilege which I will hear
now.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege.
It is obvious that a first draft of a report to the finance
committee was leaked to the media. This leaking of a report
which had not been considered as of that moment by the
committee is a contempt toward the members of that committee
who have worked so hard for four months, holding over 60
sessions, hearing witnesses and deliberating.
This is a contempt to Parliament because if documents of this
nature cannot be respected, our Parliament cannot function in a
fair and equitable way for all members. I would ask that
whatever possible be done to get rid of this deliberate leaking of
documents in contempt of committees and in contempt of
Parliament.
The Speaker: Before going any further into the question of
privilege that the hon. member raises, perhaps it would be more
in keeping with the practice that we have had so far if the finance
committee were to look into the matter and report to the House
itself.
This ruling was made earlier by Speaker Jerome, and if the
hon. member would take that under advisement the Chair will
continue discussions with the hon. member.
I have a second question of privilege.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
during Question Period, the Minister of Finance, who is
normally a gentleman concerned about fair play, hinted,
probably unintentionally, that I was the person who leaked the
report on the GST. This accusation is without foundation and I
would ask that it be withdrawn.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
the hon. member, who is the finance critic for the Bloc
Quebecois, is an honourable person and I respect him. When he
says that he did not leak this report, I believe him and, therefore,
I withdraw my remarks.
4703
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order of which I have given notice to you and to the
parties in the House.
It has to do with the fact that we in the New Democratic Party
have not been recognized as a party in the House since the
beginning of this Parliament. In doing so I am fully aware that
certain decisions relating to our current lack of party status were
taken before you were elected as Speaker.
(1505 )
I am therefore making these arguments with no intention
whatsoever of pointing a finger at the Chair or at anyone else for
that matter. The fact that we have been seated in the House as if
we were independent members is a good example of what I
mean. The seating plan took shape before you were elected as
our Speaker, but it is only the most concrete symbol of the whole
situation that I want to call into question today.
I have not raised this earlier because I thought it was
appropriate for the House to become acquainted with itself after
the unprecedented upheaval of the last election. This place
operates not only on the basis of written rules but also on the
authority of a large body of conventions which come from
parliamentary practice. I thought it best to wait until the many
new members had an opportunity to become familiar with the
importance of conventions in the makeup of our day to day
parliamentary constitution.
However, with respect to the issue I wish to raise today, the
real conventions of this place and the conventional wisdom are
not always the same. The recent conventional wisdom has been
that the 12-member threshold for party status is a hard and fast
rule understood in an unambiguous way by all concerned.
My point today is that the question of party status has in fact
been governed by unwritten convention and practice and that the
only thing that is hard and fast is the question of which parties
qualify for certain moneys. I begin by making it absolutely clear
that what I am seeking is not a change in those sections of the
Parliament of Canada Act which pertain to money, but a
recognition that that statute applies only to money and that all
else is a matter of convention, practice and the discretion of the
Speaker as the Chair seeks to fulfil its historic role as the
protector of the House itself and the minorities therein.
There are no unambiguous definitions of parties in
legislation, in the standing orders or in the procedural
authorities, and yet parties are essential to the efficient
operation of the House. Their officers, leaders, House leaders
and whips try to facilitate what all of us do here as we discharge
our public responsibilities.
Parties present themselves to the House as parties and are not
created or disposed of by the House itself. Our membership in
our respective parties is a matter between ourselves, our fellow
caucus colleagues, our extraparliamentary organizations and
ultimately our electors. We can leave our parties or be asked to
leave our parties. We can create new parties, merge two parties
into one, as did the Progressives and the Conservatives, or
change the name of our parties as we in the New Democratic
Party did.
The tradition of this place has been for the Speaker to accept
the party affiliation that the parties and the members report to
him or her. Yet since the beginning of this Parliament the Chair
has not accepted the party affiliation that we in the New
Democratic Party clearly possess.
The only possible precedent for this is the way in which the
Bloc Quebecois was treated in the last Parliament. All other
precedents, including the way the one Reform member was
treated prior to the formation of the Bloc, points to the injustice
and inappropriateness of the way the NDP is now being treated.
I would ask members to listen to my argument before they
judge it. The authority for not treating us as a party has
apparently been the Parliament of Canada Act which since 1963
has set out a threshold of 12 members for parties whose officers
are granted special allowances and subsequently for parties
whose members may sit on the Board of Internal Economy.
My point today is first to show that the wording of the
Parliament of Canada Act does not empower or require the Chair
to withhold recognition from parties with fewer than 12
members in spite of the conventional wisdom. Second, I am
asking the Chair to follow the established practice of
recognizing such parties in the House.
Let us then look at the wording in the Parliament of Canada
Act. The words in section 62 read that the officers of ``a party
that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the
House'' shall receive a variety of allowances. It does not say that
a party must have 12 members to be a recognized party and
clearly assumes that parties with fewer than 12 members are
indeed parties.
In section 50 caucuses that do ``not have a recognized
membership of 12'' are not entitled to have representatives on
the Board of Internal Economy but are clearly to be construed as
still being caucuses.
These clauses are worded in such a way that the question of
other forms of recognition is at worst left open. At best the
wording of the statute seems to imply that party as a concept is
something independent of numbers and that 12 is the number of
seats an already recognized party must have in order to qualify
for money but not for recognition as such. Recognition of parties
with fewer than 12 members is already implicit in the wording of
the statute itself. If the Parliament of Canada Act says anything
about official party status then it confirms rather than denies
4704
that party status itself is distinct from the financial provisions of
the act.
(1510)
There being no clear and precise legal definition of party
status, we may ask how the financial provisions of the
Parliament of Canada Act came to be confused with the
acceptance of party status in the House.
Shortly after the passage of the 12-member threshold
amendments in 1963, the Ralliement Créditiste divided
themselves from the Social Credit Party which was left with
only 11 members. In the ensuing debates about the new seating
arrangements, the new 12-member threshold was loosely
applied to questions of parliamentary practice as the House
sought to deal with the fact that two parties had been created out
of one, a situation quite unlike the one in which the NDP now
finds itself.
Indeed, in the last Parliament the 12-member threshold was
also used to deal with the formation of the Bloc out of defectors
from the Liberal and Conservative parties, another situation
totally different from that of the NDP in this Parliament.
John C. Courtney, a political scientist who published a paper
on party recognition in March 1978 in a volume of the Canadian
Journal of Political Science, explained the development of the
misreading of the 12-member threshold very effectively:
Technically the 12-member threshold in the 1963 act and parliamentary
procedure had nothing to do with one another, yet the timing of the events was
virtually certain to produce a combination that would lead to the injection of the
phrase ``recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of
Commons'' into future debates over regulations and statutes dealing with
political parties. The term, indeed more specifically the number, would
gradually assume an authenticity of its own.
The view that the 12-member threshold constitutes a hard and
fast rule in law about party status in this House is in fact an
illusion. However, in an illustration of the old maximum that
hard cases make bad law, misapplications designed to deal with
divided and/or new parties are now side swiping the NDP in the
absence of an appropriate will to discern the difference between
some previous situations and the situation we find ourselves in
at the moment.
A more reliable legislative authority for determining party
status can be found in the Canada Elections Act. In sections 24
through 42 of that act, it is clear that parties lose party status not
when they fall below the 12-member threshold but only when
they fail to file certain documents or when they fail to officially
nominate candidates in at least 50 constituencies 30 days before
polling day.
Even though there is no question that the New Democratic
Party is now a registered party under that act, in the House we
are treated as if we were independents, no differently than some
other members who do not belong to a party registered under the
Canada Elections Act.
To this point, informal arguments against the way we are
being treated are often met with the argument that real
independents could make a similar claim, that it is a primarily a
question of degree and that a line has to be drawn somewhere. If
the Canada Elections Act were taken into account this argument
would hold even less water than it does now if that were
possible.
There is therefore no legal authority, either in the Parliament
of Canada Act-
The Speaker: I have given the hon. member a great deal of
latitude in putting forth his point of order and, if I might
comment, it is very well researched. I was wondering perhaps if
the hon. member could now move to summarize on this
particular point of order.
Mr. Blaikie Mr. Speaker, I would hope you and the House
would realize that this argument takes some time to make. I will
move as quickly as I can to the conclusion of my argument.
However it is not something that we do every day here and I
would like my argument to be heard, if that is possible. I will try
to move as quickly as I can.
There is no legal authority, either in the Parliament of Canada
Act or in the Canada Elections Act, for withholding recognition
from us.
Past Speakers have not, moreover, applied the 12-member
threshold to questions of party recognition. I would now like to
direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a number of the relevant
precedents which is perfectly in order with what a good point of
order should be like, arguing from precedent.
The first and most relevant precedent is the party status
accorded to the CCF after the 1958 election. Electing eight
members to the House the CCF was then in a very similar
position to that of the NDP in this Parliament.
(1515)
In 1958 the CCF continued to enjoy its full rights as an
opposition party. CCF members were seated as a party in the
House and were treated as a party in debate and during Question
Period. The party leader was treated as a party leader in debate
on the speech from the throne, being recognized immediately
after Mr. Pearson and Mr. Diefenbaker. CCF members also sat as
full members on committees.
After the 1963 introduction of the 12-member threshold,
Speakers regularly interpreted the act as one that granted certain
financial benefits to parties with more than 12 members.
However that did not take away any other rights of parties that
had fewer than 12 members.
4705
On February 18, 1966 for instance, Speaker Lamoureux
allowed representatives of the Social Credit Party and the
Ralliement Créditiste to respond to ministerial statements
under what is now Standing Order 33(1), even though they had
only five and nine members respectively. He argued that he did
not see how the standing order concerning the right of
opposition parties to respond to ministers' statements could be
``interpreted in light of the amendment to the Parliament of
Canada Act'', Hansard, February 18, 1966, page 1435.
The force of the tradition of protecting the rights and status of
small parties can be seen again in the treatment of the Social
Credit Party after the 1974 election. With only 11 members the
Social Credit Party once again fell below the legal threshold of
12 members required in order to receive financial benefits. The
Board of Internal Economy nonetheless granted the Social
Credit Party $50,000 for research purposes at its meeting of
October 22, 1974, a meeting attended by the present Prime
Minister and by Mr. Mitchell Sharp.
I am raising this point not to ask for similar financial benefits,
but to illustrate how previous Parliaments have protected the
rights of small parties so assiduously that they sometimes have
ignored the 12-member threshold on financial matters.
In 1979 in a Parliament in which I myself participated the
Social Credit Party sent only five members to the House. A
striking committee did not include a member from the Social
Credit Party although they did sit in the front row of the House,
right down in that corner.
There was a motion by the Social Credit member that his party
should have a representative on the striking committee. In the
ensuing debate on October 9, 1979, it was made clear by the
Conservative government and Liberal opposition that what was
at stake was not only the particular issue of the membership of
the striking committee but also the party status of the Social
Credit caucus.
When the Social Credit motion failed, Speaker Jerome at first
decided that the motion obliged him not to grant the Social
Credit members party status. On October 10 he did not
recognize their leader in the debate on the speech from the
throne. His ruling can be found on page 69 of Hansard for
October 11, 1979.
The next month Mr. Speaker, your predecessor, Speaker
Jerome, revised his position and took into account the important
responsibility of the Chair to protect minorities in the House. In
debate on an opposition no confidence motion on November 6,
1979, Speaker Jerome recognized the leader of the Social Credit
in debate immediately after the other opposition party leaders.
He gave an eloquent justification for his decision from which I
would like to quote. It is an important piece of evidence because
it qualifies the original ruling of October 11 published in the
edition of Speaker Jerome's rulings.
I quote: ``We ought to be clear at the outset that it is not a
transgression of propriety to mention the name of the political
party of the members who are involved; it is the Social Credit
Party of Canada. Its members are members of this House of
Commons and their leader is the hon. member for Beauce. Those
are the realities. The vote''-on the striking committee
motion-``under no circumstances, may I say, can be taken to
pass out of existence a political party, nor can it be taken to
render as independent members the group which has been
recognized as a party and which has in fact been seated together
as a political party. The Social Credit Party exists as a political
party and the five members exist as members of that party under
their leader''.
He went on to say that even though the House had expressed
itself on the question of the membership of the striking
committee, he had certain responsibilities as Speaker.
Again, I quote Speaker Jerome: ``It seems to me that the
responsibility of the Chair and the responsibility of the House of
Commons is to protect whatever rights minorities do enjoy and
therefore it seems to me that I must conclude what it is that the
members of the Social Credit Party are entitled to-.I think that
what those members are entitled to respects the fact that they are
members of a political party so long as it does not give them an
advantage that they would not otherwise enjoy as five members
and secondly so long as it does not deprive other members of
their right to participate in some way''. Hansard, November 6,
1979, pages 1008-9.
(1520 )
This is the approach to the question of party status I am asking
you to take toward myself and my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party in the House. We are asking you to recognize
us as a party in the House just as previous Speakers have
recognized small parties in the past.
One result of previous Speakers' recognition of small parties
can be seen in the seating plans of past Parliaments. I would like
to table some of these past seating plans for your consideration.
I submit these for your consideration because they show that
parties with fewer than 12 members have indeed been
designated as parties and seated as parties with representation
on the front benches.
I draw your attention in particular to the seating plan dated
April 1989 where even only one member, the member for Beaver
River, was designated as a member of the Reform Party. As I
mentioned earlier however, this designation of the member for
Beaver River disappeared with the advent of the Bloc and the
decision not to treat it as a party. Currently the nine NDP
4706
members in the House are afforded no such appropriate
nomenclature in the seating plan of this Parliament.
The Speaker: The hon. member will recognize that he has
had every latitude. I have had indications that other members
will want to participate in this point of order. I would ask the
hon. member to wrap up now.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up. However, if I might
be so bold as to say on my point of order, if I am being irrelevant
or I am not speaking to the point, but I believe that I am-
The Speaker: Order. The Chair in no way indicates that the
point of order is irrelevant. The Chair has heard a great many of
the very relevant arguments the hon. member has put forward.
The Chair at this point would ask again respectfully, that the
hon. member come to a conclusion. Then we can have other
views on this point of order.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed come to a conclusion.
The weight of almost all the evidence in both law and
convention therefore comes down in support of our claim to be
recognized in this House as the party that we clearly are. The
only precedent that breaks the pattern is the treatment of the
Bloc in the last Parliament.
At this point I do not wish to open the question of whether a
party that forms between elections as a result of defections from
existing parties should enjoy the same status as a party of
members who sought election under their party banner. I do not
want to enter into that debate.
What I do want to argue is that your ruling on party status
should be based on a clear reading of the law and on the
overwhelming number of precedents in support of our claim to
party status, not on a single problematic precedent that itself
broke with all precedent.
I will say what we are asking for so that you are absolutely
clear of what I am on my feet about.
We ask first that the seating arrangements be adjusted to seat
us as a party with proper precedence given to our leader as a
leader and as a Privy Councillor, and that the published seating
plan identify us as New Democrats, as is already the case in
Hansard.
We ask that we be treated as an opposition party during
question period where at present we are recognized only very
rarely, systematically denied supplementaries and always
relegated to the last question.
I would point out that in the last Parliament the leader of the
Bloc was regularly recognized at about two-thirds of the way
through question period. I direct your attention to Hansard of
1993 for February 11 and 25, March 9 and 24 and May 4.
Therefore, it is clear that the leader of the New Democratic Party
has been treated in an unprecedented manner and that due
consideration should be given to changing the way our leader
has been treated since the opening of this Parliament.
My final point, for guidance on this matter let us return to Mr.
Jerome's ruling of November 6, 1979. He said regarding the
rights of small parties: ``Participation in question period is their
right, the same as any group of five members. It is not difficult
to calculate mathematically what five members are entitled to as
a proportion of the membership of the other parties''. Hansard,
page 1009.
If we apply Mr. Jerome's arithmetic to the situation in this
Parliament, NDP members comprise 8 per cent of the opposition
members and are therefore entitled to roughly 8 per cent of the
opposition questions. By my calculations in a typical week there
are some 125 questions and supplementaries posed by
opposition members of which we should be entitled to 10. In
practice you typically recognize us for only two questions per
week. Occasionally you have not recognized us at all, as in the
week beginning April 11 and only once have you recognized us
for as many as four questions.
We therefore ask that we get the number of questions due to a
party of nine members, that our leader be recognized after the
leader of the Reform Party, that we be allowed supplementaries,
and that we not always be relegated to the last question.
(1525 )
Finally, we ask that in general we be treated as a party under
the Standing Orders and that you work with our caucus officers
in the customary ways to facilitate the operations of the House.
My party colleagues and I are asking only that we not be
discriminated against simply because we did not meet an
arbitrary threshold of dubious relevance that has not even
customarily been applied by previous Speakers to procedures in
the House, against which there is ample parliamentary
precedent for alternative approaches.
We have every confidence that you will see the merit in our
case and we look forward to the results of your review of this
question. We are not asking you to rule on this in a hurry, Mr.
Speaker. However we certainly hope that by the time Parliament
resumes its business in the fall after the summer recess that
some changes will have been made along the lines which I have
suggested in this point of order.
The Speaker: The point of order is indeed a very important
one. That is one of the reasons the Chair gave every latitude to
hear all of the arguments.
Are there other interventions? The hon. parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
was impressed with the very able argument of the hon. member
for Winnipeg Transcona on this important point.
4707
I was also amazed because my recollection is that during the
last election campaign, one of the pitches the New Democratic
Party put to the Canadian public was that they should vote NDP
in order that they could have 12 seats in Parliament and
therefore be recognized as a party, because if they did not get
those votes and did not get those seats then somehow Canada
was going to suffer terribly.
Mr. Blaikie: It is.
Mr. Milliken: It is not. The hon. member says it is but of
course it is not. It is doing better than it was. I think that is in
large measure because there are fewer New Democrats in the
House, but I do not want to get into that. It is irrelevant to the
issue.
The fact is there are fewer members of the New Democratic
Party here today. The hon. member has raised a point about the
representation of the party in the House. Some of those points,
Mr. Speaker, are ones you will want to consider when you review
the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona.
Many of the rulings he has mentioned are accurate citations.
However, I think he has ignored, perhaps deliberately, some of
the rulings of Mr. Speaker Fraser on this issue in the last eight or
nine years. They have significantly altered the thinking in
respect of the application of the Parliament of Canada Act to the
Standing Orders of the House.
I refer Your Honour to the decisions of the Speakers under
Standing Order 33, which as Your Honour recalls allows for
ministers to make statements in the House on Statements by
Ministers and for the opposition parties to respond to them. The
question of who constitutes an opposition party for the purposes
of Standing Order 33 has led to the use of the Parliament of
Canada Act as the criteria for making that decision.
I note that when this very argument took place in the last
Parliament the New Democratic Party fully supported the
position taken at that time by the government, by the opposition
and by the New Democratic Party as the third party. The position
was that one required 12 seats in the House in order to have the
right to make a reply to a statement under Statements by
Ministers. That effectively excluded the Bloc Quebecois at that
time from participating under Standing Order 33.
I would feel much more sympathetic toward the position of
the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona had he and his
colleagues taken a different position in the last Parliament, but
of course they did not. They may have been wrong at the time;
we all might have been wrong. I invite Your Honour in
considering the matter to review the authorities at that time.
I also think it fair to bear in mind in looking at this that the
hon. member says he is not asking for money. He is not asking
that the Parliament of Canada Act's financial provisions be
applied to his party. I agree with him.
I recall when his colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops,
shortly after the election said he was going to put a pitch for
money in the House there was a howl of outrage from the
Canadian populace. The hon. member for Sherbrooke made the
same kind of suggestion, that he should have money for his party
and the outrage in the Canadian public was palpable. I received
many letters on the subject expressing extreme disagreement
with the thought of giving money to these other parties when
they had been properly thrashed by the electorate for the poor
service they had rendered Canadians in the previous Parliament.
(1530)
I sympathize with Canadians in their judgment. I agreed with
Canadians in their judgment and I, for one, was not prepared to
give that additional money. Therefore I am pleased that he has
not done that today.
On the other hand, he has raised some points that the Chair
ought to consider. They are ones, considering the equities of the
situation, that ought to be reviewed very carefully. I invite the
Chair to take into consideration everything that the hon. member
for Winnipeg Transcona said and render a decision to the House
that will be fair and equitable as between all the members, based
on his submission.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, a request similar to this one was made at the beginning
of the session by the member for Sherbrooke, on behalf of
himself and his colleague, therefore on behalf of the entire
caucus of the former Conservative Party. At the time, the
Speaker refused to recognize the Conservative Party.
Therefore, this subject has been debated. At the time, I
pointed out that the arguments raised by the Conservatives, and
again today by the NDP, were raised three years ago by the Bloc
Quebecois. The Speaker of the day had ruled that these
arguments were not valid enough to formally recognize the
Bloc. We have since come to agree with the Speaker's ruling. I
have considered all the arguments put forward by my colleague
and I believe that the rule of 12 continues to apply, except under
certain circumstances.
Most of these circumstances arise when there is a minority
government in the House. Such was the case in 1979, 1963 and
1957 when the parties agreed to recognize a party without 12
members. For reasons that are fairly obvious, the Clark
government may have needed the support of the Ralliement
créditiste. Moreover, we saw what happened when they later
withdrew their support. Therefore, in some specific instances,
primarily when there is a minority government, official status
will be granted to a party that does not have the required number
of sitting members.
4708
It has also been argued that the same rules should not apply
to parties who did not field candidates during the election, as
was the case with the Bloc at the time. One of the examples
given by my colleague was the Ralliement des créditistes, a
party formed in 1963. Need members be reminded that this
party did not exist at the time of the election? Then, the party
was known as the Social Credit Party and it was headed by Mr.
Thompson. A split developed within the ranks and Mr. Caouette
founded the Ralliement des créditistes, a party which had not
formally existed at the time of the election, a situation similar
to that of the Bloc. Yet, the government of the day recognized
the Ralliement des créditistes precisely because it was a
minority government. The situation was quite different when
the Bloc came into being. However, the Ralliement was no more
a party at the time of the election than the Bloc was.
Therefore, the precedent exists for granting official status to a
new party, although it was not considered when the Bloc
requested such status. However, with respect to my colleague's
question concerning the seating arrangement in the House, I will
concede that the Bloc members were allowed to sit next to one
another, pursuant to an agreement between all independent
members. As I recall, we had reached an agreement with the
Reform member and the two independents, Mr. Kindy and Mr.
Knowlan. If there is agreement among the independents, I see no
reason why the NDP members cannot sit next to each other.
Provided, of course, there is agreement.
As regards identification, I think the hon. member is right.
The Bloc's name appeared in Hansard and during the televised
debates. I do not know if it is the case now for the NDP, but it was
for us. I think this could be done for them. We did not get that
recognition at the beginning. We raised the issue in various more
or less pleasant ways and, it the end, we succeeded in having the
name of our party appear on TV and in Hansard. I think we could
apply that decision to grant the same privilege, with respect to
the number of questions per week.
(1535)
I am rather surprised to hear that Lucien Bouchard, the leader
of the Bloc, was allowed to ask many questions. In fact, the
figures show that, on average, he asked one and a half question
per week. Whether that question had a major impact is a totally
different issue which has nothing to do with the number of
questions itself but, rather, with their quality. Again, the figures
show that, on average, Mr. Bouchard asked 1.5 question per
week, which is about what the NDP is allowed. I might add that
those questions are always the last ones of the day, at about two
minutes before three o'clock. In this regard, also, there is no
change, compared to what the Bloc experienced.
These are the comments I wanted to make to help you make a
decision.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I will be reasonably brief.
I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for
giving notice of his point of order. I would like to make a few
comments on it, though first of all I would like to quote from
Hansard of November 27, 1990, when a similar point of order
was being discussed. At that time Ian Waddell, the New
Democratic Party member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, argued
in the House with regard to the Bloc Quebecois saying:
It is not a party. It does not have 12 people. Those are the rules. They should
stop whining. The House has been very liberal to them and I find it shocking when
they get up and whine, bitch and complain.
With regard to participation in question period and in
members' statements, the House has been very generous with
independent members and the Chair has been very generous,
considering that very likely the New Democratic caucus has the
poorest attendance record in the House.
I would like to get to some of the arguments that the member
made with regard to having official party status. In 1974 the
Ralliement Créditiste brought 11 members to the House of
Commons. Despite their having less than 12 members all
privileges which come with party recognition were given to
them except for the extra stipend given to the leaders of the
parties, other than the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition, with at least 12 members.
In October 1979 Prime Minister Clark was in the process of
setting up his new government. He put forward the names for
composition of the striking committee and moved approval by
the House. Initially one issue raised for decision by the House
was whether the Ralliement Créditiste with six members should
be represented on the striking committee. Mr. Clark moved
approval of the committee with no Créditiste. Mr. Roy of the
Créditiste put forward an amendment to the motion to include a
Créditiste.
Mr. MacEachen, House leader for the Liberals, raised the
following additional issues for consideration: first, whether the
group would enjoy the status, particularly the leader of that
group, equivalent in standing to that of the Leader of the
Opposition, who was Mr. Trudeau, and the leader of the New
Democratic Party; second, whether they would have full status
of other parties in respect of the question period; and, third,
whether they would have full status of other parties in respect of
statements on motions in response to ministerial statements.
Additionally, Mr. Knowles, the House leader for the New
Democratic Party, who is now a member at the table, reiterated
some of the above arguments and added a fourth issue for
consideration. He stated:
While it has come to be thought that 12 members were required for party
status, we overstepped it when the party had only 11 members last time.
4709
He was referring to 1974. He further stated:
Can a party that has used a name in election come here and claim all of the
advantages that go with party status regardless of how small it is?
That is from
Debates, October 9, 1979, page 13.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. MacEachen and others argued to the
Speaker against party status for a party with less than 12
members in the House. The outcome of this deliberation and the
decision of the House rendered by recorded division was nay.
The Speaker twice refused to overturn the decision of the House
on appeal from the Creditiste even when attention was called to
the popular vote which the Ralliement Créditiste received. That
is in House of Commons Debates, October 10, 1979.
Other issues are that the stipend which is given to leaders of
parties with at least 12 members, excluding the Prime Minister
and Leader of the Opposition, is covered by the Parliament of
Canada Act which states:
-to each member of the House of Commons, other than the Prime Minister
or the member occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition in the House
of Commons, who is a leader of a party that has a recognized membership of 12
or more persons in the House-
This can only be changed by a legislative amendment, not by a
ruling of the Speaker.
(1540)
A final issue connected with recognition of parties in the
House has to do with research funding. The requirement that
parties must have at least 12 members can be waived by the
Board of Internal Economy which includes three opposition
members.
My conclusion is that if the House were to grant recognition
of the New Democrats or the Progressive Conservatives as
parties in the House they should first address the precedents
against recognizing parties with fewer than 12 members,
including the 1979 precedent.
It should be noted that in addition to Messrs. Clark,
MacEachen and Knowles, that Messrs. Chrétien, Axworthy,
Gray, Kilgour, MacLaren, Masse and others voted nay to the
amendment. Further, it should be noted that the Speaker at that
time refused to overturn the decision on appeal since the House
had raised these issues and put them to a vote.
Therefore a decision of any of the issues given should be
given careful consideration by the Speaker of the 35th
Parliament. The independent members in the House should not
be given recognition beyond what should be accorded by any
individual member unless the House agrees to give such
recognition.
In brief summation, the recourse of the members of the New
Democratic Party is to appeal to the House for changes in the
legislation whereby they would be recognized. We believe it
should not be an appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling on
this issue.
The Speaker: The case has been well put today and well
documented. The Chair thanks all hon. members who have taken
the time to advise the Chair. I have heard from all parties in the
House, including interventions made by the independents.
I will undertake to review the entire transcript of today, look
at all of the precedents mentioned and come back to the House
with some recommendations on the matter.
The Chair feels this is not a new issue to Parliament. I feel that
the arguments have been very well made. I believe that I have
received enough information at this point on which to at least
base the beginnings of my own studies to come back to this
House with a decision.
Mr. Hermanson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, this point of order addresses another matter entirely.
Citation 317 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
(1) Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to
any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding
in debate or in the conduct of legislative business-
I would like to address my comments to the conduct of
legislative business.
In a statement last Thursday, the government House leader
indicated that the business for today would be Bill C-18, the
Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act. Instead we were
advised at the House leader's meeting yesterday that we would
be debating Bill C-34, an act respect Yukon self-government.
Although Bill C-34 was put on notice on May 25, it was not
introduced until yesterday.
There is a concern here. How can the government expect the
House to properly conduct legislative business when it does not
even give members 24 hours to review the legislation before it is
debated in the House?
Every Canadian will recognize that aboriginal
self-government is an important national issue and deserves
proper attention. The Reform Party has shown a willingness to
co-operate with the government. We would ask you, Mr.
Speaker, to use all powers and influence at your disposal to
move the government toward conduct of legislated business that
permits the members of the House to effectively fulfil their
mandate as elected representatives.
4710
Standing Order 1 states:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House,
procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose
decisions shall be based on the usage, forms, customs and precedents of the
House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and
other jurisdictions-
We would ask that you consider this standing order when
making your ruling.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has raised a point
which I submit is not a point of order.
(1545 )
The government is entitled to call whatever business it wishes
on any given day with or without notice other than notice that
has to be given at six o'clock to prepare the documents. It can be
changed at the last minute, right up until the time it is called.
That has been the invariable practice in this House.
I recognize that the hon. member is new to this place. Had he
been in the last House, he would know that it was quite common
for the government to call business without proper notice, with
very limited notice and frequently to change the business
overnight, having announced one day what it would be to change
it for the next day. We were in a constant state of flux trying to
know what kind of business we conducted.
The problem is that the hon. member and the members of the
opposition have been spoiled in this House because the
government has been so careful in giving extensive notice in
almost every case of the business it is calling.
Unfortunately today the government was not in a position to
proceed with Bill C-18. It is proceeding instead with Bill C-34.
I admit that it was only introduced yesterday, but it is not a
complex matter. It is thick but it is not complex. The Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development will soon give a
speech that will elucidate every nook and cranny of the bill, and
I invite the hon. member to remain for that speech.
There is no point of order here.
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to refer to
Chapter VI of the standing orders at page 23:
40.(1) All items standing on the Orders of the Day, except Government
Orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the
Order Paper.
Then it says:
(2) Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the
government determines.
Therefore I would rule that there is no point of order in this
case.
I would like to make a ruling.
The Speaker: During Private Members' Business on
Wednesday, May 11, 1994, the hon. member for
Restigouche-Chaleur raised a point of order concerning
Standing Order 73 and Bill C-216, standing under his name on
the Order Paper. At that time I stated that the terms of the
standing order are unambiguous. It reads in part:
Immediately after the reading of the Order of the Day for the second reading of
any public bill, a Minister of the Crown may propose a motion that the said bill be
forthwith referred to a standing, special or legislative committee.
[
Translation]
Clearly, the prerogatives of Standing Order 73 are for
ministers of the Crown. For this reason, backbenchers cannot
exercise them. Therefore the Chair cannot accept the hon.
member's argument.
The hon. member raised a very interesting point by drawing a
parallel between Standing Orders 68 and 73, definitely
suggesting that an amendment to Standing Order 73 could give
backbenchers the same prerogatives as the minister.
The Chair has taken this matter under advisement and is now
ready to make a ruling.
[English]
Let me say at the outset that having looked at the text of
Standing Order 73 and examined its context, the Chair has no
doubt that the ministerial prerogative it grants applies only to
government public bills. While I must concede that the phrase
``any public bill'' might lead to ambiguity, the Chair could not
accept as appropriate the application of Standing Order 73 by a
minister with reference to a private members' bill. In my view
such an approach would have the practical effect of
transforming a private members' initiative into an item of
government business and so violate the spirit that underlies our
standing orders and our practice, namely, the absolute
separation of government business and private members'
business.
However the suggestion of redrafting Standing Order 73 to
grant to the sponsor of a private member's bill the same
prerogatives with regard to that bill that a minister of the crown
enjoys with regard to a government bill seems to merit further
consideration. It would, as I see it, offer a means for making an
item votable that would create an alternative to the existing
procedure, an alternative which many members might welcome.
I would therefore suggest with respect that, under the terms of
this ongoing mandate to study House operations and procedure
and notably, its existing responsibilities vis-à-vis Private
Members' Business, the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs take this matter under consideration.
4711
(1550)
[Translation]
I wish to thank the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur
for raising the subject and thus reminding the House of the
obligation which all members have to ensure that their rights are
maintained, while taking an innovative attitude to the evolution
of these rights.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether this is a
point of order or not but I stand as a duly elected member of the
House of Commons to ask for your guidance with respect to the
previous point of order on which I had wished to speak.
I understand you ruled that there would be no more speakers
on it. However it is my sense, being a duly elected member of the
House of Commons from the constituency of
Regina-Lumsden, on a matter of a point of order that is
important to my constituents and to me and to others in Canada,
that I should be allowed to express the insights I have on the
issue.
The Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member referring to the point
of order presented by the member for Winnipeg Transcona?
Mr. Solomon: Yes.
The Speaker: That being the case, the Chair had heard very
lengthy arguments about that particular point of order. The
Chair made the ruling on the basis that the Chair felt it had heard
enough argument to base at least an indication that the Chair
would look into this matter further.
That is why I made that ruling. With all respect to the hon.
member I am sure that he will recognize that at one point there is
enough debate on a particular point of order for the Chair to
make that kind of a declaration. I would ask that the hon.
member to respect this decision.
_____________________________________________
4711
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 24
petitions.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present the 24th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes
to the standing orders concerning publications of the Journals
Branch of the House of Commons.
[Translation]
At the same time, I have the honour to present the 25th report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
concerning the selection of Private Members' Business.
Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2) the report is deemed adopted.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Madam Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of
the Standing Committee on Industry, Bill C-12, an act to amend
the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts with amendments.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) Madam Speaker, I
move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), concerning a review of the
Citizenship Act, the House authorize the required personnel of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to travel from place to place for the
purpose of preparing and holding video-teleconference sittings during the
weeks of May 31 and June 6, 1994.
I think You Honour will find unanimous consent for the
motion.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1555 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker,
these petitioners want to draw our attention to chronic fatigue
syndrome which is not only a chronic but a disabling illness with
no particular effective cure or treatment.
They point out that it is a complex illness particularly
debilitating and often prevents employment and normal day
activities. They request from the government and the health
authorities recognition of its severity, extended public health
response, more research, a co-operative approach among the
4712
major players to finding appropriate treatments, more education
to increase awareness of the seriousness of this illness, and for
each province one CFSME assessment diagnostic study and
treatment centre so that this particular illness can be dealt with
appropriately.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present
three petitions on behalf of my constituents, the first one asking
that the human rights code not be amended to include sexual
orientation; the second asking that Parliament ensure the
enforcement of the present Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicides; and the third asking Parliament to act to
extend protection to the unborn child.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am tabling
today a petition which calls upon the government to ban the
importation, distribution, manufacture and sale of killer cards in
Canada.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions, both from constituents in my riding.
In the first one petitioners are asking the government to
maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol
for a decade, 10 years, to allow this industry to establish itself.
We think the ethanol industry certainly in eastern Ontario
would make a great contribution to the farm industry.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Madam Speaker, my
second petition is from citizens in my riding from places like
Brockville, Maitland, Spencerville and Prescott petitioning
against the importation and sale of killer cards. They applaud in
this petition the action already taken by the Minister of National
Revenue in announcing that his officials would seize shipments
at the border.
One paragraph describes it quite well. It says: `` We abhor
crimes of violence against persons and we believe that killer
trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to
admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence''.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this
petition on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Northeast who
wish to draw the following to the attention of members in this
House.
Whereas the majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens
who respect the law, whereas the majority of Canadians respect
the sanctity of human life, and whereas the majority of
Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working
to save lives and not to end them, therefore the petitioners state
first, that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously; and, second, that parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding and
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I strongly support not only the content of the petition but also
the efforts of those who hold such significant values and desire
to see these values upheld.
(1600 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Madam Speaker, under
Standing Order 36 I am asked to table yet another petition along
with four or five others that have already been tabled from
various individuals throughout the country who enjoy the great
facilities that we have in Banff National Park in my riding.
The petition reads that the stop work order at Sunshine Village
in order to initiate yet another environmental study is an
unnecessary cost to taxpayers. Numerous studies and public
forums have already been held and expansion was approved by
both Liberal and Conservative governments during the past 16
years. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to allow
the expansion at Sunshine Village as previously agreed to
without further cost to taxpayers for repetitive environmental
studies.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Madam Speaker,
it is with great honour that I rise today to present this petition
asking the government to reform the Young Offenders Act.
This petition which calls for tougher laws for today's youth
who commit violent crimes was started in my riding a couple of
months ago by Jennifer Schuller and Tammy Carvalho, two
grade 10 students at Mount Boucherie senior secondary school
in Kelowna, B.C.
Jennifer and Tammy had become so fed up with the way the
justice system dealt with their own age group that they took it
upon themselves to start a petition to ask their elected
representatives to fix the problem.
As their MP I am more than proud to convey their feelings to
this House and to the Minister of Justice. Jennifer and Tammy
feel as I do, that by making the Young Offenders Act tougher on
youths who commit violent crime it will instil a feeling of
greater responsibility for one's own actions in our young people.
Jennifer, Tammy and I believe that reforming the act is only
part of the solution. We as communities, we in our homes and in
our families and in our schools must work together to create an
environment in which our young people do not feel the need to
act out in a violent manner. We have the responsibility to teach
our young people that they have to be prepared to accept the
4713
consequences of their actions. We cannot expect government to
solve this problem alone.
Over 4,600 people from my constituency felt that Tammy and
Jennifer-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Winnipeg St. James.
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe there is a certain protocol and procedure followed in
presenting petitions. I would submit that this hon. member is not
doing that.
What we have heard for two minutes is a pure, unadulterated
political speech and I would ask him to follow the rules of the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I assume that the hon.
member has terminated his intervention. Would the hon.
member please present the petition without further comments.
Mr. Schmidt: Over 4,600 people from my constituency felt
that what Tammy and Jennifer were doing deserved their support
and I am happy to say today that I have helped Jennifer and
Tammy show to the country, through the House, their intent and
feeling.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Madam Speaker, I
also rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the
House from a number of citizens in the riding of
Haldimand-Norfolk, in fact a number of grandparents in the
riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, who would call upon the
government to do something with the laws regarding
grandparent access to grandchildren when there is difficulty
between the grandparents and their own children.
They say that in no case may a father or mother without
serious cause place obstacles between the child and the
grandparents. I think that is something that all members of the
House would probably support.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 16.
Due to the length of the answer I ask that the answer be printed
in Hansard as though read.
[Text]
Question No. 16-Mrs. Guay:
For the periods from December 1, 1992 to December 1, 1993, and from
December 2, 1993, to the present, (a) what is the distribution by province,
expressed as a percentage, of all contracts awarded by the Department of
Government Services (formerly the Department of Supply and Services) (b)
what is the total number of these contracts, the amount of each contract and their
distribution by province (c) to whom were the contracts awarded and what was
the province of residence of the contractors?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): This document provides a general
overview of the contracting carried out by the former Supply
and Services Canada (SSC) over a five-year period ending
February 28, 1994. It can only be used authoritatively to show
the number of contracts awarded, negotiated and signed in any
given fiscal year.
The statistics provided cannot properly be used to identify the
effects of federal contracting in generating economic activity
within Canada for the following reasons:
The statistics in this report do not cover all goods and services
purchased by the Government of Canada. SSC procures an
estimated 55 per cent of the total goods and services bought by
the federal government.
The threshold of purchasing authority for indivudual
departments was increased to $2,500 during FY 1991-92. The
report for fiscal year 1991-92 and 1992-93 indicates less
contracting activity than previous years as contracting
information is retained by each department.
SSC contracting documents list the total value of any given
contract. Large multi-year contracts will appear within the
statistics for the fiscal year when the contract was signed.
SSC statistics reflect the organizational structures for
payment used by Canadian suppliers. This is particularly true in
those categories of goods and services which are regular,
ongoing requirements for government. For example, for the
purpose of billing, all federal purchases of ESSO products are
processed through an address in Nepean, Ontario. Within SSC's
data, all ESSO sales, regardless of where they occur in Canada,
will be registered as having occurred in Nepean, Ontario,
because that is ESSO's point of mailing. The reality is that fuel
is neither refined in Nepean, nor does the oil originate from
Ontario, nor are all ESSO products purchased in Ontario.
Because SSC's statistical base is purely designed to reflect
levels of contracting activity-the signing and recording of
contract documents-extreme caution should be used in
attempting to ascribe precision or authority to this data for any
other purpose.
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761704_r0.gif)
![]()
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761703_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761703_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761703_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761703_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761703_r4.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761702_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761702_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761702_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761702_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761702_r4.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761701_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761701_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761701_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117190738im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0761701_r3.gif)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1605 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3,
an act to authorize General Security Insurance Company of
Canada to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the
province of Quebec, to which the concurrence of this House is
desired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill is deemed to have
been read the first time and ordered for second reading at the
next sitting of the House.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that Bill C-34, an act respecting
self-government for First Nations in the Yukon Territory, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill
C-34, the Yukon First Nations self-government act, and to urge
the speedy passage of this important and historic piece of
legislation.
This act, together with the Yukon land claim settlement act
which is also before the House, will usher in a whole new era of
stability and opportunity for the Yukon Territory. It will provide
Yukon First Nations with the power to govern their own affairs
to a degree not heretofore possible. It will strengthen relations
between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Yukoners and it will
create an atmosphere of certainty which will encourage
investment, development and jobs in the territory.
For these reasons this legislation has the strong support of not
only the Yukon First Nations but of all sectors of Yukon society.
The council of Yukon Indians was one of the very first
aboriginal groups to request claims negotiations following the
decision of the then Liberal government to settle land claims in
areas where no previous treaties or agreements were in force.
That was more than 20 years ago and the road to claims
settlement and self-government has been a long and sometimes
arduous one.
In 1986 the decision was taken to incorporate
self-government into the negotiating process. Yukon is the first
to come forward in Canada with both claims and
self-government agreements. This has made the negotiations
more complex, but in the long run I believe it will prove
beneficial to settle both the land claim and self-government
issues as a package so that we can begin to move ahead quickly
on all points.
With this legislation we are on the verge of bringing to reality
the hopes and dreams that had been nurtured by Yukon First
Nations for more than two decades. In scope and complexity this
is the most ambitious self-government arrangement negotiated
to date. The legislation is unique in a number of respects. It is
the only self-government legislation to apply to First Nations
representing seven different aboriginal language groups in 14
communities. It is the only one that covers all the First Nations
within a single province or territory.
4716
Under the terms of an umbrella final agreement signed last
year by the federal and territorial governments and the council
for Yukon Indians the government is committed to negotiate
individual self-government agreements with each of the 14
individual First Nations. In fact, four of these First Nations
signed self-government agreements at that time. These were
Champagne and the Aishihik First Nation, the First Nation of
Na-cho-ny'a'k-dun, the Teslin Tlingit Council and the Vuntut
Gwich'in First Nation.
(1610)
Self-government for these First Nations which cover about 36
per cent of the total Yukon aboriginal population will take effect
immediately with the passage of this legislation.
The government is currently engaged in active negotiations
with an additional five First Nations. I am optimistic that
several of these will be completed by the end of this year. I hope
that the government will also commence self-government
negotiations with at least some of the last five First Nations later
this year.
Overall, we expect to have completed self-government
agreements with all 14 First Nations within five years.
Before reviewing some of the main features of this
legislation, I would like to make clear to the House exactly what
we mean by self-government in the context of this bill.
These agreements were negotiated under the previous
government's community based self-government policy. They
make no reference to the inherent right of self-government and
they will not receive constitutional protection as treaty rights
under section 35 of the Constitution Act upon passage of this
bill.
I have indicated to the council for Yukon Indians, however,
that I will consider this matter very seriously and once I and my
colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, have finished our
consultation on the implementation of the inherent right we will
be reporting to cabinet and back to the council of Yukon Indians.
The principles embodied in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada as a whole will
continue to apply. First Nation constitutions will also provide
protections for the rights and freedoms of First Nation citizens.
Although the council for Yukon Indians has long held that
Yukon First Nations have an inherent right of self-government
and have lobbied long and hard to see it recognized, it was their
strongly expressed wish that we proceed quickly with this
legislation rather than delay the legislation pending the outcome
of the inherent right of self-government.
I believe this was a wise decision on their part. By proceeding
now on the basis of the current policy they will begin to reap the
benefits of self-government at the earliest possible date.
At the same time, the agreement provides that the Yukon First
Nations will in no way be precluded from benefiting from any
rights or entitlements that might arise from the discussions I am
carrying out at present with the aboriginal, provincial and
territorial leaders on the implementation of the inherent right of
self-government.
I would also like to comment at this time on the very
constructive role played by the territorial government in these
negotiations. They were tripartite negotiations throughout and
indeed much of the work of implementing self-government will
involve interface, co-operation and compromise between the
First Nations and the Yukon government.
The territorial government has been very supportive
throughout this process and the Yukon legislature has already
passed self-government legislation which will come into effect
as soon as this act is proclaimed.
Turning to the main points of the bill, one of the most
important features is that it establishes First Nations as a legal
entity with the power to enter contracts, to acquire land and to
form corporations. This is a very important step in empowering
the First Nations to manage their affairs and to plan and carry
out their economic and social development.
The Indian Act will not apply to the First Nations or their
citizens or settlement land with five exceptions. First, the Indian
Act will apply for the purpose of determining which Yukon First
Nation citizens are Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act.
Second, the Indian Act will continue to apply to reserves
outside Yukon held for the use and benefit of a Yukon First
Nation predecessor band. There are four such reserves held for
two Yukon First Nations.
Third, the application of the Indian Act to reserves in Yukon is
subject to negotiation.
Fourth, the minister's authority under the Indian Act to
administer individual Indian money, which the minister
currently holds, will continue.
4717
Fifth, section 87 of the Indian Act which provides for a tax
exemption for Indians will cease to apply to all Yukon First
Nations and Yukon Indian people three years after the
legislation comes into force. The First Nations will have the
legislative power to enact laws. Yukon self-government
legislation grants law making power in four main areas. These
include laws relating to internal management and the
administration of certain rights and benefits received under the
land claims agreement.
(1615)
They also include laws of a local or private nature which
apply on settlement lands, laws relating primarily to the
provision of programs and services to First Nation citizens, and
laws relating to the First Nation power to tax interest and
settlement land and other methods of direct taxation of First
Nation citizens on settlement land.
By agreement these taxation powers will not be exercised for
at least three years unless the First Nation and government agree
otherwise. The First Nation power to tax does not limit the
federal government power to tax. What this means is that the
First Nation as a government will negotiate with the
governments of Canada and Yukon to ensure co-ordination of
First Nation tax laws within the existing system.
In the long run this taxation power will enable First Nation
governments to use taxation of its citizens and of use of their
settlement lands as a revenue source for providing local
programs and services which the First Nation governments
deem necessary for its citizens.
While federal law of general application will continue to
remain paramount unless inconsistent with the bill, the land
claims bill, and the related agreements the law making powers
granted to the First Nations will further strengthen control over
their own affairs.
Each First Nation will have a constitution. These
constitutions will provide for a number of things, including
recognition and protection of the rights and freedoms of First
Nation citizens.
The constitutions will also spell out how the validity of First
Nation laws may be challenged, how financial accountability to
the people will be assured, and how First Nation governing
bodies will be established. These constitutions will provide the
basic guarantees that the First Nations will be governed
democratically and responsibly.
The First Nations shall also have law making powers with
respect to the administration of justice. However, the legislation
suspends this power until the year 2000 unless an agreement is
reached between the Yukon and federal governments and First
Nations on how the First Nation may exercise its power to make
laws in relationship to the administration of justice.
All parties are legally obliged to enter negotiations toward
this goal. In the meantime, First Nations will not exercise this
power. I am hopeful an agreement can be reached long before the
year 2000.
In the interim First Nations will have a limited power to
establish penalties for violation of First Nation laws. Offences
under the Yukon First Nation law will be prosecuted in Yukon
courts and will be treated as an offence under the Territorial
Summary Convictions Act.
The administration of justice is an area that has in the past
caused much friction between aboriginal Canadians and society
at large. Hopefully Yukon self-government agreements will
lead to a regime in which the maximum responsibility possible
will be handled by each First Nation within the framework of
Canada's constitution.
The self-government agreements call for the transfer of many
programs and services now being provided by the federal or
territorial governments directly to the First Nations. First
Nations will advise the government in each year of their
priorities and plans for such transfers.
Government policy will neither be to rush this process nor to
retard it but to respond promptly to the wishes of First Nations.
The pace must be set by the First Nations in accordance with
their perception of their capabilities, their priorities, and their
aspirations.
In this regard I foresee a substantial downsizing of my
department in Yukon over the next several years as all 14 First
Nations implement self-government. The downsizing will be in
the order of 75 per cent of the staff with the remaining 25 per
cent kept in place to fulfil federal responsibilities and
obligations set out in the self-government agreements.
(1620)
Finally, the agreement and the legislation propose a new and
much improved set of financial arrangements than those we
have had in the past with First Nations. These will be modelled
on the current and successful five-year financial transfer
agreements that now exist between the federal and territorial
governments.
The financial transfer agreements will be the primary funding
instrument between Canada and the Yukon First Nations and
will be the mechanism for flowing current levels of band
funding toward the cost of operating self-government, funding
for current government programs that are taken over by the First
Nations and funding related to the land claim implementation.
The new financial regime will allow First Nations to engage
in longer range planning with a greater degree of certainty and to
establish their own priorities against a certain fiscal stability.
Since taking on this portfolio last year I have met with many
Yukoners and received many more letters from all sectors of
Yukon society; aboriginal leaders, business leaders, religious
leaders and politicians from all parties. All are urging the
speedy introduction and passage of this bill, as well as Bill
C-33. I have been particularly impressed by the emerging
4718
consensus and the depth of desire not only for passage but
speedy passage of both bills.
They recognize the importance of resolving the question of
land claims and self-government to the future development of
the territory.
They recognize the potential benefit of those agreements to
the future well-being of the Yukon First Nation who make up
one quarter of the territory's people.
They recognize that the certainty embodied in these pieces of
legislation can only encourage more investment and
development in Yukon to the benefit of all its citizens.
Yukon needs economic growth if it is to provide hope and
meaningful employment for its young and growing population.
More than half of Yukon's aboriginal population is under
24 years of age.
In recent years there has been a marked improvement in the
education and training opportunities available to First Nations.
All of this means little unless there are jobs to be had in a
growing economy. Yukon needs investment and it needs
resource development, industrial diversification, strengthened
infrastucture and service industry enhancement.
I am convinced that this self-government agreement, together
with the land claim settlement, will give a very real stimulus to
the investment and growth that Yukon needs and for the creation
of jobs.
The government has made it clear that improving the quality
of life of Canada's aboriginal people is a major concern and
priority. The document Creating Opportunity expressed it this
way:
The priority of a Liberal government will be to assist aboriginal communities
in their efforts to address the obstacles to their development and help them
marshal the human and physical resources necessary to build and sustain
vibrant communities.
This legislation will provide new hope and opportunity for
Yukon's First Nations and will go to the very heart of that
commitment. The bill is clearly deserving of our support.
On a more personal note and in closing, it is unfortunate that I
cannot mention that above us in this assembly are people who
have been working most of their adult lives toward this day.
There are times in this portfolio, not often, that you walk away
with a great sense of satisfaction that hope has been provided.
These people from the CYI who have been here all week and out
in front of the House of Commons yesterday were saying to each
other: ``We have been waiting 20 years''. I cannot imagine
working 20 years on one piece of legislation but they have and
they have worked hard.
One stretch I was at went on for five solid days. That is the
kind of commitment we saw in the last few months of drafting
the agreements. With Canadians like these there is a lot of hope
for our country, that they have that commitment to their own
people and to Canada. They are to be commended.
I would be remiss if I did not mention in closing the help of the
hon. member for Yukon. I received some excellent briefings
from that member. When all the paper was piling up and I was
not sure exactly what was happening underground, I would
speak to her and she would tell me the way it was. I really
appreciated that.
(1625)
I urge all members to give the legislation speedy
consideration and passage so our fellow Canadians in Yukon can
begin to enjoy the new life that they have hoped for and worked
so hard to obtain for two decades. This day is here and they are to
be commended.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-34. In response to the
Minister of Indian Affairs, who mentioned that he finds some
days very satisfying, I will confide that I found the last 24 hours
extremely dissatisfying and very arduous. First reading took
place yesterday morning at 10 o'clock, so you can imagine my
surprise when, in the afternoon, a pile of documents, one foot
high, appeared on my desk for me to read before today's debate
on these two bills. We are dissatisfied because we worked well
into the night and are exhausted.
Fortunately, we were basically already in favour of
self-government. If we took the trouble to review these
documents as thoroughly and as humanly possible under the
circumstances, it is because we had in mind these people in the
Yukon who have been waiting for so long to see this matter of
great concern to them finally settled.
Consequently, we did our utmost. We may have missed a few
things, but for our part, we are in favour of Bill C-34.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute all those who
dropped by my office during the week. On Monday night, we
received a delegation from Yukon. I immediately cleared up an
unfortunate misunderstanding, and I would like to do the same
here now.
The Bloc Quebecois never intended to delay the presentation
of this bill. As you know, there has been a problem with the
translation of the maps, but my party decided that it would not
oppose the first reading. We mentioned that to these people from
Yukon, because rumours had been going around in the north and
in Yukon to the effect that we would oppose this bill at first
4719
reading, on the basis of the Official Languages Act, which was
not true, of course, and that is why I take this opportunity today
to set matters straight.
As I said before, the Bloc Quebecois already has a position on
self-government. We support self-government. To define the
concept of self-government, we have the choice of several
dictionaries. For my part, I referred to the Petit Larousse.
Self-government is defined as ``government of a group by the
action of its own members, independently from a central
power''. As for government, is it defined as ``the right, function
or power of governing, of running a country''.
An agreement on self-government means that the central
power, the Crown in this case, agrees to relinquish a certain
number of areas of responsibility to this group, to effectively
enable it to assume responsibility for itself and decide its own
future. That is no different by the way, from the traditional
claims of Quebec which in fact wants a little more than
self-government, namely complete sovereignty.
I have to mention in passing the similarity between the two
situations. As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois has always been
in favour of self-government for native peoples and it
demonstrates its support today by supporting Bill C-34.
The agreement was negotiated under the existing policy
concerning self-government. This means that government
commitments with respect to self-government for the nations
concerned are not governed by the provisions of clause 35. They
are not considered as part of a modern treaty. There is no
protection under the Constitution, contrary to what we will see
later in the case of Bill C-33. This must be made very clear from
the start. Protection under the Constitution cannot be guaranteed
today by tabling these agreements.
(1630)
About self-government, it should be pointed out that more
than one definition must be examined more closely. Finally,
self-government is exercised to some extent at the discretion of
both sides. Advocating self-government is one thing, but this
does not mean that there is a standard pattern that fits any
situation for all bands and all first nations.
Based on certain claims, depending upon the willingness of
the various nations, some areas of responsibility can be
transferred quickly and others not so quickly, while others yet
would not be transferred not at all. It is rather difficult, when
discussing self-government for first nations, to say: ``Here is a
complete, comprehensive and definitive profile of
self-government''. It will take shape as these kinds of
agreements develop and it can vary from band to another.
So far, four first nations in the Yukon Territory have entered
into agreements on both lands claims-these are covered by Bill
C-33-and self-government.
These are the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the First
Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, the Teslin Tlingit Council and the
Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation.
That still leaves about 10 nations. The minister said that,
during the year, we may indeed conclude and ratify agreements
with five other nations. I think the fact that we may complete
these negotiations within five years is a good sign and that it is
the first step these nations must take to get rid of the Indian Act
trusteeship although in fact-as I will explain later-they can
opt for continued coverage under this act. I will explain some of
its provisions a little later.
However, a number of preconditions are attached to
self-government. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, the First
Nations increasingly want to face themselves from the Indian
Act trusteeship but they are a little afraid of what will replace it.
I think a bill such as the one before us today shows that the
Indian Act could be replaced with agreements enabling
members of the First Nations to take control of their own
destiny.
As a precondition, the First Nations must be willing to get rid
of this trusteeship and to take control of their own future. The
House of Commons, which has jurisdiction over this, must also
recognize that this trusteeship must end and gradually give the
First Nations the opportunity to take control of their own
destiny. The will must also come from the House of Commons.
Last but not least among the preconditions-also the most
important in my opinion-is mutual respect. This mutual
respect is sometimes difficult to achieve. The agreements may
not have been as difficult to negotiate, but this respect must still
be maintained and cultivated on a day-to-day basis. We must
mention it whenever such bills are tabled because the public
often feels uncomfortable toward Natives and vice versa. I think
that if we want to spread the beneficial effects of these
agreements, we must achieve mutual respect. That is not always
easy.
As we know, our vision of democracy as we experience it here
today is not necessarily that favoured by the First Nations. They
are not too familiar with the concept of delegated voting. Does
that mean that their vision of democracy is not as valid as ours? I
do not think so. It is just a little different and we must respect it.
We have a common law system and a civil law system based
on property rights to land among other things. We are not used to
letting our neighbours move their trees 15 or 20 feet onto our
lands without saying anything.
(1635)
We must understand that, from the natives' point of view, the
land does not belong to them; they belong to the land. So the way
they see things is somewhat different and often very different
4720
from our view. I think that for future agreements like those
before us today, this respect will have to be cultivated, and I
assure you that I will be there to try to instill this respect.
Turning now to the presentation and the bill, if I look at what
is in the agreements, the ability of these nations to make laws in
the Yukon is being recognized. The things I noted which are
major for me are that once they have to administer their affairs
and pay for them-we realize in the bill and we agree-these
people should run their own affairs more and more. If money is
granted to them in the form of transfers or new royalties, we
must also accept that they can enact legislation saying how they
want to administer their affairs. That is how it is in the bills, and
it is important that this be pointed out.
Also, still in a spirit of respect for native cultures, we realize
that some programs will now allow a certain spiritual or
religious influence in the way they run their affairs and the way
they make their own future; for them, beliefs and cultural
practices are extremely important and we will let their main
programs be imbued with this culture.
There may also be legislation on native languages. From the
representations made to my office this week, I gather that there
are six or seven aboriginal languages in the Yukon and the
common language in which they communicate most often is
English, would you believe it. Later, my conclusion will
emphasize the fact that the two cultures complement each other
well, and I think that the opportunity now given to them to
legislate in their own language in Yukon is a step in the right
direction. Here, a parallel can be made with the Quebec
government, which has some power to legislate on language
issues to protect culture. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois
fully supports this approach.
Medical care, health care and social services. This is a very
holistic approach, as well as a feature of native culture. They try
to prevent disease instead of trying to cure it, and even the
treatments they apply are different from ours. Thus, they will be
able to follow their cultural and traditional ways as regards
medical care, health care and social services.
Training programs and tools. Again, I want to establish a
parallel with Quebec. They are lucky to be able to enact
legislation on training. Giving that possibility to these people
will enable them to train their manpower according to the needs
of their economic development, both traditional and modern.
Unfortunately, Quebec still does not have that opportunity and,
frankly, I envy them in that respect.
Education programs and services are also a major component
of what we are prepared to give back to these people. It would be
important for them to put in place an education system which
would really transcend their traditional values. In that respect,
we are pleased with the part of the agreement which allows
native peoples to take charge of their education programs and
services.
(1640)
There will also be the possibility of enacting legislation
related to local or private interests. There are provisions in the
agreement and in the bill which are somewhat similar to what
was provided in Bill C-16, the Sahtu legislation. The object was
to find a happy balance between modern and traditional values. I
think that goal was reached with the conclusion of this
agreement.
Among other things, these people are given back the
responsibility for protecting natural resources. Traditional
activities such as picking, trapping, hunting and fishing, which
they have been doing for centuries, are recognized. We are
telling them ``go ahead, its yours, its your territory''. Because of
their closeness to nature and the Earth, these people have
eloquently shown that they do not need complex legislation.
Through their culture, they have learned to respect nature when
they hunt and fish. They are not the type of people who would
fish out lakes and then have nothing left. They do not need
specific laws on this: it is part of their culture.
Again, I must make another parallel with Quebec. There are
provisions regulating signage, including billboards. I envy
them. This is somewhat like Quebec's law 101. I hope that the
Supreme Court of Canada will not periodically challenge the
fact that they can post notices in a language understood by their
people, and that they will not be required to include some
English on their signs. Once again, I envy their authority to
enact laws of a local or private nature, laws concerning signage,
for instance.
They will also be able to issue various permits, which will
also be useful in the case of construction projects. I will not
enumerate every single case, but it is clear they will have a great
deal of latitude in many areas. This is very good for them, and I
am delighted. Regarding construction regulations, they seem to
have their own approach to labour relations. I repeat, I do not
expect a lot of legislation on the subject. These people usually
have a great appreciation for fairness, so I do not imagine there
will be many labour problems in the construction industry in the
Yukon.
They will have jurisdiction over transportation and vehicle
use, which makes sense. Regulating and prohibiting alcohol
consumption are a major problem, and I think this point was
made before. It is a major problem that affects society, but
especially societies with tremendous social problems, and one
realizes these are often connected with the problems created by
alcohol consumption. The fact that they intend to deal with this
issue through their own social and health services may be a
completely different approach. So there is a connection between
health and social services and how they intend to use legislation
4721
to regulate or prohibit alcohol consumption. This being a crucial
problem, I agree they should be given the opportunity to deal
with it themselves.
The same applies to public safety. As far as protecting the
environment is concerned, I think I gave a good description of
the situation. Because of their attachment to land and water, it is
important for them to be able to deal with these issues. I think
they can teach us a thing or two about protecting the
environment and the great respect they have for their Mother the
Earth, as they often say. I think it is entirely appropriate to give
them back their jurisdiction over the environment.
There will also be legislation to regulate or prohibit firearms.
We must realize that, because of modern hunting techniques, the
number of firearms in circulation in Yukon, as in many parts of
the north, is considerable. It makes perfect sense for them to be
able to regulate possession of firearms.
(1645)
Here again, I have every confidence that the possession of
firearms will be regulated so that the focus is on possession for
the purposes of daily survival, rather than for the purpose of
committing crimes. I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be
the intent of the regulations.
The bill also provides for laws of general application. I noted
in the agreement that a separate agreement could be negotiated
to resolve the problem of inconsistencies arising between catch
all laws. If I understand the terms of the agreement correctly,
further negotiations will take place in the near future once this
legislation has been in effect to determine if indeed there are
some inconsistencies between these legislative texts. There will
have to be some discussion on points of agreement and the
necessary changes will have to be made. I felt it was important
to take note of this provision in the bill and in the agreement.
In other words, we are not making any final decisions here
today. There is nothing to stop us from re-opening the debate at
some later date. If we disagree on certain issues, we have to find
a way to talk about it and if inconsistencies arise, then we will
have a mechanism with which to try and smooth out any
irritants.
Regarding the administration of justice, once again, we are
prepared to allow them considerable latitude. In the agreement,
this issue is even the focus of a separate sub-chapter. We realize
that there are many problems involving the justice system and
here again, the problem is one of culture. We realize that it is
difficult to get the First Nations to understand our notion of
justice.
I think that even more respect will have to be shown for First
Nations to ensure they have their own justice system, with all
this can entail. Again, if problems do arise, I think we will just
have to get together and see how we can work things out.
But I think it is becoming increasingly difficult to apply the
White justice system in its entirety in the Yukon Territory or in
the northern territories. It is inappropriate. I think that more
respect must be shown for the value systems of these nations,
and their justice system. And this agreement will give them an
opportunity to implement them.
Concerning taxation, there are also very interesting
provisions in this agreement, from what I have seen. I was
pleasantly surprised for the First Nations to notice, for example,
the possibility of taxation for localities, as well as the
possibility to collect property taxes and to operate a taxation
system with legislative powers in taxation matters.
I would say that for once, we are allowing them to free
themselves from this guardianship, the dependence created by
the Indians Act. And if we can manage to make our transfers
match their capacity to break away and develop their economy, I
think that will be great. The possibility also exists for transfers
to continue, since nothing in here says that these have to stop
because we give them taxation powers.
I think that a transition period is necessary and the bill leaves
an opening so that transfers will continue, and if these people
succeed in developing their economy, of course, then I think that
transfers from the crown should be reduced accordingly.
In conclusion, from having looked at the agreement, although
I was up until three or four o'clock in the morning-I did not
really keep track of the time-I realize that it is a step in the
right direction for the people in the Far North and the Yukon. I
even ask the ten other First Nations to speed up the discussion. I
think that it is really a step in the direction of getting rid of this
trusteeship. We are telling them: ``The white man's law that
applied to you need no longer apply now. You are being given
jurisdiction and being allowed to develop your economy. Go
ahead. We will even help you to do it. We will respect your
traditional values, we accept that you are still a little reluctant to
take the route of modern economic development. We will give
you a hand with it''.
(1650)
All this to say that I am happy for the four Yukon nations
which have signed these agreements. I hope to see, in the near
future, all 14 Yukon nations reach such agreements.
These people must be congratulated for their tenacity. They
must be congratulated for their democratic consultation process.
As you know, when negotiations last for 20 years, those who
were involved in the process two decades ago have now become
what they call elders. These elders use their wisdom to help
those who now sit at the negotiating table.
Another feature of the native culture is the fact that those who
negotiated are happy for themselves of course, but their main
source of contentment is to enable their children and grandchil-
4722
dren to take charge of their own destiny. This must be pointed
out and emphasized.
These people have worked very hard and the elders of the
time, as well as today's negotiators, can now see the results of
their efforts. I think this may be an example to follow for all
First Nations in Canada. As I said, these people negotiated with
determination, but they also did it in a peaceful way and this is
important.
At times, negotiations broke down. As well, there are issues
on which no agreement was reached. Negotiating is not a perfect
solution. The two sides are never completely satisfied.
However, this exercise was conducted peacefully. It led to an
agreement on self-government and a bill to confirm it. As well,
the elders are happy for future generations. This is typical of the
native culture and it is an example which we should follow.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will certainly
support Bill C-34.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, today the House has been asked to debate Bill
C-34, a bill regarding self-government for aboriginal peoples in
Yukon. The bill apparently affects serious issues such as land,
moneys, language, rights and freedoms, perhaps even
constitutional matters.
Reform members have been most co-operative in dealing
with government legislation proposed in the House. We have
had regular consultations with the government and a great
rapport has been built up between our caucus and the
government with regard to the handling of legislation. We often
disagree on the content of the legislation but we are very happy
to debate the issues in this House. However, we would like to
debate them from a position of knowledge.
We have some real concerns about Bill C-34. The bill was
placed on the Order Paper for one week before the government
finally introduced it yesterday. Members of the Reform Party,
knowing the complexity of this issue as I mentioned earlier,
contacted the minister's office last week to see if they could be
briefed on the intent of the legislation in order to adequately
prepare for the debate. I suggest that this was a fair request but it
was a request that was denied.
Finally my colleagues received the departmental briefing
only this morning, the very day of the debate. Also, we had less
than 24 hours to review this legislation. As my hon. colleague
from the Bloc mentioned, he was up until three or four o'clock in
the morning trying to wade through all of the material.
Probably one of the reasons it has become so complicated is
that Bill C-34 is directly connected to Bill C-33. While I have
not yet been able to see it, my colleagues tell me that Bill C-33
is nine or ten inches thick. It requires some time to review and to
understand the complications and the factors involved with its
relationship to Bill C-34, the bill we are debating today.
The Reform Party refuses to take part in this type of debate
when it is not properly prepared, through no fault of its own. The
government has not been able to properly manage its legislative
agenda. It is in the position where all of the bills are in
committee, on notice, or have not yet been introduced.
Furthermore, it was indicated to our caucus that we would be
debating Bill C-18 today, a bill which we have studied at great
length and are prepared to discuss.
(1655)
It is with much regret after having stated these facts that we
feel we cannot contribute in the most meaningful way at this
time on this bill. We do not want to be a part of the government's
ineptitude. With much respect for the House and wanting to
maintain quality debate, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 49)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
4723
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Walker
Wappel
Wood-155
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
negatived.
It being 5.42 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4723
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to
$1,000 in order to account for inflation and recognize the value of their services
to the community.
He said: Madam Speaker, within the wording of this motion,
somehow something missed my recognition. What it says in the
wording of the motion is: ``amending the voluntary firemen's
tax exemption''. As we all know, across rural Canada we no
longer have only firemen. We also have many firewomen across
the country. It is a generic word.
I want to bring to the attention of all hon. members that many
of our fire brigades now include women and they provide a very
responsible and important role within those fire organizations.
It is my pleasure today to stand and to talk about Motion No.
193. This motion, although deemed not votable by the House
management subcommittee, recommends that the government
consider the advisability of amending the voluntary firemen's
tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 which I think puts it into the
context of inflation and speaks very well to the services that
these firefighters provide to our rural communities.
There is no question in the minds of anyone in the House
about the exceptional work done by volunteer firefighters. My
motion tries to pay special attention and tribute to these men and
women in recognition of their dedication and selfless service to
their communities.
Volunteer firefighters serve communities with very little
compensation. Generally they are given honorariums that cover
out of pocket expenses incurred while dealing with fires and
assorted emergencies and in dealing with training sessions. I am
confident that there is no one in the House who will disagree
with me that this remuneration is worth every penny they get.
The Income Tax Act exempts the first $500 of allowances
received by these volunteer firefighters, but in 1980 that was
increased. It used to be $300 and it was increased to $500 in
4724
1980 to recognize the growth of inflation at that time. Since
1980 it has stayed exactly the same as it is today.
Over the last 14 years annual inflation rates have increased as
many of us know. In fact, most of this honorarium now is subject
to tax. Unfortunately this effectively takes the expense
reimbursements away from the firefighter.
In my opinion this is mostly unfair and that is why I brought
forward this motion again this session. I brought this forward in
the last House. Unfortunately at that time it was not a votable
motion. It was talked out by the government members who used
to be on this side of the House. There are one or two of them on
the other side of the House now.
Volunteer firefighters provide an invaluable and vital service
to our communities and form a solid protection base under
which rural communities exist within this country. Not only do
volunteer firefighters provide a service to rural communities,
that is where they are mostly seen, but also to urban areas, as
members know, where we have a number of volunteer
firefighters.
There are almost 76,000 volunteer firefighters across the
country. It is a significant number of people who have dedicated
their time and service to their country and have really proved to
Canadians what volunteerism is all about.
These volunteers spend many hours in training and on the
upkeep of their fire stations, the care and maintenance of their
fire equipment, all without any remuneration. They drive their
privately owned vehicles in response to emergency alarms.
Their privately owned vehicles are also used to travel many
miles to deal with training sessions. Many of these people spend
a number of hours throughout the week in specific training
sessions to help them in doing their job.
Frequently volunteer fire departments are the only service
organization in a number of communities across this country.
They are the ones out there helping our children in distress, the
ones out there on the roads dealing with the messy situation at a
traffic accident which many of us would rather not see.
These are the people behind the scenes whom we do not see.
They are in the face of these tragic situations, dealing with them.
They are the ones raising money for community halls and
community centres. They are the ones in small towns across this
country who are the backbone of volunteer work in these
communities.
They are the people who really keep these communities going.
They can be found taking all sorts of other roles within
communities such as organizing hockey and baseball teams,
community garage sales and fund raising for many important
community events.
It would hardly seem right when it is remembered that in
many volunteer fire departments the practice is to pool those
moneys received from this disbursement of a lot of their hard
work and labour. A lot of times this pooled money is put back
into the firehall.
As members know, in many rural areas money is not available
to provide some of the needed equipment. A lot of time the
reimbursements they get for some of their own expenses go back
into these community halls, into their equipment and uniforms.
Basically our rural firefighters and our volunteer firefighters are
paying for the service that they provide to our communities.
Obviously these men and women are dedicated volunteers as has
been stated and they take great pride in their communities. I
believe it is only right and proper for the government to
recognize this contribution and that is why I brought this motion
forward.
(1750)
Let me stress once again that these men and women, these
very proud Canadians, are giving freely of their time and energy
and have put their lives on the line for many Canadians.
I had the opportunity of going into a fire with some of my
local volunteer firefighters. There are 13 in my area. They took
me into a burning house all packed up in a training exercise.
They showed me what it was like, what their lives were like, on
many occasions. I was scared. It was a very scary, very tough
situation, and it really gave me a good sense of where these
people are coming from on a daily basis.
I do not feel that they have been recognized at all for this
service and I am not suggesting in any way that these people
want special recognition. In fact, a lot of them would wonder
why I am up here trying to give them more money because most
of them in the earlier years did not even use up their full
compensation. It is an important thing. As a House we should
recognize it, for recognition is long overdue.
We have seen the effects in the recessionary years across this
country. More and more communities are turning to volunteer
firefighters to provide these essential services. As I said, the
money is not there and how much would it cost Canada if we had
to pay firefighters instead of relying on the generosity of
volunteers?
There can be few people in this country who do not know, who
have not been directly affected by these volunteer firefighters.
More now than ever we need to strengthen and expand the forces
to fill the gaps that are occurring because of the lack of services
provided because of the downturn in the economy.
I put it to this House that the costs involved in providing this
increase are small compared with the savings made in terms of
4725
human lives as well as dollars. I suggest that this House would
save greatly by voting this increase to volunteer firefighters.
As I mentioned earlier, this motion unfortunately like many
motions across the House because of the archaic nature of our
Private Members' Hour is not votable and I know that is a
problem for a lot of members across this House. In this debate
today I hope at least that members in this House will recognize
the important role that volunteer firefighters provide to our
communities.
I hope that all Canadians who are listening to this today will
give a pat on the back to their local firefighters.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam
Speaker, today I welcome the opportunity to speak to the hon.
member's motion to raise the voluntary firemen's tax exemption
from $500 to $1,000.
I would like to start by commending the hon. member for his
motion, since it also gives us an opportunity to acknowledge the
work done by these people and to say they are useful members of
our society, and I think that is a message we can send them from
this House.
The hon. member said twice that because of the standing
orders, his motion was not votable. I do not know whether the
hon. member could ask for unanimous consent, but if he did, I
am sure he would obtain unanimous consent for the House to
vote immediately on this motion. I do not know whether the hon.
member is listening.
Raising the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to
$1,000 would be an opportunity for members of this House to
give tangible recognition of the social commitment and
dedication of all voluntary firefighters in Quebec and Canada.
I think the average person does not quite realize how
important voluntary firefighters are to our communities. They
are voluntary, because considering the compensation they
receive would hardly justify considering them otherwise. And as
such, they should not have to pay income tax on the pittance they
earn by serving the community.
(1755)
They are not permanent workers, since their main occupation
is not as firefighters; they earn their living doing something
else. However, they are on call and must leave everything
behind to respond to distress calls. Moreover, volunteer
firefighters must use their own vehicle to get to the emergency
situations which they must face. These men and women, because
there are indeed men and women in this service, must carry
pagers with them so that they can be reached day and night. They
must also attend different courses and conferences, as the hon.
member mentioned earlier.
It is important to note that the tax exemption has not been
changed since 1980. At that time, it went from $300 to $500 to
account for inflation; some people thought that the $300 amount
was not fair any more and should be amended to $500. That
calculation has not been done since 1980. I think that, today, we
could make exactly the same calculation and come up with the
amount of $1,000 as proposed in this motion.
Since 1980, while inflation has been considerably increasing
every year, volunteer firefighters have been paying more taxes
on a service they voluntarily provide to their communities.
Consequently, it would be normal to increase the tax exemption
according to the standard of living in our society. Also, it is
important to keep in mind the abilities, both physical and
academic, that such a job requires. Generally, volunteer
firefighters have attended all the basic first-aid courses: St.
John's Ambulance, Red Cross, CPR and others. This is quite
something for a job you do only on a voluntary basis.
We should also point out, and this is very important, that
volunteer firefighters help municipalities to provide a service
they could probably not afford otherwise. It is a fact that in the
rural municipalities that cannot afford a professional
firefighting brigade, the role of volunteer firefighters is vital.
The safety of millions of people is in their hands.
Without them there would be a multimillion dollar void which
would have to be filled with our taxes. I believe the hon. member
mentioned that point in his speech. If we do not raise this
exemption, if we do not acknowledge in some way the work of
these dedicated men and women, and if they stop being
volunteer firefighters, municipalities and taxpayers will have to
pay dearly to get a similar service. So, why not raise this
exemption again? This would send a tremendous message to
these men and women who put their lives on the line to save
others.
On a social and community level, how many times have I seen
volunteer firefighters take part in fundraising campaigns, either
for the MIRA foundation, the United Way, or shelters for abused
women or drug addicts? How many times have volunteer fire
departments joined civil defence teams to assist communities
ravaged by floods, tornadoes or other environmental disasters?
In my riding of Berthier-Montcalm, I saw the volunteer fire
department at work, fighting against floods along the St.
Lawrence and cleaning up after a tornado hit Maskinongé. They
do a terrific job. Public security is in good hands. On the
national level, the tragic fire at the tire depot in Saint-Amable,
in the Montreal area, highlighted the remarkable role played by
these men and women who are much more than volunteer
firefighters. They got involved after the fire to make sure that
the neighbour-
4726
ing population suffered as little as possible from the damage to
the environment and got all the help they needed.
I believe that such events opened the eyes of many. One must
realize that these volunteers have to leave their jobs, their
homes, and their families to go and help the community when it
is threatened. I call upon the government to vote in favour of this
motion- it will not be a direct vote, but through this House, the
government should get the message-to increase this tax
exemption from $500 to $1,000 without delay. Together, we
must send our heartfelt thanks to all the volunteers who are
dedicated to public security across Quebec and Canada.
(1800)
Volunteer firefighters are too often forgotten by the
government and the population as a whole. Today we have an
opportunity to thank them by supporting the motion. As elected
representatives, we feel secure because of them and we must
support the motion.
As for me, I thank the 994 volunteer firefighters in50 different municipalities in my riding. I want to show them my
entire support in this motion and I will see to it that the
government adopts it as fast as possible.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Madam
Speaker, I rise to praise the motion placed before the House
today by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I share
totally his views about the great job done by volunteer
firefighters. They are a dedicated, hard-working group of
people to whom all of us owe a great debt.
In my riding of Capilano-Howe Sound several communities
rely heavily on the work of volunteers. In Squamish, 55
volunteers complement a core of six full time firefighters.
Pemberton and Lions Bay rely entirely on 20 volunteers for their
protection from fire.
In the beautiful resort community of Whistler, 11
professionals rely on the help of 36 volunteers. I feel
particularly close to this group because I have attended their
annual ball. These people not only know how to have fun, they
also show their dedication to public welfare by using the
occasion to raise substantial funds for charity. I feel closer also
to these Whistler firefighters because I have seen them in action
when they took care of a chimney fire in the house of one of my
neighbours. Hearing the roar of such a fire in the stillness of a
snowy winter evening is an unforgettable experience. Seeing
their professionalism in dealing with this inferno has made me
an eternal fan of theirs.
I would also like to tell you, Madam Speaker, that Whistler is
a very dry and hot place in the summer. Trees and bushes grow
between the many wooden houses. I have often descended into
the valley on the chair lift and was very uneasy thinking about
the scene before me, how easily a small fire could spread
through the community, leaping from house to house through
the low brush, fanned by the famous Squamish winds. The
property damage would be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. There would be great risks for people and animals.
However I find myself reassured by the knowledge that the
large contingent of very competent firefighters is there, quickly
and at all times, to deal with any small fire before it erupts into a
major conflagration.
At any rate, I hope that they will forever be able to maintain
the enviable record they have established during the 30-year
history of the Whistler community. No fire has ever gone out of
control.
The professional and volunteer firefighters in my riding can
be counted on, not just to fight fires, but to provide valuable
services in all kinds of other emergencies. Just a couple of weeks
ago they had to use the jaws of life to free from a car a severely
injured motorist and two others. Their efforts came too late for
the two who died in the accident.
The Whistler firefighters are superbly skilled in their task.
Last year they won first place in a provincial competition testing
their rescue skills. They are about to enter this competition
again and I wish them the best of luck.
I support the idea that the federal government should make a
solid contribution to the well-being of these dedicated people.
They save citizens local taxes which would have to be raised if
they were to be replaced by professionals.
Therefore It seems very fitting that the private member's
motion being discussed should urge the government to raise the
amount of fees which are freed from taxation. However, given
the government's current financial conditions, members must be
very vigilant not to add to the deficit. In this spirit, I therefore
suggest that the proposal be modified to make it less costly. I
propose that the government raise the allowance annually by the
increase in the consumer price index, using the $500 limit in
1980 as a base. In my view this approach would be fair and I am
sure that it would be acceptable as such to the volunteer
firefighters who make such great contributions to public
welfare.
(1805)
The sentiments which I have expressed are not just mine.
They are also shared by my hon. colleagues from the Reform
caucus, in particular those representing the following ridings:
Prince George-Bulkley Valley; Kindersley-Lloydminster;
Fraser Valley East; Kootenay East; Nanaimo-Cowichan;
Okanagan-Shuswap; Macleod; Saanich-Gulf Islands;
Lisgar-Marquette; Yellowhead; Athabasca; Surrey-White
Rock- South Langley; Okanagan Centre; Surrey North;
Calgary Southeast; Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt; Wild
Rose; Lethbridge; Red Deer; and Calgary Northeast.
4727
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Madam
Speaker, I have been listening quite closely to the comments
of the various members of the three parties. I gather there is
some support for the motion.
I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to approve the
following motion and then continue on with the debate. I would
like the unanimous consent of the House for the following
motion. I move:
That this motion be votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Could I have some
precision on the motion. Are you suggesting that we stop the
debate now or do you want debate to go on?
Mr. Arseneault: I know it is a little unusual, but with
unanimous consent we can do that because we do have some
speakers who want to continue speaking. I would ask for
unanimous consent that the motion be votable at the end of the
hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to
speak to this motion which, I think, is very important to all
Canadians.
I would like to start by commending the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk for all the work he has done on this very
important issue. It is not the first time he has raised this issue in
the House. I remember very clearly having worked with him on
this issue in the last parliamentary session. It is very
encouraging to see someone who does not forget the issues he
considers important. I commend the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk for his tenacity and his dedication. I am
proud to rise today in support of this motion.
I had written in my notes that I was disappointed that the
motion was not votable but I see that this has been changed with
the unanimous consent of the House. I am very proud and very
happy to say that the motion is now votable. I thank the hon.
members, my colleagues. I urge all hon. members to maintain a
spirit of co-operation in this House.
This motion is in keeping with the government's policy of
restoring integrity and equity to the political system. The
government looked at the issue of student loans and at other
things and set out to ensure that the loan values honestly reflect
the cost of post-secondary studies. The time has come to apply
this equity principle to volunteer firefighters.
(1810)
Volunteer firefighters do exceptional work. The dedication
they bring to their communities is very important. They
encourage volunteerism in our country.
[English]
I am very pleased to be able to speak this evening on this
issue. I am also pleased that the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk has brought it to the House once again.
His motion asks that the voluntary firefighter's tax exemption
be raised from $500 to $1,000 to make it more meaningful in the
context of inflation and the valuable service these volunteers
provide to their communities. Such a move is in keeping with
the government's policy of restoring integrity and especially
equity to the fiscal system.
The government has looked at the issue of student loans and
set out to ensure that the value of the loans honestly reflects the
cost of studying. If I can compare the volunteer firemen with the
students, they are doing a service to the community and it is
costing them money. Therefore, we should have some type of
equity built into the system. I believe this motion does that.
We have heard the member from the Reform Party and the
member from the Bloc Quebecois speak about the firefighters in
their regions. I suspect their thoughts would be unanimous right
across Canada, that these firefighters do exceptional work in
their communities. These are volunteers. They do work that
goes far beyond the call of duty. They even encourage the spirit
of volunteerism.
In this day and age everyone is out for the almighty dollar and
we see limited numbers of people getting involved in their
communities. A lot of them are becoming armchair activists.
These firefighters are the people out on the front line and it is
our responsibility to make sure that we, not necessarily reward
them financially every time they do something, but put justice in
the system so it is not costing them to be a volunteer. I would
suspect that should go for other groups as well.
The firefighters in my area, and I am sure other members will
be speaking about their firefighters, are no different from those
in other areas. They are all well trained. They are on duty24 hours a day, basically on call on weekends, at night, in the
middle of storms when we are home asleep or comfortable
reading the newspaper or pursuing our favourite pastime,
watching the parliamentary channel. These people are well
trained in first aid, CPR and emergency operations.
Their work is pleasant in certain circumstances, but quite
often it is not. They are on the scene of emergencies. They are on
the scene at fires and car accidents. Quite often these scenes
bother them, but someone has to do the job.
4728
They help young people in distress. I know the volunteer
firefighters in my area are always involved with educational
programs and fire prevention. They are helpful. They are in
malls. In fact just last weekend we were in the mall in my
hometown. I had my son with me. We were walking along and
who do we see but a number of firemen giving out pamphlets
to the parents and the children were receiving balloons. They
were giving out safety advice to the parents on how to protect
their children in crowds, how to keep better rapport with the
children. That is beyond the call of duty. These are volunteers.
They not only teach children about fire safety, they teach
parents how to be safe with their children.
Quite often they raise money for community events. They
raise money for charities. They raise money for their own
uniforms quite often. They raise money for equipment that the
community cannot afford such as the jaws of life. It is usually
the firefighters who hold bingos and some even have auxiliaries
that help out. They hold bingos, sell tickets and have door to
door campaigns. They are always involved with this type of
activity.
(1815)
Often the only remuneration these men and women receive is
some type of honorarium to cover the out of pocket expenses
incurred while dealing with fires and assorted emergencies or
attending training sessions.
The Income Tax Act exempts from taxation the first $500 of
allowances received by volunteer firefighters. Since 1980 this
level has remained constant at $500. As a result of this constant
$500 level the government is now penalizing a lot of these
volunteers. Because of inflation it is costing them more money
to be volunteer firefighters than if they stayed home and did
nothing.
Our volunteer firefighters are now paying for the service they
actually provide to the community. This is over and above the
time and effort they have already donated. If we were to add up
all of the hours, we would never be able to afford these
firefighters as full time workers. Nor could we ever afford
volunteers in other sectors if we had to pay them. Therefore, it is
only fair that the government increase this exemption from$500 to $1,000.
These volunteers no doubt have saved communities right
across this country millions of dollars. The cost of this measure
is well below the savings generated by these volunteers.
[Translation]
The expenses incurred by the voluntary firefighters often
exceed this tax exemption of $500. The cost of gasoline, car
insurance, clothing and dry cleaning, for example, has become
prohibitive. So, it would be in the interests of voluntary
firefighters to increase the tax exemption.
[English]
In conclusion I congratulate the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk. As I mentioned before he presented this
motion in the last Parliament. I congratulate him for his tenacity
and his devotion to this cause. I support this motion and I hope
all members will see fit to support it when the time comes.
As the member for Restigouche-Chaleur, I would like to
thank all the volunteers in my region.
[Translation]
I want to salute and thank the voluntary firefighters.
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Madam Speaker, it is a
great pleasure for me this evening to speak on this important
private member's motion. I congratulate the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk for his hard work and diligence in the
preparation of this motion and for his dedication to the volunteer
firefighters who put their lives on the line every time they are
called out.
The member has been working for a long time to get this
motion passed in this House. I am confident all members will
see the benefits of this motion and will call on the government to
consider amending the volunteer firefighter's tax exemption
from $500 to $1,000.
The Income Tax Act currently exempts $500 from taxation.
This had been increased from $300 to $500 in the 1980 taxation
year. Looking at inflation since that time based on 14 years it is
certainly due time we recognize the firefighters for their efforts
and the kind of work they do for their communities.
This is not the first time this motion has been presented. In
one form or another it has been brought into this House on other
occasions. This topic was discussed even as far back as 1982 and
again in 1983. In 1989 the member for Haldimand-Norfolk
reintroduced the motion.
I trust the next time we speak on this issue we will be passing
the motion into law and finally giving volunteer firefighters the
increased level of tax exemption they deserve. I saw the spirit
and goodwill which can prevail in this House this evening in
allowing this motion to become a votable one. I applaud
members opposite and on this side as well for their diligence in
doing this.
(1820)
In the past members who opposed similar motions were
worried about pitting one volunteer group against another. This
is not the case in this evening's debate. All the motion says is
that it is time to give proper recognition to our firefighters,
recognition in the form of increased tax exemptions. This is not
a question of developing a new exemption, but recognition of
4729
the fact that the current exemption is not sufficient because of
the effects of inflation over the past 14 years.
All across the country thousands of brave men and women,
volunteer firefighters, offer their services to fire departments,
fire associations and auxiliaries. Even in larger communities
volunteer firefighters are heavily relied upon by full time
firefighting forces. Without volunteer firefighters full time
departments would not be able to provide the level of protection
and service needed by communities.
I would like to read into the record the names of some of the
departments and auxiliaries I represent as the MP for
Huron-Bruce. I think of the towns of Zurich, my own home
town where I have family members serving on that fire
department, Wingham, Kincardine, Lucknow, Southhampton,
Seaforth, Exeter, Hensall, and Bayfield. For those who do not
know my riding there are places such as Dashwood and Huron
Park which would be pleased to be recognized as also having
volunteer fire departments.
I look forward to this coming Saturday when I will have
breakfast with firefighters from the Brucefield Fire Department.
I also had the pleasure of serving as one of the board members of
the Bayfield volunteer fire department during my many years in
municipal politics.
I congratulate all the firefighters of Huron-Bruce for the
exceptional job they have done for us all these years. These
brave men and women provide an invaluable service to the
people of their communities. They literally have the lives of
their friends, families, and neighbours in their hands every time
they are called out. They serve their communities with honour,
dignity and pride. It is for this reason we must acknowledge
their importance and allow them exemptions of $1,000 in
recognition of their important duties to their community.
The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk has better
knowledge than some on the importance and value of volunteer
firefighters. I can think of no better example of the dedication
and bravery of volunteer firefighters than the Hagersville tire
fire. That fire was deliberately set and took the time of many
firefighters for many days. The extremely dangerous and
volatile situation forced hundreds of families to be evacuated
from their homes.
Who came to the rescue and became the first line of defence
for the people in that area? Of course it was the volunteer
firefighters of the local communities. They were outgunned by
the fire but they persevered. After many long days, sleepless
nights and personal sacrifice and hardship, they were able with
some help to defeat the fire.
This is a great example of the dedication and professionalism
of volunteer firefighters. Most of the time these individuals are
ordinary people: farmers in our communities, store owners,
plumbers, electricians, and so on. Once they are called upon to
put on their hats and boots they become the protectors of their
communities.
Often when called these men and women are docked pay from
their wages so they can serve their communities. I would like to
recognize the employers who in many cases continue to pay the
wages of their employees when they are out fighting fires for
their communities or doing those other services normally
attributed to fire departments.
In addition to the financial cost, they experience personal
sacrifice in terms of loss of time with their families and physical
and mental strain. I am sure many of us tonight can relate to an
incident where family members were called away from an
important family occasion because of a fire or because of an
emergency within the community.
(1825 )
Volunteer firefighters do not just protect their communities,
they also volunteer their time and resources to charitable causes
and community events. As the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk has already mentioned, these men and
women volunteer for everything from supporting and organizing
minor hockey and softball to raising money for the needy and
organizing holiday events and celebrations.
They are an integral part of their community. After all, what
we are really talking about is a sense of responsibility of
community and volunteerism. In today's world of financial
hardships, increases in violent crime and deterioration of family
values, we are relying more and more on the help, protection and
generosity of others.
I am sure that every member has in the past and will continue
in the future to volunteer in some capacity to some worthwhile
charity or cause. In every community across this vast country
volunteers are lending a helping hand to many different people
and worthwhile causes. The elderly, the young, the
disadvantaged and the disabled all rely on a growing group of
generous people for support.
We must do everything we can to encourage these types of
actions and therefore when it comes to giving some tax breaks to
a group of people who protect their communities, I fully support
this initiative and feel its passage is long overdue.
In conclusion, I would once again like to commend my
colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk for being persistent in
giving the volunteer firefighters of Canada the recognition and
support they deserve.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak today on the motion presented
by my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk.
4730
The motion recommends that the government amend the
voluntary firefighter's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 in
order to account for inflation and recognize the value of their
services to the community. Most Canadians probably do not
recognize the importance of our volunteer firefighters and I
would like to look at some of the stats.
Nationally there are 76,000 volunteer firefighters. Over65 per cent or 17,000 of the 26,000 firefighters in Ontario alone
are volunteers. Ninety-five per cent of the province's 653 fire
departments are staffed in whole or in part by them.
The legislative reference to this motion is section 6(1) of the
Income Tax Act. This section exempts the first $500 from
taxation of allowances received by the firefighter. Raising the
level or threshold is not a new idea. In the 1980 fiscal year the
amount was increased from $300 to $500 as was previously
stated and there have been no increases since 1980 despite
substantial increases in inflation and the cost of living.
There are really two issues here: first, to update the tax
provision which is outdated and no longer representative of
today's buying power; second, the issue of fairness in providing
recognition to those thousands of volunteers. Clearly without
volunteers many communities would not have fire protection.
This is not an exaggeration but a recognition that many rural
communities simply do not have the financial resources to pay
for full time firefighters. Even with volunteers many
communities in my riding are still dependent on shared services
with their neighbouring municipalities. I would like to take a
couple of minutes to give members a personal position on this.
In the late 1960s we had a fire on our farm. We have a poultry
farm. It was a three storey building, 21,000 square feet, and it
caught on fire. It is dead centre on our farm. We had a century
old farmhouse. There was a drive-in shed and two more barns on
the other side.
The heat was so intense it broke every window on one side of
the farmhouse. There was a 2,000 litre propane tank in front of
the barn. The firefighters helped us that night to move that tank
away. There would have been a huge hole in the ground had that
not been done. They could not save the barn, but they saved the
house, the drive-in shed and the two other barns. A lot of it was
in jeopardy of their own lives.
What would the cost be of increasing the exemption? I believe
this point was raised earlier by another speaker. The cost of full
utilization of the new exemption is estimated to be $38 million.
This is a lot of money and yet what volunteer firefighters
provide our communities offsets this lost revenue. Without
these volunteers a community would either have to forgo fire
protection or hire a full time force at a staggering price, a lot
more than what I have just mentioned. The resulting increases in
municipal taxes necessary would be prohibitive.
(1830)
Let us move on beyond dollars and take a closer look at these
people in our community. These volunteers are busy people who
hold down full time jobs and yet have time to devote to their
community. I know that every Thursday evening in many of the
towns and villages in my riding firefighters hold drill practices.
Often they will go on training sessions held in different parts of
the provinces at their own expense.
A volunteer force is a term used to distinguish it from a paid
or professional force. These are terms I do not like to use
because there is nothing unprofessional about these volunteer
firefighters. Beyond firefighting they are called upon to perform
a host of other duties. They are trained in CPR, first aid,
highway accident rescues and other emergencies.
Regarding highway accident rescues, it could be a father
heading out to an accident in which his own son or daughter
could be involved. That is a great emotional point.
One emergency in particular that comes to mind in my riding
is the tornado touchdown both in Grand Valley and the
Orangeville areas. This week marks its grizzly anniversary.
Beyond these duties firefighters selflessly devote their time
to parades, fire safety awareness campaigns, sponsorship of
local causes and fundraising events to help sustain their service.
Not only do they do their own work for nothing but they also
have to go out and raise money for their own fire department.
Almost all of this is done at their own personal expense in terms
of time and money.
I believe that this motion is significant in that it provides
recognition by this House of the work our volunteer firefighters
do and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in support of it.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise on this motion and to commend my colleague
from Haldimand-Norfolk in his initiative.
There is no question that increasing the deduction from$500 to $1,000 for volunteer firefighters is long overdue.
In my capacity as local councillor I have had exposure to both
professional and volunteer firefighters. In my community the
quality of life would not be the same if it did not have volunteer
firefighters. In a rural community it would be impossible to have
a professional firefighter force.
When we talk about volunteer firefighters we are talking
about volunteerism at its best. There is a real melting pot, what
the community is about, and there are people who respond at all
hours of the night, leaving their jobs to do so. There is no
question that their employers are to be commended as well. I
4731
really hope that at some point we do something to recognize
firefighters in general.
I have attended far too many funerals involving firefighters. I
recall part of the firefighter's prayer: ``God, if it is your will that
in the line of duty to save a child or a life I give my life, then I
ask that you take care of my children and my wife''. That kind of
selfless devotion to duty and devotion to our fellow human
beings is to be commended and recognized. I believe that this
issue should be redressed and redressed now.
(1835)
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Madam Speaker, I too compliment the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk on this initiative. There is nothing greater
than a good volunteer fire department in the community. We all
hope that we never need it, but that when it is needed it is there.
When I was first elected to a municipal council in my home
township, I was appointed chairman of the local fire committee
and public works committee. We started a very good fire
department made up of a group of people who wanted to work
for their community, who had been doing some work in it but
had no equipment with which to work. We ended up giving them
some equipment.
Over the years, they like those in many other rural
communities have built up their resources and firefighting
equipment. They have taken special courses, visited schools to
talk about fires and how to prevent them, and have gone into
homes to make inspections.
As the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk knows, these
are not just everyday citizens out there fighting fires. They are
indeed professionals in their own way. They deserve our credit.
They deserve to have the volunteer firefighter's tax exemption
as recommended by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur mentioned the
jaws of life. What could be more important in today's robust and
rapidly moving world with the highway traffic and railway
traffic, particularly if it runs through the middle of a built up
community, than to have the jaws of life on those highways and
roads in order to save people's lives. Our firefighters are very,
very well trained to operate the jaws of life.
They carry out all these dedicated tasks together in their home
community, but it goes far beyond that because they work with
fire departments in neighbouring communities. Within a matter
of a very short time a number of these departments can come
together to fight a large regional fire.
I believe that rural Canada, our small villages and towns, are
very well served by volunteer firefighters. I think they deserve
the attention of this House. They deserve the consideration of
this House for a greater tax exemption. It costs them a lot of
money for clothing that is ruined and that does not come
cheaply.
We are not asking much for them. The hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk probably knows many of these people. It
is nothing for them to have to buy new clothing after a fire. They
have to buy protective clothing as well which costs a lot of
money.
Fire departments do raise money on their own. It is a
co-operative thing for them to do. There is a good rapport
among those firefighters and their families. They do fundraising
and it is up to our communities to support them because they are
there to support us in time of need.
It is very important too that all Canadians, including
volunteers, realize that if it were not for volunteers in every
walk and every area of life such as recreation and firefighting,
there would be many qualities of life that we would not have in
rural Canada today and indeed in larger communities as well.
Let us not just talk here in terms of rhetoric in the House of
Commons about giving a tax deduction to volunteer firefighters.
I think we should mean business on this because these people are
a very important part of every small community in this country.
If we did not have volunteer firefighters to support and to look
after people at times of grass fires, bush fires, brush fires, house
fires, barn fires and road accidents, as has been mentioned it
would cost this nation and individual taxpayers a lot more
money than it is costing today under our volunteer firefighters
program.
Let us give these people every good turn that we can and say
thank you to them by giving them a tax exemption.
Once more I compliment the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk and other members in the House who have
spoken today on behalf of the volunteer firefighters across
Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired.
It being 6.42 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)