TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, October 28, 1994
Bill C-36. Report stage (without amendment) 7355
Motion for concurrence 7355
Motion for third reading 7355
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7365
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7366
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7366
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7366
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7366
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7366
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7366
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7367
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7367
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7368
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7368
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7369
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7369
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7371
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7371
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7372
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7372
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7373
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7373
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7375
Bill C-36. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 7376
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 7378
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading; and of the amendment; and the
amendment tothe amendment. 7378
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7379
Division on amendment to the amendment deferred 7383
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 7384
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7385
Division on motion deferred 7386
Bill C-210. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7386
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7387
Division on motion deferred 7394
7355
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 28, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, an act
respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of
land, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development) moved that the bill be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Eggleton (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to address the House on third reading of Bill C-36, the Split
Lake Cree First Nation Settlement Agreement Act.
I begin by thanking hon. members on behalf of the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development for supporting the bill
at second reading and in committee. I would also like to thank
the negotiators and all the people who participated in the
negotiations.
(1005)
This is neither a complex nor a controversial piece of
legislation. It has been developed through extensive
consultations with all parties that will be affected by it and is
supported by them.
Bill C-36 is concise and direct. Despite its brevity it is
important. For the Government of Canada the proclamation of
Bill C-36 will mean a release from any other further claims by
the Split Lake Cree First Nation under the northern flood
agreement.
More important, it will mean that we are fulfilling our
commitments to this First Nation. It will allow us to begin to
build a new partnership with this First Nation, a partnership
based on trust, respect and understanding for the people of the
Split Lake Cree communities.
Bill C-36 means they can now realize the full benefits of the
northern flood settlement agreement. Most elements of the
agreement are already being implemented and, as a result, the
Split Lake Cree are building a better and more secure future for
themselves.
To fully appreciate Bill C-36 we must first acknowledge that
the people of the Split Lake, Cross Lake, Nelson House, Norway
House and York Factory First Nations in northern Manitoba paid
a high price for the northern flood agreement. The flooding of
4,800 hectares of reserve lands by the Churchill River diversion
projects of Manitoba Hydro deprived many families and
communities of access to their traditional hunting, gathering,
harvesting and fishing areas. It occurred with little
consideration to the needs or rights of these people.
A quarter of a century later the Government of Canada cannot
turn back the clocks. However we can and must respect the
commitments that have been made to the First Nations
concerned. One way we will do that is by seeking parliamentary
approval and royal assent for Bill C-36.
As hon. members are aware, the governments of Canada and
Manitoba, as well as Manitoba Hydro, have attempted through
the northern flood agreement of 1977 to provide compensation
to these nations. In addition to cash compensation the agreement
contained provisions for land management, resource
development, community infrastructure, navigation and so on.
It also provided for the appointment of an arbitrator to deal with
the claims arising under the agreement.
Unfortunately the northern flood agreement is vague or silent
on many key issues. As a result it has been very difficult to
implement. It has led to frustration and excessive costs for the
parties involved as it encourages arbitration rather than
co-operation.
7356
The two governments and Manitoba Hydro have therefore
been pursuing settlement agreements with individual bands
based on a common set of principles and objectives.
Bill C-36 arises from such an agreement with the Split Lake
Cree First Nation, the first and only band specific settlement
agreement negotiated to date. The Split Lake Cree agreement
was reached in June 1992. It fulfilled all outstanding obligations
of the Government of Canada to the First Nation pursuant to the
northern flood agreement.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the agreement is already being
implemented with no significant problems. It is providing
additional financial compensation to the Split Lake Cree. As
well, it is providing for the transfer of certain lands to the First
Nation, the creation of two new reserves, and increased
socioeconomic opportunities for the Split Lake Cree.
The government made a commitment in the agreement to
entrench several of its provisions in legislation. This is what we
are endeavouring to achieve with Bill C-36.
Specifically Bill C-36 implements four provisions of the
agreement, all of which stand to benefit both the First Nation
and the government. First it will remove any administrative
responsibility the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development might have for moneys paid under the Split Lake
agreement. By stipulating that these are not Indian moneys
under the Indian Act, this in turn will give the First Nation far
greater control over the funds which will be managed on its
behalf by a trustee.
(1010)
Bill C-36 will also ensure that provincial crown lands
provided in fee simple title as a result of the settlement
agreement will not become special reserves under sections 35
and 36 of the Indian Act.
The First Nation will thus control the use and management of
these lands without interference from the government and
without the restrictions of the Indian Act. From the
government's perspective this clause means the department will
not have responsibility for these lands.
Bill C-36 will also address the costly and cumbersome
dispute resolution process set out in the northern flood
agreement. Individual band members can continue to make
certain claims against Manitoba Hydro, but the simplified
adjudication process set in the Split Lake Cree settlement
agreement will take precedence over the process included in the
northern flood agreement.
Finally, Bill C-36 ensures that the Government of Canada can
utilize the Manitoba Arbitration Act when matters are in dispute
under the northern flood agreement with regard to the Split Lake
Cree First Nation. Currently Canada is the only party to the
agreement that does not have access to these arbitration
mechanisms.
As I indicated a moment ago, five First Nations were affected
by the Churchill River diversion projects and are therefore
eligible to receive benefits under the northern flood agreement.
However Bill C-36 applies to only one of those First Nations,
the Split Lake Cree, since it is the only First Nation that has
signed a band specific settlement agreement. I am hopeful that
negotiations with the remaining First Nations will be
successfully concluded in the future.
It is important hon. members understand that Bill C-36 does
not give force to the Split Lake Cree Settlement Agreement, as
the agreement is already being implemented. It does not place a
new burden on the government but simply ensures that we live
up to our commitment as set out in the agreement. The passage
of Bill C-36 will have a significant impact on the members who
make up the Split Lake Cree First Nation.
The goal of the minister responsible for this challenging
portfolio is to make a difference in aboriginal and northern
communities and to give families and individuals both the hope
and the tools for a brighter and better future.
I urge hon. members to join me in pursuing that goal. Bill
C-36 is an important element of the legislative agenda of the
government for aboriginal people. It deserves the support of the
House so that it can be referred to the other chamber at the
earliest possible date.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address the House to support, on behalf of the
Official Opposition, Bill C-36, an Act respecting the Split Lake
Cree First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an
agreement relating to the flooding of land in Manitoba.
I would like to start by putting the bill into context, because
what happened in northern Manitoba in connection with the
construction of a hydro-electric project on lands traditionally
held by aboriginal communities has had a major impact on these
communities. It is also an object lesson for our governments and
people in the south, who failed to give these issues the
consideration they deserved.
The events took place in the seventies in northern Manitoba
and involved a Manitoba Hydro hydro-electric project.
(1015)
I may add that in a number of other areas in Canada, and
especially in Quebec at the time, there were plans to develop
hydro-electric power on several rivers in the north. The people
of Quebec will remember that at the time, an agreement was
negotiated with the Cree in connection with the James Bay
hydro-electric development project. I will come back to this
later on in my speech.
7357
The purpose of the project that concerns us today, was to
develop hydro-electric power on the Churchill and Nelson
Rivers. It was an enormous project. It involved diverting about
85 per cent of the waters of the Churchill River to the Nelson
River. It included the construction of dikes, dams, channels and
hydro-electric power stations. This altered the rate of flow in
the affected waterways, immense reservoirs were built, and lake
water levels changed.
The communities that lived on these lands traditionally lived
along the waterways that provided means of transportation, their
livelihood and food in the form of fish, so their whole
environment was disrupted. In my region in the twenties, we had
a similar development that affected the Lac-Saint-Jean when
hydro-electric dams were built to form a reservoir for the Île
Maligne power station.
The shores of the Lake Saint-Jean were flooded. A few years
ago, a local filmmaker, who I believe worked for the National
Film Board, produced a documentary called La tragédie du Lac
Saint-Jean. What we are about to discuss this morning in
connection with the development of hydro-electric power in
northern Manitoba is similar to this situation. I think some
tragic events took place, and I think that is something we should
not forget.
The territory involved in the hydro-electric development
project in northern Manitoba is immense, covering more than
250,000, and perhaps as much as 300,000, square kilometres.
Manitoba Hydro invested a total of nearly $3 billion in this
project. Nearly 18 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity are
produced, with sales estimated at between $5 million and $6
million annually. This enormous project will probably be of
great benefit to Manitoba. Hydro-electric power is a source of
wealth, and it is one of the cleanest sources of electric power, but
although it has been of great benefit to Manitoba, the project has
been a tragedy for the five First Nations living on the shores of
the Nelson River.
These are the Cross Lake, the Nelson House, the Norway
House, the York Factory and the Split Lake First Nations. The
bill before the House this morning is specific to the Split Lake
nation. Altogether, about 10,000 Cree status Indian living on
these five reserves were affected. The hydro-electric
development project flooded about 11,800 acres of land on the
reserves or more than 10 per cent of their territory. The lands
that were flooded were those that had been traditionally and
continuously occupied, being, as I said earlier, those located
along the waterways which served as a means of communication
with the outside world.
(1020)
Before the development of hydroelectricity, the traditional
way of life of native people was what they had known from time
immemorial. It was similar to the way they lived at the
beginning of the century. They relied on federal assistance as
they should, since they were entitled to it under the treaties they
had signed, but mainly they relied on hunting, fishing and
trapping for their livelihood.
And then, progress came from the south and disrupted
everything. As you can imagine, with the start of huge projects
and the arrival of southern workers living in camps and coming
into contact with people on the reserves, the native way of life
was bound to change. But the biggest change was the disruption
of the ecosystem brought about by the dams. There was a change
in the ecosystem of the Churchill and Nelson rivers as well as of
neighbouring lakes and lakes which are merely wider parts of
the river.
The water regime changed. In some places, the water flow
dropped dramatically, while in others it rose sharply to the point
of submerging banks.
Obviously, it has had an impact on the local plant and animal
life. Hunting, fishing and trapping activities have been
disrupted. Trapping often depends on water levels. Animals,
such as beavers, live in streams and when you change the
ecosystem, you disrupt their way of life and they must move or
modify their habits. Thus traditional trapping, hunting and
fishing grounds have been greatly altered.
Infrastructures such as wharfs and camps which had been used
from time immemorial were lost. We often reflect on what the
impact has been in the summer, but during the winter, people
used to snowshoe across frozen lakes and rivers. Dams have
changed the water flow and water level in streams. When you
open the gates, the water level goes down and people can no
longer walk on the ice as they have always done. Thus, even in
the winter, their way of life has been greatly disrupted.
The most dramatic changes can be seen in the local native
peoples' way of life. To start with, they have suffered a loss of
income. Those who used to live from hunting, fishing and
trapping have seen their income drop. The cost of living went
up. Workers came in from the south, bringing along new
products and introducing new habits among natives. All this
meant an increase in the cost of living. Goods went up in price
because people could not rely as much on hunting, fishing and
trapping for their livelihood. They were forced to buy food, but
at higher prices because everything had to be shipped from the
south.
There was also a transformation of their mental and physical
environment, in other words, their quality of life suffered. For
generations they had lived next to a given river, they had
particular activities, they recognized the landscape. Oral
tradition had given rocks or places particular significance.
When the land was flooded, a lot of significant landmarks were
lost. Just think of our feelings when, by chance, we go through
the village or the street where we grew up 40, 50 or 60 years ago.
We know
7358
it is the same place, we recognize a few things, but we realize
that the environment has changed.
(1025)
For the native peoples of the North affected by the harnessing
of the Churchill and Nelson rivers, the environment changed
suddenly. They no longer recognized their rivers, their lakes.
They could no longer find the places where their people used to
gather and live as a community. A part of their culture had been
flooded at the same time as the river banks and the lake shores.
Yet, these people had rights. At that time we were not talking
about rights entrenched in the Constitution, because this
happened in the early 1970s in Manitoba. But these people had
treaty rights, under Treaty No. 5, signed and negotiated with the
federal government by their ancestors. Since they had rights
over this land, it was to be expected that they would be entitled
to compensation for losses incurred and that measures would be
taken to help ensure decent living conditions on their ancestral
land.
Of course it may have been less trouble for some people if
these people had migrated south. Many wonder why one would
want to live on ancestral land, when economic activity is
difficult and everything is so expensive in these remote,
northern areas; transportation costs in particular are
astronomical. So, it would make things much easier if
everybody just moved down south. But that is not what our
country is about. That is not how we operate in Quebec and in
Canada. Quebec and Canada are areas, land that was developed
over the years by our fathers and forefathers, land on which we
want to continue to live.
I can understand that aboriginal peoples of the north, be it
Northern Quebec or Northern Manitoba, want to live in dignity
on their own land. The issue of regional development was
debated extensively in my region, the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. People want to continue to
develop this land. They want to live on this land. They want their
children to find work there and the community as a whole to
prosper.
These are requests often made to governments. People ask:
``Give us the means to live on this land of ours''. I can
understand full well the situation of native peoples from
Northern Manitoba who have seen their land altered, but wish to
continue living in dignity on that land.
An agreement was to be concluded between interested parties.
These interested parties are the five native peoples, Manitoba
Hydro, as the financial backer of this project, the Province of
Manitoba, which owns the Crown lands, and the government of
Canada, as trustee for the natives affected, under the Indian Act.
It all started, as I said earlier, in the early 1970s. In 1968,
Manitoba Hydro received a licence from the provincial
government to develop the northern territory covered by the
Churchill and Nelson Rivers.
In 1972, Manitoba Hydro decided to go ahead. There was, of
course, a debate among the population at that time. The Natives
argued that they had rights. Some people more sensitive to
environmental considerations also took part in the debate. There
was a good discussion.
The licence was granted in 1968 and Manitoba Hydro decided
to go ahead in 1972. In 1974, the Department of Indian Affairs
got involved, some four or five years after the project was
initiated. The Department of Indian Affairs assumed its
responsibilities and ruled that, under Sections 28 and 35 of the
Indian Act, the project could not be carried out without the
agreement of the bands concerned.
(1030)
The federal government, which had a responsibility in this
regard, finally notified everyone involved that the agreement of
Native peoples had to be secured.
In 1975, negotiations began between the federal government,
the province, Manitoba Hydro and the five nations represented
by the Northern Flood Committee. This committee had
represented Native people since 1974. Representatives from
each nation had formed a committee to negotiate with Manitoba
Hydro, the Province of Manitoba and the federal government.
Negotiations took place and, in 1977, the Manitoba Flood
Agreement was signed. In other words, an agreement was
reached in 1977 and the First Nations concerned agreed that the
project could go forth. At that time, compensation was provided
for flooded lands, for lost community infrastructure and for the
loss of hunting and fishing rights. Steps were to be taken to
ensure fair treatment for the Native people affected. That was
the agreement.
Unfortunately, as the representative of the Minister of Indian
Affairs said before me, this agreement was vague on certain
points. Some matters were not settled and too many issues were
poorly resolved or negotiated, so that the agreement could not be
implemented.
The most contentious points that were put on the back burner
concerned adding lands to the reserves to replace the flooded
lands or giving the first nations concerned other lands in return
for the flooded lands.
Another point left in limbo was the employment of reserve
members on building sites. One would have thought that with
the building sites open in those regions, an adequate and
rigorous policy would be in place to allow members of the First
Nations concerned to work on hydro-electric projects if they
wished to do so. The agreement was vague on this point.
7359
There was the whole issue of environmental monitoring. Land
was flooded, so the plant and animal life were disrupted and we
realize that there were surely environmental problems. The
agreement contained no strict, specific measures for proper
environmental monitoring. Of course, we are looking at it today
from the vantage point of the 1990s and, in the 1970s, people
may have been less sensitive. Today, when we think of all the
environmental studies and precautions that an organization must
take if it wants to proceed with hydro-electric development in
the north, we realize that nothing was done in Manitoba in the
1970s or whatever was done was inadequate.
In my region, there was a hydro-electric development project
on the Ashuapmushuan River. I say ``was'' because that project
seems to have been abandoned for now. For seven or eight years,
Hydro-Québec has been conducting studies, making public
submissions, setting up review committees and boards to hear
what the public thinks. Today we find it quite right and proper to
protect the environment. That was not the case in northern
Manitoba in the 1970s.
The agreement between the native peoples and Manitoba
Hydro left this whole issue unresolved.
(1035)
Another important thing is that the agreement did not provide
for a body to implement it. You might think that the committee
of First Nations on the flooding of land in northern Manitoba
would have dealt with this issue, but the agreement did not
provide for any spending or an adequate amount to cover the
costs. There should have been an auxiliary agreement to specify
this, but no such agreement was ever concluded.
So in 1977, we had what I would call a bungled agreement that
was very inadequate. The result was predictable. Implementing
the agreement was a tragic failure for the Native people
concerned. From 1982 to 1993, the Native people filed 174
applications for arbitration under the agreement. That is a huge
number. It means that the Native people concerned had to fight
inch by inch, make representations and file complaints with an
arbitrator to enforce an agreement that they had signed in good
faith. Of course, they are in a pitiful situation.
It is clear that for the Native people concerned, the project had
very harmful consequences, as the Department of Indian Affairs
has admitted. For example, in terms of the environment, the
Department of Indian Affairs has admitted that some
deterioration of commercial and recreational areas can be
observed. I have spoken about it at length from the beginning.
The department has also been able to observe an increase in
mercury contamination. Those are waterways, and the presence
of mercury in water is very harmful to fish and to those who eat
that fish.
It was noticed that the drinking water in some communities
was contaminated, this in an area where water is found
everywhere. In northern Manitoba, there are lakes, rivers and
streams on much of the land, but some of the water used by
Aboriginal people was contaminated. A reduction in the
quantity and the quality of fish was noticed. The Department of
Indian Affairs recognized that game and fish became scarce.
In 1992, the Auditor General examined the issue. I must admit
that, since I come from Quebec, I did not have a very good grasp
of the issue, but the problem has been discussed for years in
Manitoba. In 1992, the Auditor General found that the
Department of Indian Affairs, which had signed the agreement
on behalf of Canada, had not done its duty regarding the
environmental aspects of this project. The Auditor General told
us that the department had not conducted an adequate
preliminary environmental assessment, that it did not have a
plan to monitor the environmental impact of the hydroelectric
project, and that it did not present a report to the bands
concerned on the implementation of the recommendations made
in 1975 regarding the environment.
The Native peoples concerned had told the Department of
Indian Affairs that the project had serious consequences.
Recommendations had been made in 1975, but the department
did not implement them. Aside from these environmental
considerations, the agreement also included provisions on major
concerns of Native peoples, but these were not implemented.
Canada did not fulfill its commitment to transfer some land to
the reserves, in exchange for the land that was flooded.
Seventeen years later, in 1993-94, only one per cent of the
promised land had been transferred.
(1040)
Also, community development was never really promoted.
Some initiatives were taken, as the parliamentary secretary said
earlier, but little was done for community and economic
development in those regions.
In 1980, a plan was developed to promote employment,
health, transportation, housing and education. That plan was not
implemented and, in spite of that, no monitoring process was
devised to ensure its implementation.
Consequently, 20 years later we find ourselves with an
enormous mess on our hands. Of course Hydro Manitoba is
pleased: it generates electric power. The province is also pleased
because it promoted its own economic development. The federal
government was not seen to be particularly pleased, but then,
during his speech earlier, the parliamentary secretary did
express satisfaction that the bill before the House this morning
7360
will free the Department of Indian Affairs from some of its
duties.
The fact remains that some people benefitted from all this,
some people benefitted from this development, but so far it has
not been the Natives living on these territories. Why? Because
the proposed agreement was ill-conceived and there was no
agency to implement it. This agency, as I mentioned earlier,
should have been the committee that negotiated on behalf of the
aboriginal peoples, that is the Northern Flood Committee, but
since the agreement did not provide for its funding, we are
without such an agency.
Moreover, in 1983, the judge presiding over some of these
matters stated that if someone had wanted to strip the committee
of all its duties, he would not have acted any differently. The
best way to go about it was to provide no funding at all. We must
realize that this committee was supposed to implement the
agreement over a vast territory. This would have entailed
permanent staff, management, transportation costs, legal costs
for representation in court. In any case, it would have cost a lot
of money. The agreement did not provide funding for this
committee. I think it should have, but it did not.
A solution had to be found, so, 1986, the committee which had
overseen the negotiations for the agreement and managed to
survive, proposed a new round of comprehensive negotiations to
settle all outstanding claims and to put an end to all these
disputes. This was in 1986, six years after the Agreement was
signed.
Three years later, in 1989, a new round of negotiations
started. This is a very slow process. Admittedly, aboriginal
people are patient but when they ask for negotiations and these
negotiations only start three years later, somebody somewhere
is not making all the efforts needed to solve the problem.
In July 1990, another settlement agreement was signed on
outstanding land claims and obligations. Among other things, it
was decided to transfer at least 834 square kilometres of Crown
lands to the Indians concerned. Thus, a settlement agreement
was signed that was going to be used as a kind of framework
agreement for the negotiations embarked upon by the
Aboriginal peoples, since each one of them is in a unique
situation. All of them are not located along the same river. Their
physical and economic conditions differ. Of course, each and
every one of them wants negotiations that meet its own
particular needs.
But the agreement signed in 1990 was supposed to be a
framework agreement. In 1992, the Split Lake First Nation, the
one mentioned in the bill before us this morning, apparently
accepted a special agreement that stemmed from the proposed
agreement. As for the four other nations, negotiations are still
going on. At the present time, they negotiate on an individual
basis with the authorities to reach agreements. There are
separate negotiations for each of the four nations. Was the
intention to divide and conquer? If so, this was certainly
successful.
(1045)
The agreement signed by the Split Lake Cree Nation provides
particularly for some rule on the water level, meaning that the
aboriginal people will be consulted and will have their say on
water levels and flows. The agreement specifies which lands
will have to be transferred by the Crown to the province of
Manitoba for the reserves and for the native populations. The
agreement provides for a partnership for resource management
and planning for the use of traditional lands. The agreement
provides for adequate environmental monitoring with a very
active participation by the Cree. The agreement provides for the
payment of certain amounts per capita and pensions to the
elders. This is part of the compensation owed to the aboriginal
peoples for the losses they incurred due to the hydro
development project.
The agreement also specifies that the right of native
populations to have access to regular government programs is
not diminished because of the fact that they have received
money under this agreement. If we take away their right to have
access to regular government programs because of the money
they have received, they will be as poor as they were before.
It is also expected that measures will be taken to ensure that
members of the native community affected can find jobs at
Manitoba Hydro and that business opportunities are created to
help these populations revitalize the local economy.
The agreement also provides for an adequate arbitration
mechanism. This is essential because nothing guarantees that
this agreement will always be implemented to everyone's
satisfaction. So there is a need for an arbitration mechanism.
There is also the possibility of opening a trust account to make
money available to the native people so that they can manage
this own development. for development purposes. All these
measures may require fiscal commitments of $15 million from
the federal government and of $4 to $5 million from the
province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro, as well as
guarantees of some $21 million from Manitoba Hydro. This
means that money will be made available to the Cree to
stimulate economic development in the area.
Now, you may ask, since an agreement has been reached, why
do we have to study a bill on this agreement? The bill is designed
to facilitate the settlement of matters arising from the Split Lake
agreement.
Thanks to this bill, the aboriginal population of Split Lake
will be able to receive directly the money owed to them. It will
not have to go through the federal government. My party has
frequently asked this government for amendments to the current
legislation that many people would welcome. At present, money
made available to Indian or Native nations must go through the
Indian affairs department, which is responsible for the manage-
7361
ment of that money. With this bill, the Split Lake population will
get administrative control over the funds made available to
them.
This bill also exempts from reserve land status certain federal
lands to be transferred. That will give the Split Lake population
better control over those territories. That also means less
responsibility for the department.
(1050)
Native peoples will get better control, but, as a result, the
department will have to assume lesser responsibilities as their
trustee. What matters is that these peoples take charge of their
own lives and that the trusteeship of the Indian affairs
department gradually diminish.
The bill provides that the agreement takes precedence over
the 1977 agreement. That agreement was bungled and
ill-conceived. Therefore, the agreement the Crees signed in
1992 will have precedence over the clauses of the previous
agreement that are not as clear.
There is also a dispute settlement mechanism under the
Manitoba legislation. This means that people can be more easily
summoned and that procedural rules are clearer and more
restrictive for all parties.
Mr. Speaker, you can see from my speech that I have realized
that there has been a hydroelectric development. The population
has suffered because of that and should receive some kind of
compensation. The Split Lake agreement signed in 1992
provides the population concerned with the means to look after
its own development and the bill submitted to us will help that.
That is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill in
third reading.
However, some issues were raised when we heard witnesses at
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The Bloc
Quebecois members sitting on this committee intend to suggest
that the committee ask the minister that some of our
recommendations be implemented in order that agreements with
the other four nations now negotiating be reached.
We will ask that the committee negotiating that issue for
Aboriginal people gets adequate funding to ensure proper
service to the communities involved in future negotiations. We
will ask that the federal government authorize anticipated
payments or non-interest-bearing loans so that funds be given
to people negotiating in order that they have immediate access
to all the monies required for their economic recovery. And
when other nations settle, the anticipated payments will be
deducted from amounts due.
Perhaps we will also ask the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development to seriously consider reviewing the
amounts the Split Lake nation settled for in the agreement
reached if other communities should obtain much higher
amounts through negotiations. We must say that the Split Lake
people are taking a risk under the circumstances. They are the
first to sign and the others could get much more. Canada, the
province of Manitoba and Hydro Manitoba will benefit from the
fact that people in Split Lake want to take that risk, but I think
they should not have to put up with negative consequences in the
future because they were the first to accept.
We will also ask the committee to recommend that the
Department of Indian Affairs ensure the continued use of
environmental impact studies, and we want the federal
government to see to it that the parties act in good faith during
current negotiations with the four other nations.
(1055)
I am not accusing anyone, but I have the impression that in
this process, especially in the case of the agreement signed in
1977, some people wanted to take advantage of the situation,
and that the parties were acting in strict good faith.
Since my time is running out, I will start my concluding
remarks.
The agreement before the House today is not a comprehensive
agreement like those concluded in 1975 at James Bay, in 1984 on
the Mackenzie, in 1990 in Yukon and in 1992 in Nunavut. This
agreement concerns only one of the nations, but the philosophy
is the same. In other words, faced with the fact that Aboriginal
peoples were making claims and had rights in Canada, Canada
and Quebec realized that it was necessary to have agreements in
good faith involving aboriginal peoples and the various
governments concerned.
In concluding, I may recall that the first agreement in this
country was the agreement signed in Quebec with the James Bay
Cree in 1975, while a side agreement was signed in 1978 with
the Naskapi of Northeastern Quebec. It was the first significant
and comprehensive agreement signed in Canada and was ratified
in 1977 by an Act of Parliament.
Hon. members will recall that, at the time, the federal
government's objective was to extinguish the aboriginal rights
of all Indians who signed agreements. The Crees who signed the
James Bay agreement relinquished their aboriginal rights to the
lands concerned. These lands represented an immense territory
of more than one million square kilometres, about 69 per cent of
the territory of Quebec. This agreement was implemented.
I think Quebec can be proud of the fact that the agreement
signed in the seventies by the Bourassa government was
implemented by subsequent governments, including the Parti
Quebecois government headed by Mr. Lévesque. These
agreements were entered into in good faith by the Crees and the
Neskapis, the federal government, the province of Quebec and
Hydro-Quebec. As far as I know, the parties concerned, have
seen to it that the agreement is respected. I think it has been, to
the satisfaction of all parties. Substantial amounts of money
were
7362
made available to the James Bay Cree; their territorial rights are
clear; they managed to organize a Native police force; there
were propoer environmental assessments. As far as health and
education are concerned, Cree communities have been able to
set up all the services they need and are in charge of running
their own affairs.
In closing, I can say that my party intends to support Bill
C-36. An injustice has been done to the Aboriginal peoples in
Northern Manitoba, and I think it is the duty of the federal
government to redress it. If Bill C-36 before the House today
can be helpful in this respect, it will be a pleasure for us to
support this bill.
The Speaker: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members as provided under Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7362
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on numerous occasions during the past few weeks
members of the Reform Party have included in their statements
the amount the debt increases during the one minute they speak.
Fair enough. Emphasizing the seriousness of our economic
difficulties is important.
But members of the opposite party fail to tell the complete
story and ignore some of the important disbursements the
government will make. In the next minute, $38,000 will be paid
to seniors, $28,000 will be transferred to the provinces to pay for
medical services, $15,000 will be disbursed to low income
Canadians through the child tax and GST credits and $29,000 of
tax expenditures will be incurred to support retirement savings
plans.
Unlike some members of the Reform Party we in the
government are cognizant of our social responsibilities to
individual Canadians. We intend to ensure that people do not die
for lack of medical care, do not go hungry for lack of food and do
not suffer from exposure for lack of housing.
As Liberals we intend to live up to all of our responsibilities.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has refused to create an external
control mechanism to monitor the questionable activities of the
Communications Security Establishment. In so doing, he is
going against the traditional position of the Liberal Party of
Canada.
In fact, the Liberal members on the special committee
reviewing the CSIS Act in 1990 recommended that the CSE be
subject to outside control. We also remember that the former
Liberal Solicitor General, Robert Kaplan, believed as well that
informal administrative controls are no longer sufficient. A
democratic, independent external control mechanism is
required for the activities of the CSE. The Bloc Quebecois
believes that the government must make a parliamentary
committee responsible for monitoring the CSE's activities.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1992 in my riding of Surrey North a 16-year old boy
named Jesse Cadman was murdered by Isaac Deas who at the
time was a juvenile and on a court imposed curfew.
Since that tragedy Jesse's father Chuck has become very
active in trying to change the Young Offender's Act. I have
received over 1,000 letters from my riding expressing support
for Chuck and his group CRY, or Crime, Responsibility and
Youth.
Chuck's latest initiative is a lawsuit against the father of Isaac
Deas and the crown for failing to enforce the court imposed
curfew. Had that curfew been enforced, Jesse would be alive
today.
I support Chuck Cadman in assigning responsibility to
parents who seemingly have not made reasonable effort to
exercise parental control. I support his effort to hold the crown
accountable to those who are under its supervision in the
community. I ask the Minister of Justice to make himself
accountable to the Canadian public and heed the concerns of
citizens like Chuck Cadman.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to remind the House that the week of
October 23 to 29, 1994 has been designated National Sleep
Awareness Week.
7363
[Translation]
Thousands of Canadians suffer from sleep/wake disorders.
Sleep-Wake Disorders Canada meets the needs of people who
have various sleep/wake disorders, from insomnia to diseases
such as narcolepsy, excessive drowsiness and sleep apnea,
where the person stops breathing several times during the night.
[English]
Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada is a national voluntary health
organization devoted to helping people who suffer from
sleep/wake disorders through the development of educational
packages and the establishment of self-help groups in local
communities across the country.
When we turn our clocks back at the end of this week, let us
think of the difficulties some of our citizens have with various
sleeping disorders and remember the efforts of Sleep/Wake
Disorders Canada which sponsors National Sleep Awareness
Week.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Waterloo area is a breeding ground for information technology
entrepreneurs. There are currently 125 export oriented IT
companies with a workforce of 5,500 in the Waterloo area. The
current revenues are $600 million annually. They project that by
the year 2000 they could have a workforce of 25,000 to 30,000.
These are highly paid, knowledge based, export oriented jobs.
Yesterday I had the pleasure to host in Ottawa 14 CEOs
representing IT companies. They met with officials of the
industry department and ministers of the government. Their
message to government was clear: they are not looking for
handouts or subsidies.
They stated that it was easier for them to sell their IT products
to the Untied States government than to the Canadian
government. They asked that in cases in which their product was
superior and priced better than the U.S. products that the
Canadian government buy Canadian made IT products.
The logic of their plea to us is inescapable and our
procurement practices should reflect this.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
the minister of heritage and the government reinstated at a
modest cost the court challenges program. For those who are
new to the House, the elimination of this program in 1992 was an
example of the previous government's failure to protect the
rights of disadvantaged Canadians.
(1105 )
This program funds equality seeking groups and individuals
who seek to use the charter to establish their legal and
constitutional rights and yet who do not have the financial
resources to challenge on their own.
By bringing injustices to court for judgment, the rights of all
Canadians are defined and enforced.
The Liberals, true to their red book word, have lived up to
their promise.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
wonder if the Liberals have not lost their red book somewhere
between two phony consultations and three unkept
commitments. But let us return to it anyway, to remind ourselves
of their election promises.
Speaking of the importance of restoring public trust, the
Liberals told us: ``This erosion of confidence seems to have
many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain
elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political
leadership''.
So on the first opportunity, the Liberal government and the
Prime Minister gloss over an unpardonable indiscretion by a
Cabinet minister. The Prime Minister casually rebuffs the
Official Opposition which asks him to enforce the most basic
rules of ethics. What has become of the Liberal promises? What
has become of their principles?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, our country is drowning in deficit and
haemorrhaging in debt. Yet day after day the Liberals jump to
their feet to proudly announce that Canada is the best country in
the world to live in.
When one compares Canada with other countries in the world,
there is no contest. Even if things were two or three times as bad
in Canada it would still be the best country in the world to live
in.
I would like to suggest a different test for the Liberals to
ponder. Compare how Canada is now with all these problems
and how it could be were it not for 25 years of irresponsible Tory
and Liberal governments. That is the real test.
By the way, as of this morning our national debt stands at
$536,017,269,801.89. Shame on that irresponsible government.
7364
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Dennis Sweeting, a
constituent of mine who was recently appointed a member of the
Order of Canada for his outstanding contribution to the
performing arts.
Mr. Sweeting who lives in Sunderland, Ontario has had and
continues to have a busy and active life. He has been a
professional actor since 1938. He is the founding director of the
Kawartha Summer Theatre and he is the former president of the
Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists. He
served on the municipal council of the town of Lindsay as reeve
and was elected by his peers as warden of the county of Victoria.
Mr. Sweeting is a well known and respected citizen in the
riding of Victoria-Haliburton and encourages the youth of our
country to pursue their dreams as actors and playwrights.
I congratulate Dennis Sweeting on his appointment. He is
truly an outstanding Canadian who has devoted his life to
improving the world around him.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to rise today and congratulate a constituent
who has been recently named to the Atlantic Agriculture Hall of
Fame. For more than 20 years the hall of fame has honoured
people who have contributed greatly to our society. This year's
recipient is Elmer MacDonald of Hunter River, Prince Edward
Island.
Mr. MacDonald reflects the excellent calibre of farmers
Prince Edward Island produces. He started out nearly 50 years
ago as a small dairy producer and today is the owner and
operator of his own dairy processing company, Health Milk
Company, employing 40 people.
Mr. MacDonald attributes his success not to any large
corporate management but to his family and his staff which have
co-operatively built his small dairy operation into a thriving
island business. Mr. MacDonald's accomplishment is an
example of how family farms contribute to the success of
society as a whole.
Mr. MacDonald is an island farmer who has brought
prosperity to his family, his workers and his community. I
congratulate him on receiving this honour.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just the
other night I conducted a town hall meeting in my riding of
Hamilton West to gain some input on the social security review
from my constituents.
I would like to thank everyone who attended the town hall that
evening including my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
(1110 )
Several valuable messages emerged from that town hall
meeting. Those who spoke agreed that the status quo is not
acceptable. The Hamilton District Labour Council implored us
not to rush the process. We were told not to place the burden of
cost cutting on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged.
Students at McMaster University asked us to work toward a
more progressive tax system.
I encourage all my colleagues in the House to conduct
consultations in their own ridings on the social security review.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, yet another voice joined in the chorus in support of the
transfer of manpower training powers from Ottawa to the
provinces.
Indeed, Mr. Thomas D'Aquino, chairman of the Business
Council on National Issues, stated yesterday that such
decentralization would be ideal; it would be good for the
Canadian economy as well as for the work force as a whole.
The consensus that has been taking shape in Quebec these past
five years, and that I referred to yesterday, now extends beyond
these boundaries. After more than five years of debate, five
years of explanation and frustration, Quebec's message is
finally being heard in other parts of Canada, or so it seems.
The last group of people to convince, the slowest, most
sclerotic one, which has been refusing to listen for five years
now, is the federal government.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on October 22, 2,000 people gathered in
south Surrey to remember 16-year old Pamela Cameron. Pamela
fell victim to a cold blooded murderer on October 4 who pulled
her off a busy street at four o'clock in the afternoon. However,
Pamela is only one of many victims. Pamela's parents, her
boyfriend, relatives, friends and schoolmates grieve her death.
The communities of Surrey, White Rock and Milton, Ontario
share their loss.
Many other victims never even met Pamela. These are our
children whose parents now feel compelled to drive them to and
from school, teenagers who cannot leave their homes
unescorted,
7365
and children who cannot play outside unless an adult keeps an
eye on them.
The death of Pamela Cameron claimed only one life but it has
impacted on thousands. We will never be able to legislate the
end of all murders but we have the ability to prevent many.
Now is the time to pass the necessary legislation. Rhetoric and
promises are not acceptable. Canadians are demanding action
now.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this being Friday I think it is the time to have a
little good news to cheer us up for the weekend.
The statistics at the end of September indicate that the
unemployment rate is down in Canada to 10.1 per cent. Three
hundred and twenty-seven thousand jobs were created since this
government was sworn into office. Sixty-six thousand more
people are working this month than last month. The help wanted
index was up by 14 per cent.
[Translation]
It is important to note that Angus Reid polls show the
popularity of the Liberals at 57 per cent, confidence in the Prime
Minister at 71 per cent, the popularity of the Liberal Party of
Canada at 51 per cent in British Columbia, 48 per cent in
Alberta, 61 per cent in Manitoba, and 68 per cent in Ontario.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
former U.S. negotiator Carla Hill said last week that the North
American free trade agreement should be expanded to include
other Latin American countries such as Chile.
We agree. Protectionist walls around the globe must fall.
Protectionist self-interest can be best served by the tremendous
benefit that trade can generate.
The new GATT agreement will stimulate global trade by an
additional $755 billion U.S. over the next eight years. The
global net income will increase by an additional $500 billion by
the year 2005.
For every $1 billion in trade at least 10,000 Canadian jobs are
created. United we stand.
Congratulations to both sides of the House for endorsing
Canada's commitment to implement the World Trade
Organization legislation. We expect our major trading partners
to fulfil their commitment in time for January 1, 1995.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
summer the 11 ministers of agriculture agreed to a set of rural
initiatives which was to include a rural child care action plan.
The department of human resources has apparently allocated
something like $720 million to provide some 150,000 child care
spaces and so far there is no indication of how much of that will
go to rural areas.
(1115 )
I would appreciate it if the government and the minister in
charge would give more consideration to the existing rural child
care models. They are experimental.
Langruth, Manitoba has an active plan. This community of
some 500 souls has provided a model of child care which goes
beyond day care. It is working and needs special financing. It
does not cost more than the other type but it needs recognition
that the requirements are-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): At first blush
the 35th Parliament appeared like no other when 205 rookie MPs
eagerly took their places in the House of Commons,
unprecedented in any Canadian Parliament.
I am one of those rookies who ran on a platform that states:
``We affirm that political parties should be guided by stated
values and principles which are shared by their members and
rooted in the political belief of Canadians. We believe in the
accountability of elected representatives to the people who elect
them''.
Why is it today that I feel embarrassed as a member of this
House when the honesty and integrity on which all of us
supposedly ascribed to has been eroded? Public confidence in
the politicians of this country will never be restored when
inaction and imprudence creeps into the system.
As the hon. Prime Minister said in his throne speech: ``Trust
once shattered is difficult, almost impossible to rebuild''.
_____________________________________________
7365
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told this House that he
had been aware of the heritage minister's letter, the beginning of
the month. Yet, we learned in today's
Ottawa Citizen that ethics
counsellor Howard Wilson said late Wednesday afternoon that
he had never heard of the case.
7366
Did the Prime Minister consult the ethics counsellor and, if
so, when?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself, but I asked that he
be consulted yesterday.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain to this House that
he consulted the ethics counsellor only a few hours before the
minister of heritage made his statement? Is this not an admission
of how little importance he attaches to this counsellor's advice?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was informed of the minister's letter, I knew
that Privy Council advisers had analyzed the problem and I was
given a recommendation to that effect. I did not know whom
they consulted. I was briefed on the various options. I knew that
Mr. Sharp had been consulted and I thought that Mr. Wilson had
been consulted, but that did not change the decision. The
decision is still the Prime Minister's responsibility. The Prime
Minister cannot say, ``My counsellor advised me to do this or
that''. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister must take his
responsibilities and that is what I did.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is ironic that, after making such a big fuss over the
appointment of an ethics counsellor, they consult him only a few
hours before a statement, probably to save face.
Given his party's ambitious commitments with regard to
integrity and openness, does the Prime Minister not agree that
the episode of the letter shows that his government is in no hurry
to adopt clear guidelines for ministers, especially when dealing
with quasi-judicial bodies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I checked the long-standing guidelines on this, and
those concerning judges are very clear. They say that anyone
who has a problem with the judiciary must go to the Minister of
Justice. It is very clear that a minister cannot write or telephone
a judge. Even when I was a minister, there were guidelines to the
effect that one must go to the Minister of Justice, who must use
his judgment.
(1120)
As for the guidelines for members of Parliament and
ministers concerning quasi-judicial bodies, they say that there
must be communications among these bodies, but after reading
the guidelines yesterday, I concluded that they were not clear
enough and I ordered that new ones be prepared.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
After a series of failures, including the Ginn Publishing
episode, the avowed helplessness of the minister to adequately
protect the interests of French-speaking people living outside
Quebec, and now his refusal to resign following his blunder with
the CRTC, the minister no longer has any credibility.
At a time when the government is about to slash his budget,
what credibility does the minister think he still has to protect the
interests of Canadian cultural institutions and industries?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume my responsibility to all Canadians
who expect me to look after their interests, including those of
cultural communities.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think that, given his poor
record and his inability to deal with several major issues, he
would have served the interests of Canadians better by resigning
yesterday, as he was asked to do?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister said that he had learned of the
letter to the CRTC from the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the
beginning of the month of October and that he had consulted the
ethics counsellor.
I draw the House's attention to yesterday's Hansard at page
7312 where the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one I appointed for
myself-
In light of those remarks I would like to ask the Prime
Minister how he could say just a few moments ago that: ``I did
not speak to him myself. I asked that he be consulted''. Further,
how could he justify saying just a few moments ago: ``I thought
Mr. Wilson had been consulted''. Why the discrepancy?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when you are Prime Minister, you have people working
for you, preparing reports and discussing issues. Officials
worked on this issue and then made recommendations.
As to the minister's letter, I was of the opinion that he had
made a mistake, but when he realized that, he himself corrected
the situation. I knew that the issue had been reviewed by lawyers
7367
from the Privy Council Office. These people do not come to see
me personally; I have an excellent Clerk of the Privy Council
who keeps me informed.
I did receive the recommendation. I did not ask them to whom
they had talked. The recommendation was made to the Prime
Minister who is fully responsible.
[English]
The Prime Minister is fully responsible. With all the facts in
front of me I said I think that the minister made an error in not
being that careful but he tried to correct it as soon as he realized
his error. I did not ask him to resign. Eventually I asked if Mr.
Wilson had been consulted in the process. I have been told he
was not. Therefore, I asked that he be consulted right away. He
was consulted yesterday and he gave his advice. The advice he
gave was given to me and it did not force me to change my mind
about the decision I took a few days ago.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is not something we are dealing with just a couple of days ago.
The ethics counsellor said that he was contacted on Wednesday
night, not by the Prime Minister or his officials but by a
Southam News reporter. This has been going on literally for
months. According to the ethics counsellor he was only
contacted Wednesday night. This is not good enough.
I ask the Prime Minister: Where are the reports and the
minutes from this meeting with the ethics counsellor? Why can
we not have all the facts for this? Will he table a report from the
ethics counsellor with the facts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not about that at all. I said that the Prime Minister
is responsible. I was made aware of the problem. I looked at all
the facts and I made the decision. I am fully responsible.
(1125)
If I were to make the wrong decision and then come into this
House and say that I received advice from somebody telling me
to do this or that you would have said: ``You are the one
responsible''. I take full responsibility on that matter.
The Prime Minister can consult whomever he wants. At the
end of the day when he gets up in this House he is the only person
responsible. I am not running away from my responsibilities.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is exactly what we are asking for: absolute responsibility and
accountability from every member in this Chamber.
Instead of establishing an independent ethics watchdog to
investigate ministers and hold them publicly to account, the
government has established an ethics lapdog that answers to
nobody but the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister keeps him in
the dark and employs him only when he is needed at the last
minute to excuse the actions of an embattled minister.
Will the Prime Minister stop dodging his responsibilities as
he is proud to do and demand the resignation of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained the situation yesterday. I said that it was an
honest mistake. The minister recognized that himself and acted
without pressure from anybody outside. When he realized it was
interpreted like that and when checking the guidelines he
realized he wanted to correct the situation and he wrote the
letter. I was satisfied with that.
I would have preferred that he had not written the letter of
course. But as I said, when you look at the facts it was not to
influence a decision, it was to have a decision. When you look at
the facts today the letter was written in relation to one applicant
who did not get the permit. He lost it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
After weeks of waiting, the government will release today a
series of studies on the future of its cultural institutions, for the
sole purpose of justifying the major cuts it is about to make in
that sector.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize that imposing
major budget cuts to cultural institutions, such as the NFB, will
only result in jeopardizing their integrity, and even the survival
of an institution which is internationally recognized?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member thinks that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has made decisions concerning the future
budgets of some federal cultural institutions. This is only an
assumption.
What I did was to have these studies made public precisely so
that people and institutions concerned can react. This is in total
agreement with the government's desire for transparency in
these fields.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister endorse the
recommendations contained in the Secor report on Telefilm
Canada, to the effect that investments should be limited to
presumably profitable ventures, from a commercial point of
view, and does the minister realize that the implementation of
such a recommendation would jeopardize the whole
independent film production industry, thereby affecting young
producers and original work?
7368
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I had endorsed anything, it would mean
that I would have already made decisions. My original answer
indicates that I did not make any such decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were concerned about the judgment
of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Today we are concerned
about conflicting statements by the Prime Minister who
yesterday said: ``I consulted. I consulted with the ethics
counsellor''. Today he is saying: ``I asked somebody else to go
and see him and see what he said''. This is a discrepancy and I
am very concerned.
The Mulroney government was not known for setting high
standards but at least when it had a problem it was dealt with
immediately. This Prime Minister has not.
I ask him to ask his minister to resign immediately and clear
the air.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I consulted. I asked somebody to call him to ask
him the question. He gave a very clear answer. He did not speak
to me directly. Most of the time I have a staff that consults with
me because I have a lot of work to do. The answer that came
from him did not lead me to change my mind about the decision I
had made earlier in the month. I think it was October 1 and we
are still in the month of October.
(1130)
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on page 95 of the red book, the Liberals promise
and I quote: ``to appoint an independent ethics counsellor that
will report directly to Parliament''. This is a broken promise
made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. The
Prime Minister has said that he would be accountable for
fulfilling every promise in the red book. This need not have
happened. The Prime Minister would not be in this mess had he
stood up and kept his own promises.
I ask the Prime Minister to give the ethics counsellor his
independence, make him responsible to Parliament, and allow
him to report directly to Parliament on this issue as he promised.
Then he would not be in such a mess as he got himself into today.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we debated that theory in the House at that time. We
came to the conclusion that at the end of the day, whatever
advisers you have around you, when you are the Prime Minister
you make the decision. Even if that adviser is to report to
Parliament, I will have to decide whether I do or do not keep a
minister in the cabinet. Nobody but the Prime Minister chooses
a cabinet minister and is responsible for the cabinet.
The man does the advising but the decision remains the
responsibility of the only one who is responsible for the cabinet,
the Prime Minister of the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is becoming more and
more obvious that the delay in tabling the long-awaited bill on
Phase II of the copyright law reform is attributable to the
inability of the heritage minister to agree with his colleague, the
industry minister, on the scope of the recognition of
neighbouring rights.
Will the minister recognize that his industry colleague and
himself hold completely opposite views on this issue and that
his weakness and lack of credibility could well put him at a
disadvantage vis-a-vis his colleague who is prepared to defend
the interests of industry at the expense of creative artists?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to respond to this question because it is
based on a fundamentally incorrect premise, which is that the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and I have some kind of
disagreement over this issue.
The reality is that we have been working very closely
together. We are ad idem on this. We intend to bring forward
proposals to our cabinet colleagues in the very near future with
respect to phase two of the copyright laws and we expect to see it
enacted into law in the very near future.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have another
question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will the
minister confirm that the economic studies carried out by his
department on neighbouring rights are complete? And for the
sake of transparency, as he was saying a minute ago, can he tell
us when exactly he intends to release these studies?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will make a decision after having
completed my own analysis to determine whether they make a
major contribution to the issue.
7369
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote a letter to the CRTC
supporting the Daniilidis application on March 15. On March 29
the minister received a letter from the CRTC thanking him for,
and I quote the secretary general of the CRTC: ``Your letter of
support for the application by Telemedia''. The minister stated
yesterday that having received the CRTC's letter he reacted
quickly to remove the misunderstanding that had arisen.
The minister took six months to respond to this letter from the
CRTC. For six months the CRTC was under the impression the
minister was endorsing the Telemedia proposal.
(1135 )
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage consider his six
month delay in responding to the CRTC a quick and efficient
response to a matter of such importance and urgency?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made a statement in the House yesterday
which fully covers the point raised by my colleague.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this minister has compromised the integrity of every member in
the House. The minister's intervention has now tainted-
Some hon. members: No, no.
Mr. Young: Speak for yourself.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): The minister's
intervention has now tainted the CRTC decision regarding
CHOM and Telemedia. In fact, both applications have been
denied. How can the minister deny that his intervention did not
influence both decisions?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not seem to understand
there has been no intervention. This was the subject of the
discussion yesterday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
According to a Transport Canada inspection report, there
were major irregularities in the maintenance control system for
aircraft owned by Royal Aviation Inc. The report even mentions
that Royal operated aircraft that would not have received an
airworthiness certificate if they had been inspected at the time.
What explanation does the minister have for the fact that an
air carrier can operate aircraft without an adequate maintenance
control program, and what does he intend to do to ensure
passenger safety?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue raised by the hon. member is a very important
one. The Department of Transport is responsible for ensuring
passenger safety in all public transportation, and I can assure the
hon. member that I will look into the situation he described,
because we cannot afford to leave any doubt as to the quality of
the inspections that are made and the carrier's responsibility to
know and abide by all the regulations issued by my department.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would
the minister agree that stricter control measures such as surprise
inspections and monitoring carriers that are at risk are necessary
in order to guarantee passenger safety?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could not agree more. We all know that the
Government of Canada and especially the Minister of Transport
have a fiduciary responsibility with respect to safety. I can
assure the hon. member and the travelling public that everything
has been done to ensure that safety. If there are any deficiencies
in the control system at the present time, we will look into it and
act in the best interests of Canadians who use public
transportation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns
Canada's circumpolar arctic region. This area contains rich
natural resources and extremely fragile but vitally important
ecosystems which can potentially affect the global climate.
Furthermore, this arctic region is home to and provides an
important economic base for many of Canada's aboriginal
peoples. Will the parliamentary secretary please tell the House
what the government is doing to safeguard Canada's interests in
the Arctic.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been part of this
government's platform to safeguard Canadian interests in the
Arctic. The House will be very pleased to know that the
government has fulfilled that mandate by appointing Mary
Simon as circumpolar ambassador.
She is the first Inuk to hold an ambassadorial position and will
begin on Monday, October 31. This government is also
supporting what the committee heard from many witnesses
across Canada, the establishment of an arctic council to protect
the interests of the aboriginal people, of the environment, et
cetera.
7370
The government is committed to supporting such an Arctic
council. We are also very interested in preventing other nuclear
spills and in protecting the environment.
(1140)
I knew the members would be very interested in the
government's commitment to protecting the Arctic and
especially the indigenous people in that part of the world.
* * *
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the minister of heritage sent a letter to the
CRTC that may have influenced the process of an arm's length
quasi-judicial body under his jurisdiction. He has admitted this
is improper.
Can the minister tell the House how he should properly
communicate with the CRTC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind our colleague that I said
quite clearly that my letter to the CRTC is not intended to
convey support for or opposition to the application.
I think this is clear. This statement was made as soon as I had
evidence that there was misinterpretation of my original letter. I
will be very careful in the future to make sure that whatever I
state leads to no misunderstanding.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure if my question was answered. It is
very hard to find it in that discourse. I would follow with a
supplementary.
Was the Minister of Canadian Heritage ever advised by the
Prime Minister on the proper procedure for communicating with
the CRTC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister explained earlier the
rules both with regard to the legal system and the regulatory
system and what he intends to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
During his trip to Vancouver, the Prime Minister announced
his government's strategy on tourism. Using the excuse of a
need to co-ordinate the activities of all stakeholders in this area,
the federal government is preparing to interfere once again in a
field already well under provincial jurisdiction.
Does the minister not realize that by creating a Canadian
commission on tourism with the mandate of promoting, within
Canada and abroad, our country as a tourist destination, he is
creating a new source of costly overlap?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to explain to the hon. member that in
addition to the obvious benefits of tourism in the job creation
front, one of the key components of this strategy is to address the
very significant part that the tourism account deficit plays in our
current account deficit which is about $30 billion a year and
represents in effect the amount we have to borrow from
foreigners every year.
To displace Canadians going offshore is as valuable to our
current account deficit as it is to attract foreigners to Canada.
Therefore by promoting Canada to Canadians we are also
solving our fundamental issue.
It is not a duplication. It is an opportunity for us to ensure that
all Canadians understand what a wonderful and rich country
they share.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose is to make all Canadians aware of the magnificent
beauty of their country.
In that context, is the Minister of Industry willing to admit
that the true reason Ottawa is trying to gain control over tourism
promotion within Canada is to use it as a tool for promoting
Canadian unity in preparation for the upcoming referendum in
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is really a rather silly question because the way the
Prime Minister has announced the formation of the commission
is that it is going to be on a co-operative basis. We expect and
hope to have the co-operation both of provincial governments as
well as the private sector in the establishment of the Canadian
tourism commission.
(1145)
Decisions on the expenditures of the promotion
account-because this is entirely intended to encourage demand
for tourism-are going to be collective decisions. If people in
the Government of Quebec do not wish to participate that is up
to them. However I suspect that representatives of the Quebec
tourism industry will see the promotion of tourism in the
province of Quebec as a real asset for their industry and for their
province in creating jobs in the province of Quebec and
elsewhere in Canada.
7371
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the
Globe and Mail reports this morning that the only reason the
minister of heritage responded to the inappropriateness of his
blatant intervention into the CRTC application was that a
member of the Greek community in Montreal wrote to complain
after discovering the intervention letter in the file.
Yesterday, when my staff went through that file, there was a
letter from Mr. Mike Pattichis complaining strongly about the
application but there was no letter from the minister of heritage,
nor was there the other letter from Mr. Pattichis which we
suspect is the original complaint.
I would like to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage where
those letters are and why they are missing from the file.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleagues from the Reform seem to
have a lot of information, lots of files and a lot of letters.
What I have done is to put on the record of this House the
letters I wrote.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Make no
mistake about that, Mr. Speaker. We do have some information
but we are trying to get a little more.
One wonders how much Canadian people are being duped in
this exercise, because staff at the CRTC assured us that this
information is all public. The file is at the CRTC, if the minister
would like to know. Now we find the very information
Canadians require has been removed at the last minute.
What I would like to know is who removed the letters, at
whose direction, when they were removed and why.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are allegations which are to my
knowledge unfounded.
Yesterday I was asked whether I could also table the letter
dated September 20. It was not written by me. I said I would
consult with the person who produced this letter, and I said I
would table it if the author of the letter was in agreement with it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs.
Statistics Canada has reported a significant decrease in the
number of people receiving unemployment insurance in the last
eight months, that is 12.3 per cent less than in 1993.
Could the Secretary of State explain this rapid change and its
consequences for the unemployment insurance fund?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon.
member and all my colleagues in the House, I will say that the
decrease in the number of people receiving unemployment
insurance is due to a sharp upturn in the economy.
We have created 340,000 jobs since we came to office; 90 per
cent of these jobs are full-time, young people have filled more
than 50 per cent of the jobs created in September and 147,000 of
the new jobs went to women. This is the result of all the
measures taken by our government: infrastructures, Youth
Service, initiatives, and statistics. This will ease the
implementation of our reform of social programs.
* * *
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The federal government has announced the establishment of
13 regional offices to provide one-stop service to small- and
medium-sized businesses.
(1150)
The federal government has also confirmed its plans to
interfere further with regional development, in spite of the
consensus in Quebec for full powers to the province in this area.
Does the minister recognize that, after dismissing Quebec's
claims over manpower training, Ottawa is about to do the very
same thing with regional development? Is that the kind of
co-operation we were promised by Ottawa?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is always prepared to
co-operate with any province, including Quebec, on any issue in
which we have common interests.
In the case in point, the Federal Office of Regional
Development already has 13 offices in Quebec; they have been
there for over 20 years. No new office is being established.
These offices already exist. What the minister responsible for
the FORDQ did announce was the provision of an additional
service to small- and medium-sized businesses, to improve
operations through centralization of information on federal
programs in existing offices of the FORDQ.
7372
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Does the minister recognize that his repeated attempts to
increase federal government visibility in the regions only
increases duplication between Ottawa and Quebec and that, in
the end, it is the taxpayers and the regions that pay the shot?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are the ones who have just put in place a system
to reduce duplication and overlap. We already have eight
provinces on board. Unfortunately, Quebec did not see fit to join
us in reducing duplication and overlap.
In the case in point, the information we will be providing
small business is information on federal programs, including
international marketing insights that can only be gained through
the federal government. That is why we plan to use these 13
existing offices to provide extra services to businesses.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
There is a clear discrepancy between what he said in the
House yesterday and what he is saying today with respect to the
ethics counsellor, meeting with the ethics counsellor and
checking with him.
Another discrepancy is that yesterday the ethics
commissioner said that there were no explicit guidelines for
cabinet ministers dealing with government agencies. Has the
Prime Minister not given the ethics commissioner a copy of the
interest guidelines? I have a copy here if he wants an extra one.
The Speaker: Once again I appeal to colleagues not to use
any props.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, ministers have received books on guidelines. I have
explained earlier that in the case of communications with the
judiciary it is very clear they cannot do that directly by
telephone or by letter.
They have to call, if they have a problem, the Minister of
Justice who is the only one authorized to do something if the
Minister of Justice decides to do something.
In the case of quasi-judicial bodies that relate to the affairs of
the government, the affairs of the members of Parliament and so
on, the guidelines were not clear to my satisfaction.
I have asked the Privy Council Office to prepare new
guidelines in consultation with Mr. Wilson. I hope these
guidelines will be ready very soon, and I will instruct ministers
to follow them very clearly.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope I
can clear this matter up.
The object of this code is to enhance public confidence in the
integrity of public office holders which includes ministers of the
crown, I might add. It further states under preferential treatment
that ``public office holders shall not step out of their official
roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with
the government where this would result in preferential treatment
to any person''. If that is not clear, I do not know what is.
In light of this revelation, would the Prime Minister admit
that a serious breach of conduct occurred, just as bad as Mr.
Charest and just as bad as Mr. Munro went through and therefore
he has no choice but to restore integrity-
(1155 )
The Speaker: As a general rule we do not refer to ourselves
by our names in question period.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question. In light of this
revelation, Mr. Prime Minister, would you admit that a
serious-
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please put the
question.
Mr. Silye: Would the Prime Minister admit that a serious
breach of conduct has occurred and therefore he has no choice
but to restore integrity to the office of the minister of heritage
and ask for his resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have explained very clearly the rules that apply to
communications with the judiciary. I explained clearly that my
conclusion is that we have to make some clear directives in
relation to the quasi-judiciary bodies that exist in the
government.
Of course all these bodies report through ministers to
Parliament. That is one of the problems. Ministers receive
communications from members of Parliament. Every member
of Parliament is obliged as a member of Parliament to listen to
representations from constituents and ask that they be treated
fairly. That is the work of every member of Parliament and
ministers are members of Parliament.
We have to make the situation clear as to how a minister can
be a member of Parliament at the same time. We cannot deprive
7373
the constituencies that have ministers or the prime minister of
the responsibility of public office holders to deliver the services
that a member of Parliament is expected to do for his or her
constituents.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Quebec
has 30 federal research establishments that employ 2,533
workers, accounting for 11 per cent of jobs in federal facilities
of this type in Canada, while the Chalk River centre in Ontario
alone has 2,000 employees.
Does the Minister of Industry agree that there is a major
imbalance in the distribution of federal research facilities in
Canada and that Quebec does not receive its fair share of federal
jobs in research and development?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows very well how important
research and development in Canada are for science and
technology, which benefit all Canadians.
[English]
It is not possible to say that this is exactly how all federal
research money should be allocated, given the fact that much of
the existing research money spent by the federal government is
in support of carrying out the mandates of federal departments.
It is obviously going to result in a disproportionate amount of
the total spending occurring close to the seat of government.
When he takes that number out of the calculation the member
will discover that in fact Quebec has more than its proportionate
share.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has told the House that when the Minister of
Canadian Heritage wrote the letter we have been talking about
he was just acting as an MP. Then he said that the minister made
a mistake.
Since he cannot have it both ways, acting reasonably and
properly as an MP and making a mistake, I would like the Prime
Minister to tell the House which interpretation of the minister's
conduct is the correct one.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course when a minister is faced with a situation like
that he or she has to realize he or she is a minister at the same
time.
Members write all the time to commissions recommending
somebody or asking that a file be studied. A minister has to be
more careful. That is why I said the Minister of Canadian
Heritage should have been more careful, but he was acting in
good faith as a member of Parliament. His letter was very clear.
He asked for due process. He was not asking for a favour.
In reality what happened was that when the decision was made
the person he wrote for did not receive the permit. In fact
somebody else got the permit, so the letter did not help at all.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Newspaper reports indicate that many wealthy Canadians are
receiving support under Canada's social security programs.
Some are receiving unemployment insurance benefits; others
the child tax credit.
(1200 )
Will the minister please tell the House how he intends to
ensure that the support of Canada's social security programs
remains available for those Canadians who are truly deserving?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing
attention to this very important question which deals with the
allocation of scarce government resources.
I should point out that wealthy people currently receiving
these benefits are doing so entirely legally. It is exactly that
reason why the minister responsible for human resources has
tabled the social security review for members to examine. It is
exactly for that reason we are embarking upon a debate on these
measures that we have inherited from the previous government.
I trust that other members of the House will also take part in
this and make sure they follow the lead of the hon. member for
Brant. I would add how important it is also to recognize that we
should reject these constant demands from the opposition not to
touch the tax system. If we accepted its demands we would be
unable to make these changes which will free up scarce
resources for people who need them most.
I would suggest that both with respect to the debate on social
security and in the preparatory discussions for the budget we
take full part in making sure the system is improved so scarce
money goes where it should go.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development,
to whom I sent notice yesterday.
Last summer the 11 ministers of agriculture set up a rural
initiative to develop child care in the rural parts of Canada. That
7374
budget will come from the human resources department which
now has some $700 million for 150,000 child care spaces.
I wonder what proportion of that will go to rural areas. Will it
use the Langruth, Manitoba model of delivering child care
which is quite flexible and perfectly suited to rural needs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a $720 million federal
commitment not yet allocated on a provincial basis. The
minister is looking at it and definitely, through negotiations,
will answer the problem.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of a Chinese delegation led by Mr. Yue
Qi-Feng, Governor of Heilongilang province.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7374
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to seven petitions.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the privilege to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Transport. This is a report
on Bill C-38 which was referred to the committee following
first reading. It is the first bill under this new procedure to be
reported back to the House.
While this bill is the first to follow this unprecedented
process, I would draw to the House's attention the fact that the
committee study of this bill was done with professionalism and
serious effort which is the proud tradition of the transport
committee and the hallmark of its members.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour and pleasure to introduce a petition on behalf of the
Canadian Vietnamese community.
This petition is signed by constituents throughout the
Ottawa-Carleton region.
(1205 )
They are calling on the Government of Vietnam to deal with
the issue of human rights in an expeditious fashion. They are
also calling on the Government of Vietnam to respect their
religious freedom.
I hope in the spirit of dialogue that the Government of
Vietnam would take this as a representation from the
Canadian-Vietnamese community.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have two other petitions to table in accordance with Standing
Order 36. They deal with the role of the Leader of the
Opposition.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
sets of petitions. The first petition says that whereas the
majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and
whereas human life at the pre-born stage is not protected in
Canadian society, therefore these petitioners pray that
Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from 121 petitioners who believe the privileges which
society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended
to same sex relationships. They request that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act,
or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from many residents in my riding of
Leeds-Grenville calling on Parliament to inform the Leader of
the Opposition that he is not supporting the majority view of the
residents of Leeds-Grenville when he is travelling to all parts
of the world to promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today. In the
first the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
7375
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions where the petitioners
pray that Parliament will act immediately to extend protection
to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final two petitions pray that Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
to make no changes in law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions today. The first petition is asking
that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician
assisted suicide in Canada, that section 241 of the Criminal
Code be vigorously enforced and that Parliament consider
expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying
persons in Canada.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the other two petitions deal with the mining industry in
Canada. In light of the mining industry being forced to look to
new opportunities outside of Canada and in light of the Canadian
mining industry having proposed a 10 point plan, it is requesting
that Parliament take action to increase employment in this
sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves,
sustain mining communities and keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting petitions that were recently collected at the Waterloo
Pentecostal Assembly. One with 308 signatures deals with
sexual orientation. The petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the next
petition that was collected at the Waterloo Pentecostal
Assembly deals with the issue of the sanctity of human life. The
petitioners pray that Parliament ensure present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
(1210 )
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
third petition collected by the Pentecostal Tabernacle dealing
with abortion.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today to
present a petition signed by approximately 300 people of the
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville riding.
The petitioners claim: ``Their member has admitted to
inexcusable behaviour. He intentionally misrepresented his
credentials and his constituents have absolutely lost all respect
for and confidence in their member to represent them''.
The petitioners would like their member's indiscretions
thoroughly investigated; and if found unfit to serve that his seat
be declared vacant so that a byelection may be held.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to table a petition
from residents of my constituency of Surrey North. The petition
signed by 141 residents asks that the Parliament of Canada not
repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way
and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of
September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide and/or
euthanasia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 63 will be
answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 63-Mr. de Savoye:
What is the cost of the duplication and overlap pointed out by the Auditor
General of Canada in his most recent report on page 471, paragraph 18.2 where
he writes that ``the development of seniors policy and programs is
unco-ordinated and fragmented; some duplication and overlap result''?
7376
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): In his 1993
report the Auditor General did not attach cost figures to the
duplication and overlap mentioned in paragraph 18.2 on page
471.
Since the report's release, however, all key elements of the
1988 seniors' strategy have been consolidated into a single unit
within Health Canada with an administrative cost saving of
$250,000.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question enumerated
by the Secretary of State has been answered.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7376
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-36, an act respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the
settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the
flooding of land, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-36,
the Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act.
Before I start to speak about the quality of the bill, I want to
make it clear that the government can take no credit for drafting
the agreement. As much as it pains me, I have to acknowledge
that the previous government and the people negotiating on its
behalf did an excellent job on the agreement.
At the same time I will not hesitate to credit the present
government for implementing this agreement by way of Bill
C-36.
I am confused as to the display of schizophrenia on behalf of
the government when back in June it introduced a couple of
pieces of legislation dealing with aboriginal issues, namely
Bills C-33 and C-34 which were terrible pieces of legislation
and terrible agreements. Now in direct contrast it is introducing
a bill that has a great deal of merit. I wonder how the present
government can take such opposite views of agreements and
still call it good legislation.
As an example, when we compare Bills C-33 and C-34 with
the way Bill C-36 was introduced, on Bill C-36 there was plenty
of time the analyse the legislation and the agreement to make
reasoned, logical decisions. In contrast to that, Bills C-33 and
C-34 were presented a very short time before debate. There was
no time to analyse the two bills before they were debated in the
House.
On Bill C-36, there was plenty of time to prepare a response
to the bill and the agreement through a detailed analysis. On Bill
C-33 and Bill C-34 as you know, Mr. Speaker, there was no time
to prepare adequate responses. Once the bills were rammed
through the House, we had time to come up with more reasons
why those bills should not have gone through.
(1215)
In contrast there was plenty of time to debate Bill C-36,
which we really appreciated. Our party has debated it at length.
It is good legislation. By contrast the Liberal government
invoked closure on debate on Bill C-33 and Bill C-34. It
devalued the democracy that was present in the House.
We appreciate the debate time we have had on Bill C-36. Bill
C-36 is an excellent agreement, an excellent piece of legislation
because there is finality to it. It actually reaches a conclusion.
The amount of moneys payable under the agreement are set.
They are predetermined. They will end at a particular date.
As opposed to that, in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 it is completely
open-ended. It is a blank cheque piece of legislation. There is no
finality to it. There are so many grey areas that we could be
paying for the same thing over and over again for generations to
come. We appreciate the finality that Bill C-36 has and we
question the reasoning behind Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 that the
government was so pleased about.
By contrast again, in Bill C-36 there was sound logical and
reasonable solutions put into this agreement to solve the
problem. Contrast in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 there was no
reason, no logic, no sound solutions to the problem, just vague
statements that left the opportunity for abuse over and over
again and the cost to rise upward and upward and the payments
to go on for generations.
Now that I have drawn a comparison between a good piece of
legislation and a great agreement that we have in the House
today with some terrible legislation, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34
that the Liberals rammed through the House in June in order that
they could break early and have a holiday over the summer and
the minister of Indian affairs could go to the Yukon and proudly
proclaim this agreement, I want to talk about Bill C-36 and why
our party would support it.
Problems in this region of Manitoba began in the 1940s with
the Lake Winnipeg regulation and the Churchill River diversion
projects. These were huge hydroelectric projects initiated by
Manitoba Hydro that flooded almost 12,000 acres of reserve
7377
lands that were the occupied lands of the different Cree groups
there. This represented about 10 per cent of reserve lands among
five Indian bands.
In 1975 the Northern Flood Committee was established with
representation of all five bands which of course included the
Split Lake Cree band.
This committee was established to determine exactly how the
bands affected by this hydroelectric project were to be
compensated for the flooding of their lands and the negative
impact that this had on aboriginal fishing, hunting, gathering
and trapping, traditional activities in that part of the area among
the Cree bands.
The work of the committee eventually lead to the creation of
an economic development agreement and the Northern Flood
Agreement known as the NFA in 1977. That was not a good
agreement. The NFA was vague in its terms. It was very
open-ended. It presented all sorts of opportunities for abuse of
the compensation. It has cost the government well over $100
million because of the disastrous formulating of that agreement.
Bill C-36 is a result of the many serious problems that were
experienced under the NFA between the bands, Manitoba Hydro,
the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada,
problems which began only a year after the signing of the NFA in
1978 and carried through to 1988.
In 1992 the Auditor General reviewed the operation of the
NFA and found a huge number of problems. He found that the
terms and conditions of the NFA were terribly unclear. This
resulted over a period of time in a large number of arbitration
applications being put forward by the signatories over the years.
(1220)
Just after the NFA was signed the terms and conditions were
so clouded that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development requested an extensive legal analysis of its
obligations under the agreement. DIAND was very worried
about this agreement and the implications it would cause for
compensation and for provisions down the road. It requested
this huge legal analysis so it could get its position a little bit
clearer.
This resulted in a 72 page report being produced in 1983 and
later a 200 page report being produced in 1987 outlining
DIAND's obligations under the NFA.
One really has to wonder whether the people who put this NFA
together were asleep at the switch when it was signed and what
the government was doing when it was being put together. In
1983 and 1987 the government had to go into this huge legal
process to find out exactly what its obligations were under the
NFA. One wonders who the negotiators were representing. It
also brings into question their competence.
By way of example of the obligations of the government that
were unclear, the NFA appears to be definitive when it states that
Canada is responsible to supply drinking water to the bands.
Manitoba Hydro was supposed to pick up 50 per cent of the cost
of doing this. It just so happens that to date Canada has spent $88
million on this obligation to supply pure drinking water and
Manitoba Hydro has not picked up one cent of this cost. We are
talking about $44 million here.
When this bill was before the committee on aboriginal affairs
we discovered that an arbitrator was still trying to determine if
Manitoba is responsible to pay 50 per cent of Canada's cost of
supplying drinking water to the five bands. We have the
Northern Flood Agreement that is or appears to be very
definitive that there was a 50 per cent cost sharing between
Canada and Manitoba Hydro. It ends up that Canada has paid the
whole shot up to now, $88 million. There is an arbitrator still
trying to determine if Manitoba Hydro was responsible to pick
up 50 per cent of the cost. It gives an idea how unclear in many
areas the NFA was. It was actually a very bad agreement for
Canada to be involved in.
This example I just gave on the drinking water clearly
highlights the uncertainty which exists in the terms and
conditions of the NFA. That is why it is such a good thing that we
are able to break out of it and sign this particular agreement with
the Split Lake Cree Nation.
The Auditor General determined that the NFA was designed to
be implemented through a co-operative approach. Instead, he
found that the NFA was being implemented through an
adversarial approach. This adversarial condition was brought
about by the cloudiness of the agreement and people thinking
that they could take advantage of this. In fact, there was every
opportunity for them to take advantage of it.
As a matter of fact, as of November 1991 signatories to the
NFA had filed a total of 150 claims for arbitration. At that time
there were 32 outstanding claims where Canada was either the
respondent or the claimant. This adversarial process is
frustrating to the bands, it is frustrating to the government and it
is frustrating to Manitoba Hydro.
It is a process which of course is expensive to the taxpayer
because the taxpayers end up paying the shot for the legal costs
on this.
(1225 )
Because the parties are retaining legal counsel to battle their
claim before an arbitrator, the Canadian taxpayer ends up
picking up the tab for the federal government's lawyers, the
Manitoba Hydro lawyers, the province of Manitoba and the
bands involved, the signators on the native side of it.
I can clearly say that the taxpayer may never know the true
cost of the Northern Flood Agreement. It is that bad and it is that
expensive.
The Auditor General estimated that the NFA had cost the
federal government $115 million and up between the time it was
signed in 1977 and March 31, 1991. This was an agreement that
was supposed to solve the problems. It created problems and it
created a huge obligation to the Canadian taxpayers. However,
the Auditor General said that this was strictly an estimate
because in fact-I love this statement-the Department of
7378
Indian Affairs and Northern Development had not captured the
entire cost.
Within his recommendations in the 1992 report, the Auditor
General stated that the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development must capture all NFA associated costs, a
huge obligation for the taxpayers of Canada for this disaster of
an agreement, the Northern Flood Agreement.
In all, the NFA was not clear in its terms and conditions and
this led to various claims being filed for arbitration between the
parties which would sign the agreement. This led to an
expensive and certainly unworkable agreement.
In 1989 negotiations began between the parties to address the
severe difficulties found within the Northern Flood Agreement.
The negotiators were seeking band specific agreements. I think
that was a good first step.
Bill C-36 is just such an agreement reached with the Split
Lake Cree band. I want to say that as a participant in the
committee process on this bill, I had the opportunity to talk with
many members of the Split Lake Cree band. I was very
encouraged by their determination to resolve this thing and get it
so that there is some definite finality to this bill in order that the
vague, grey areas of the NFA can be put aside. They can get on
with life and make some definite plans for the future well-being
of their community.
I commend the Split Lake Cree band for having the courage to
break away from the Manitoba flood committee and negotiate
this final settlement with Manitoba Hydro and the provincial
and federal governments. They faced a lot of adverse criticism
from the other four bands that were the original signatories for
breaking away and wanting to get the thing done. I commend
them for what they did. It was a very courageous act.
Apparently work is currently under way with the four
remaining bands to try to draft similar agreements to this in the
coming year.
There is again a lot of resistance to it because of the blank
cheque opportunities in the NFA. It is incumbent on the
government that it pursue coming up with agreements for those
four remaining bands as quickly as possible. It is going to solve
the problems in that area and it will save the Canadian taxpayers
a huge amount of money and problems.
I am not going to be as long as the former speaker but I want to
talk briefly about some of the really good things in this bill.
Specifically under this agreement, the Split Lake Cree will
receive about $47 million over five years. They will receive
some 34,000 acres of new reserve land and some 2,800 acres of
fee simple land.
This is good because they will know what their land reserve
will be. They will have this money for economic development in
setting up infrastructures within their communities and they will
be able to put a business plan together.
(1230 )
It is interesting to note also that the settlement moneys will be
transferred to a trust fund in the name of the Split Lake Cree.
These funds will be administered by a trust company in order to
guarantee accountability. This is going to ensure that the band
has the utmost flexibility in determining where and how the
money will be spent within its community. In speaking with the
Split Lake Cree I believe it is going to be spent with due
diligence and accountability.
The 2,800 acres of fee simple lands will be subject to property
taxation. Any business originating from those lands is also
taxable. I like that. We have a form of taxation that is going to
help the economic base.
I am also pleased to note that this agreement was put to a
referendum in the band. Individuals in the band voted 93 per
cent in favour of the agreement. I like that as well because that is
the democratic process. It is important to utilize such a
mechanism in order to allow the input of the rank and file band
members since this settlement agreement has a direct effect
upon their lives and the lives of their children.
Further Bill C-36 was examined by the Standing Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which
examination ended on October 6. This bill was reported back to
the House without amendment. It was a good piece of
legislation. It is a good agreement. Committee members found
that the bill sufficiently addresses the problems found within the
northern flood agreement. Members hope that Bill C-36 will
adequately settle the grievances arising out of the flooding of
reserve lands.
The Reform Party supports the settling of legitimate Indian
grievances. This indeed is a legitimate grievance. I know this
new agreement will work a lot better than the NFA. I hope that
similar settlement legislation relating to other affected bands
will be forthcoming.
I have no hesitation and the Reform Party has no hesitation in
supporting Bill C-36.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; of the
amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.
7379
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the interest of the House I would like to provide the reasons for
bringing forward the subamendment that was presented
yesterday.
The issues in the reorganization of this department are
complex. We are seeing five ministries becoming one. It
consolidates several subcabinet departments: the Secretary of
State; the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship; the
Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport; Parks Canada;
components of Environment Canada; and the heritage
component of the Department of Communications.
The government has talked a great deal about meeting its
deficit target. I was really quite astounded to hear that this
reorganization is going to save the huge figure of $7.3 million.
Our debt today is over $536 billion. We have a deficit of $40
billion. Yet this reshuffling and this reorganization is going to
save $7.3 million. Not a single person-year is lost; everybody
has been reshuffled and moved off to other departments.
Therefore I am not quite certain where the savings are.
(1235)
The other side of the House, the government side, has often
challenged the Reform Party MPs to come forward with some
good ideas. We certainly want to ensure that the finance minister
indeed does have access to this report by June 23, 1995 to help
him with his short term deficit targets that he puts and that he
wants to reach.
I also felt it was important to express one last time for the
record and for Canadians generally exactly what we mean by
special interest funding. This really is a ministry of special
interest.
I have with me a number of items I would like to read into the
record which come from a 703 page document listing all of the
special interest funding that is available to Canadians today. It is
important for us to look at these particular elements because
they clearly describe special interests in Canada.
In the 1993-94 fiscal year $17,200 was given to something
called ``The Hidden Advantage''. It was a series of round table
discussions to be held in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary
and Saskatoon on the relationship between diversity and
international trade with a particular focus on the Pacific rim.
Participants would include opinion leaders in the Asian
Canadian community.
A staggering $85,000 was committed to the Canadian
Advertising Foundation. It was for ``Minorities in advertising;
we are all Canadians''. This is a communications outreach. It
was for the dissemination of the findings of the research done by
Goldfarb Consultants for the Race Relations Advisory Council
on advertising and the provision of suggestions on how to
include and portray visible minorities in advertising. Once
again, $85,000 for that particular activity.
The 1993-94 program funding for the Canadian Council for
Multicultural and Intercultural Education was $198,000. This
was to provide program and project support for the following
activities: operations of the national office, co-ordination of
CCMIE activities, the board, executive, meetings, ECE and
Race Relations Resource Advisory Committee workshops at the
CCMIE national conference that is held every year. That was
almost $200,000 to that group.
There is also the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Culture,
Community and Health Studies. It received $5,000 for a national
symposium titled ``Models of Health Care in a Pluralistic
Canada''. It was a two and a half day national symposium on
models of health care appropriate for a pluralistic Canada,
whatever that means. It was held in Toronto and was for research
workers, health care providers, health educators, public health
agency staff, policymakers and consumers.
The Conference Board of Canada received $86,635 on
``Dimensions of Diversity in Canadian Business''. This was a
two-year research and information dissemination project on the
importance of diversity to Canadian economic prosperity, with a
particular focus on managing and valuing diversity in the
Canadian private sector.
There was $15,000 committed to the public service
announcement campaign on violence in society and the
development of a public service announcement, a PSA. This
campaign was going to focus on violence in the community and
the media.
The Ethnocultural Business Advisory Committee of metro
Toronto received $20,000 for its small business week on
ethnocultural business activities. This is a co-ordination of
events to be held during small business week by eight
Ethnocultural Business Advisory Committees across Canada.
These events include trade shows, workshops, business awards
and networking events. This is part of an annual national event
for small business.
(1240 )
The next thing I want to bring into focus is the $40,000 that
was given to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Chief
Administrative Officers department. It is for municipal
procurement strategies and minority economic development.
The municipal government will adjust its procedures for bidding
on contracts to ensure they do not present barriers to minority
owned businesses and it will train its managers on the
implementation of those procedures.
Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that the National
Association of Friendship Centres received $15,000 for phase
three of its national race relations strategy. This project will
develop resources and tools that will be used to train race
relations workers from friendship centres across Canada.
7380
The Steering Committee Forum for Central and Eastern
European Canadians on Business Development in 1993 received
$10,000. This was a forum for central and eastern European
Canadians on business development. This two-day national
forum was to be held in Toronto. It was on how the Ukrainians,
German and Polish Canadian communities in Canada could
utilize the business expertise within their respective
communities to become more involved in business activity.
The next one I want to raise is on drama and education to
foster understanding. Easin Productions received $10,000. This
project will introduce students and community groups to race
relations and cross-cultural issues through the medium of live
theatre and workshops. There will be at least 174 presentations
in schools and community groups.
I really wonder how unifying all of these different activities
are in Canada today. We are seeing so many of these projects and
workshops unfolding that highlight more and more of our
differences. They are not bringing us together or unifying us on
how we are the same.
The Black Educators Association of Nova Scotia received
$34,442. This was for program funding to address educational
concerns and deliver workshops in black communities to
increase parental involvement in education issues.
The Dartmouth Police Department received $3,526 for a
14-week employment project for two visible minority students.
The Eye Level Gallery received $1,507 for workshops
presented on key video works by a black artist and a cultural
skill development workshop.
The International Education Centre received $34,160 to
conduct a series of multicultural and race relations programs for
teachers, education administrators, students and community
groups.
The Parents for a Model School Committee of the St. Joseph
A. McKay Home and School Association received $11,970. This
was for a proposal for phase one of a model school project for
this particular association. It was for the development of the
infrastructure and support system for an anti-racism and
anti-poverty project for an inner city school in Halifax.
Shelburne County Cultural Awareness Society received
$25,645. This project is researching data and conducting an
archaeological survey on a site of historic significance to the
Nova Scotia black community which has been selected for a
regional landfill.
In closing I want to state for the record once again that the
reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage is really
a ministry of special interests. The government is creating a new
superministry of cultural identity that will legislatively
entrench grants to feminist, multicultural, linguistic and
environmental groups. I submit that it denies us an opportunity
to define ourselves as Canadians.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very
much thank the previous speaker for taking the time to review
some of those issues because they underline one of the things I
want to talk about in addressing this reorganization. Frankly I
am a little astounded that when reading through the list of grants
the member did not understand what people were attempting to
do. People in business and in government throughout the
country from coast to coast have recognized that we in Canada
have built something profound, wonderful and strong. It gives
us strength internationally that no other country in the world
has.
(1245)
We have recognized that in our diversity there is strength. I as
an English Canadian married to a Polish Ukrainian person can
celebrate what we bring to the country. At a time of globalism, at
a time when we are reaching out to the entire world, we can build
upon those strengths.
Professor Neil McDonald who lives in my riding is renowned
throughout North America as an expert on the question of
diversity. He points out that at a time when we are reaching
across the ocean, when we are reaching into other countries of
the world to build markets and build relationships, we have in
Canada a vast resource of people who can work with us.
What is the member concerned about? Is it a $17,000 grant to
talk about diversity and international trade to help build our
balance of payments and support exports in the country? That
does not sound terribly subversive to me.
Let me respond to a couple of points the member highlighted.
Referring to models of health care, at a time when we are
working so hard to strengthen our health care system and are
supporting research into some models of health care it strikes
me as something we should be celebrating, not criticizing.
Turning to violence in society, is the member saying she is
afraid to look at it or that the government should not be taking
action on such a critical social issue?
Referring to drama and education to foster understanding for
students, as members and as a government we have a role to
educate people, to help people from all parts of the country to
understand what the country is really about. By fostering
understanding of other groups we reduce tensions and reduce
some of the violence in communities. Is this what the party
opposite is opposed to?
Then parents for a model school. I did not select these things.
This is what the member read into the record as examples of
abuse. We are funding parents to help them look at building a
model school promoting anti-racism and anti-poverty. Is that
7381
what the party opposite says it is opposed to? Frankly I am a
little astounded.
I suspect the majority of the House supports the
reorganization the government has begun. As we promised we
have worked to reduce the size of cabinet, to streamline
operations and to bring together like departments. We have had
many debates in the House about a number of departments and
the department of heritage is one which I support very strongly.
The proposed legislation combines sectors that share the
following responsibilities: the promotion of Canadian identity,
cultural development and heritage, and the maintenance of our
national parks.
I want to describe in some detail the different sectors and how
they relate to fostering Canadian values and Canadian identity.
The sector of citizenship and Canadian identity promotes the use
of official languages. I have heard much talk from members
opposite about the evils of promoting official languages. They
should stop and reflect upon what we have built in the country,
how we have managed in very difficult times and with very
extreme tensions by promoting understanding, acceptance,
introduction and inclusion rather than rejection.
The federal government is the government of all Canadians.
Therefore its policies must serve a diverse population of some
27 million people. Actually Statistics Canada says it will soon
be 29 million.
The department believes that official bilingualism allows for
services in the official language of the citizen's choice and
reflects a simple commitment to understand and to be
understood by the public in English or in French.
(1250 )
Lester B. Pearson put it very eloquently when he said:
In a diverse federal state such as Canada, it is important that all citizens
should have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the national
administration and to identify themselves with and feel at home in their own
national capital.
In addition to official languages, the citizenship and Canadian
identity sector is also responsible for the Multiculturalism Act.
It is apparent that Canada's increasingly diverse population
provides a unique resource base for the successful development
and expansion of our economy.
This is something that multinationals have recognized. This is
something that the business community in Canada has
recognized. This is something that the Liberal government has
recognized for several decades, and that is why we have built the
multiculturalism process. It is passing strange to me that
members opposite have not recognized this point.
A diverse society is one which ensures a continuous and
dynamic interplay of better ideas and experiences which are
essential for a growing, competitive, global economy. By
working with various ethnocultural and mainstream
organizations the Department of Canadian Heritage is effecting
real change to make Canada a better place and the envy of every
nation.
That is what we are. I really support and applaud the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism for the work she is doing as she
goes across the country supporting and promoting diversity. In
that diversity is our strength as a country.
Amateur sports and related events like the Canadian games
also fall under this department. These events are an important
part of how the department fosters a positive Canadian identity
and pursues the values of excellence that Canadians hold true.
The sector of cultural development is also an essential, integral
part of the department. This sector develops policies and
programs to promote artistic expression and the preservation of
Canada's heritage.
The economic impact of the arts community on the Canadian
economy cannot be understated. In 1992 the cultural sector
accounted for 3.7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $22 billion. In
addition the sector employed almost 500,000 people, a
relatively large bang for the buck.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of
Canada's cultural sector. That is why under the auspices of the
Department of Canadian Heritage it rigorously promotes the
interest of Canada's cultural community on the international
scene.
Finally I would like to refer to the integral part the parks
sector fills in the Department of Canadian Heritage. This sector
fulfils national and international responsibilities in mandated
areas of heritage recognition and conservation. Our rich natural
and historic heritage incudes 36 national parks, 750 historic
sites, 9 historic canals and 4 marine areas located throughout
Canada. They include some of the gems of the world's heritage.
Parks Canada commemorates, protects and presents these
national treasures. Parks Canada ensures public understanding,
appreciation and enjoyment of this heritage while at the same
time ensures long term, ecological and commemorative
integrity.
In short, what we are on about today is simply bringing
together elements in government that speak to every person in
the country and to the world about what we are as Canadians. We
should all celebrate and enjoy the fruits of the work of the
department. It is at the foundation of what makes us the best
country in the world.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for a long time on Bill C-53
because we have spent several hours dealing with the bill. We
have proposed an amendment to the amendment calling for the
committee to have a deadline to review the entire focus and
purpose of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
7382
I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the
member for Winnipeg South in his response to my colleague, the
member for Calgary Southeast. The member for Calgary
Southeast was reading and referring to some grants made by the
department under the banner of multiculturalism.
I share the concerns of the hon. member for Winnipeg South
regarding racial discrimination, the importance of education
and the importance of health.
(1255)
I would like to remind the House that we have a justice
department which should adequately be able to protect our
citizens from discrimination and should be able to undertake
any necessary action to guard the rights of all Canadian citizens.
We have a Department of Health that is supposed to be
concerned with the health of Canadians. Why is the Department
of Canadian Heritage, under the banner of multiculturalism,
messing around with Canadian health issues? It does not make
sense. What about education? Education is a provincial
responsibility. The federal government has some responsibility
for funding, particularly for higher education, but why is the
Department of Canadian Heritage under the banner of
multiculturalism offering grants regarding education programs?
It does not make sense. It costs a lot of money. What is the
whole premise of the Department of Canadian Heritage, why it
exists? Why do things like multiculturalism and Canada Council
grants flow from that department or why do they need to be
reviewed?
I state my case. I think I have the support of my colleague
from Calgary Southeast in saying that we are not against the
fundamental principles that Canadians support, but we are
against the foolish administration from the federal perspective
as it relates to those important elements Canadians so much
enjoy.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak on second reading of Bill C-53, an act to
establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The bill will give the new department a mandate to assume its
rightful share of responsibility in administering the legislative
responsibilities of the heritage department. As everyone in the
House is aware, the new department came into being in 1993
with the amalgamation of several departments.
The legislation creates a department that will have
responsibility in the areas of national parks, historic sites,
cultural development, amateur sports, multiculturalism and
official languages. All these areas were previously in five
separate ministries and are now combined into one. That in itself
is a very significant cost saving measure. All these areas have
clear links to our identity as Canadians.
I found it very disconcerting yesterday to listen to every
member of the Reform Party and how they spoke against Bill
C-53. I did not hear one positive comment from that side of the
House with regard to Canada's heritage. One after another they
stood in their places in the House and spoke about each of the
main aspects of the heritage department.
I would like to quote only one member. I am sorry the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster who just spoke had to leave. He
mentioned what the new ministry was responsible for, as
reported in yesterday's Hansard:
-an unruly collection of agencies which has been lumped together
arbitrarily. It truly is the ministry of lost souls, a ministry put together consisting
of many irrelevant and outdated agencies with nowhere else to go.
Let me mention a couple of the so-called unruly irrelevant
areas the member was talking about. He was talking about the
Museum of Civilization, the Museum of Nature, the National
Archives, the National Arts Centre, the National Battlefields
Commission, the National Film Board, the National Gallery, the
National Library, the Museum of Science and Technology, Parks
Canada, Heritage Sites, and on and on.
If anything shows our Canadian identity, it is those particular
national agencies that we happen to be very fortunate to have in
the country.
The institutions I have mentioned are some of the cultural
heritage institutions of Canada. Not that many years ago I
chaired for several years in the region of Ottawa-Carleton the
advisory committee on the arts. I would like to explain my
connection between a local regional advisory committee on the
arts and the heritage department. They are very different. One is
huge and one is small.
(1300 )
Their roles are the same, to retain the heritage of our country
and to promote the language and the culture.
Without the help of a major department like the department of
heritage or without the advisory committee on the arts which I
just spoke of, one requires the assistance of municipal
governments, regional governments, provincial and federal
governments.
Without those four levels of government, culture would not
survive in the country because of its size. Whether it is film,
music, radio, television, archives, museums, our rivers, lakes
and mountains, we as legislators have a responsibility to
promote and protect.
Most of the Reform Party people come from the province of
Alberta. I happened to be in Alberta two weeks ago and spent a
week in the beautiful Banff resort area in the Banff National
Park. What a jewel in the crown of Canada is the Banff National
7383
Park with national funding going into that park. I am proud that
all Canadians recognize the importance of not only this national
park but many national parks in this country.
I mentioned the commemorative war memorial. Soldiers from
every province in the country died in Europe during the wars.
Have you ever gone to those cemeteries? Have you ever visited
them? I did this past-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know that
members feel very strongly about issues. It is the place of
vigorous debate but I would call on each and every member to
please direct their interventions through the Chair.
Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, you get quite emotionally wound
up in these things and you go off track every now and then.
There are gravesites of Canadian soldiers in Europe. Our tax
dollars maintain those graveyards in France, Holland and
Belgium. There is even a Canadian gravesite just over the border
in Germany.
They are beautifully maintained. It makes us realize how
lucky we are to be Canadians. Canadians died so that you and I
can sit in the House of Commons, be free and be free to speak. It
is part of our history and it is something that we must not lose.
Would we have a national orchestra or a national film library,
and I could go on and on, without federal assistance? Of course
not. They could not possibly operate without financial
assistance from the federal government.
It is our responsibility to encourage artists, whether music,
sports or whatever. They need to have the opportunity to develop
their talents so that you and I and future generations have the
opportunity to dwell on the importance to this nation of the
contributions of those people who have gone before us.
In my riding of Nepean we have the Centrepointe Theatre
which is a 1,000 seat theatre comparable in size to the National
Arts Centre theatre. I look at the operation of that theatre. It is
operated by volunteers.
The Centrepointe Theatre is not any different than any other
organization. The National Arts Centre has volunteers, as does
the National Museum. People in this country give their hearts
and souls and their time to contribute to these institutions.
Has anyone been to Washington or a state capital recently? Do
members know how Americans promote their heritage? It is
front and centre every day of the week in school. They are
constantly there with buildings and monuments to retain their
heritage. I did not hear one positive statement from the Reform
Party on heritage.
The government appreciates that there are some concerns
about the decision to divide responsibility for broadcasting and
telecommunications between Canadian Heritage and Industry
Canada. The inclusion of telecommunications in the
department's industry portfolio recognizes the increasing role
of telecommunications.
On the other hand, broadcasting fits more closely with the
identity of culture and the Canadian content mandate of the
Canadian heritage. Canadians know that the government is
committed to fiscal responsibility in all areas of federal
endeavour. Bill C-53 is a prime example of that.
By putting these five ministries into one, we are looking at the
bottom line. The Reform Party can take comfort in the
knowledge that for the upcoming year the Canadian heritage
portfolio is saving $76.1 million. That is a significant amount of
money.
(1305)
In addition to these actual savings of money there will be
other longer term efficiencies realized through the regrouping of
the areas of responsibility from various departments. Broadly
speaking, the Canadian heritage minister will work for the
betterment of our country in matters relating to Canadian
identity and values, cultural development, heritage and areas of
natural or historical significance to this nation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of
amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made
Thursday, October 27, 1994 the division stands deferred until
Tuesday, November 1, 1994, at the expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders.
7384
The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security
Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special
Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
consider it a privilege to spend a few minutes discussing the
provisions of Bill C-54 which deals with overpayment of old
age security benefits and a time bar on the recovery of these
overpayments.
This provision points out the challenges of administering our
income security programs which comprise an extremely large
enterprise, one which is vital to the well-being of more than six
million Canadians.
To manage effectively a program that provides more than $20
billion a year to six million clients is challenging enough but the
Government of Canada must also maintain the reputation of the
income security programs as effective, efficient and equitable.
After all the purpose of the old age security and other benefits is
to help provide Canadians with a just reward for a lifetime of
work and service to family, community and society.
The old age security program is designed to assist those
whose retirement income is minimal or even non-existent. It is
designed to contain elements that alleviate poverty among
senior citizens. Inevitably with such an extremely large group of
programs there will be anomalies. People may receive more than
their entitlement. People may receive less than they are entitled
to.
A vital part of administering these funds of such formidable
size is to remedy abnormalities in a manner which is effective,
equitable and, where appropriate, compassionate.
(1310 )
The Old Age Security Act contains restrictions which prohibit
the recovery of substantial overpaid amounts and allow clients
to retain unlawful gains. The act restricts the recovery of some
overpayments aside from those arising from fraud or wilful
misrepresentation. Collection can be made only for access
moneys received in the current fiscal year plus the full previous
fiscal year.
This is not the case with the Canada Pension Plan. It allows
overpayments to be recovered regardless of the timeframe. The
proposed amendment to the Old Age Security Act reads exactly
this way: ``Where a person has received or obtained a benefit
payment to which the person is not entitled or a benefit payment
in excess of the amount, the benefit payment to which the person
is entitled, the amount of that benefit payment or the excess
amount, as the case may be, constitutes a debt due to Her
Majesty''.
This provision amends the Old Age Security Act to remove
timeframe restrictions for recovery of overpaid moneys
including payments for guaranteed income security and
spouse's allowance. The change will provide greater
accountability to the taxpayer and allow equal treatment of
clients of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.
Under this change the minister will have the discretion to
collect the entire amount overpaid to a client rather than a
limited amount. However, in keeping with the policies and
practices of the income security programs there would be no
change to the existing authority to remit overpayments in
various cases. These would include cases of hardship where
administrative costs exceed the debt or where the debt cannot be
collected within the foreseeable future.
Another new amendment incorporated in Bill C-54 will
extend the minister's authority to remit overpayments where
there was administrative error or erroneous advice. As a result
of this amendment, recoveries of incorrectly paid funds are
estimated to be approximately $1 million to $2 million every
year.
I should mention that the time restriction has never applied in
situations where charges of fraud were laid and proved but of
course there are only a handful of cases of that type.
Nevertheless, this amendment will enhance the ability of
government to administer the old age security program in
keeping with justice and equity.
No concerned Canadian wants to deny old age security
benefits to a senior citizen who is deserving and in a difficult
financial situation. Nothing in this proposed amendment will
change that. The removal of this time restriction on recovery
brings the old age security provisions into line with those of the
Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Earlier in this debate the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve commented that the government will
collect debts incurred 15 years ago on the basis of erroneous
advice from the department. This comment does not recognize
the minister's ability expanded in this Bill C-54 to forgive
overpayments incurred in such circumstances.
These amendments taken together will provide the minister
with the flexibility to forgive overpayments where that is
merited and to pursue the recovery of overpayments where that
is merited. That is surely what is desired as opposed to the
previous rules which were arbitrary and inconsistent with other
government programs.
Where administrators have made errors, overpayments are to
be forgiven. Where persons have made incorrect claims,
overpayments are to be recovered. However, the government is
determined to merit the reputation of the income security
7385
programs as programs that respect both the taxpayer who
provides these millions in benefits and the pensioner who
deserves to be treated with sensitivity and dignity.
The old age security program is designed to help those who
really need help. Through supplements, it is intended to help
those senior citizens whose income is low. With more than six
million people benefiting from all income security programs,
there are bound to be anomalies.
I want to again stress that a vital part of administering these
large sums of such formidable size is to remedy anomalies in a
manner which is efficient, equitable and where appropriate
compassionate. The amendment to remove time barriers to
recover overpayments is an important provision and another
reason why Bill C-54 merits the support of all members of this
place.
(1315)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his introduction
to Bill C-54.
I too rise in support of Bill C-54 and I want to start by talking
a little about some of the problems with how government in the
past has managed pension programs in general. There are a lot of
pension programs that exist in this country today.
We have to have a complete understanding. There really is not
anything any more important than looking after our seniors
today, for they cannot and will not get jobs as we are trying to get
for our young people. They generally would not be retrained into
our society. They are not going for extra education and these are
the people really who deserve a secure retirement.
One of the members opposite is referring to himself. I think
we will look after him too and I will talk a little about the MPs
pension plan in a few minutes and we will see how well we will
look after him in the future.
These are the people who really deserve a secure retirement
because they have earned it through paying taxes and through
paying into the CPP and so on. I guess we have to ask here
whether the government and that other party from Jurassic Park
have really looked after the welfare of senior citizens of the past.
When we talk about changes to old age security, CPP and so on
in the future we are going to have to get into looking at some
new, constructive ideas because as most people in this country
know money is becoming of short supply for those kinds of
programs and they are going to have to be dealt with.
I have some difficulty in getting some confidence that this
government will deal with these programs in a new, modern,
constructive way. This is after all a traditional party of which we
have one left in the House. Traditional ideas we thought were
going to be gone in years past and for the future are ideas like the
Senate. The better part of this country today is asking that we
have elected senators, that they be effective and that we have
equal representation in provinces. Yet this government still
provides the patronage appointments to which most Canadians
are opposed.
We talk time and time again about the MP pension plan.
Virtually not a month goes by in this House when we do not
complain about it. Yet no changes have been made. We are
talking about tradition and how we get a government like this, a
traditional party, to move ahead and make some constructive
changes in CPP and old age security. We are running out of time
on some of these programs and they really have to move ahead;
laws and legislation like in the Young Offenders Act where the
whole country really wants this traditional party here to move
ahead with them and make tougher constructive changes. It has
failed to do it time and time again.
What we have here I fear is another traditional party that is
dealing with non-traditional problems like old age security and
CPP which have to be changed.
Why would we expect this government to come up with new
ideas? I guess maybe we do not and that is what we are here for.
That is why we have come to this House, to try to infiltrate some
changes throughout the system.
Old age security is what is called a non-contributory
program. Individuals do not contribute to it. It comes from tax
revenue. On one hand one might assume that we could cut that
out because people had not contributed to it. That is not the fact.
Over the years all the taxes paid into the government have been
used in part to fund old age security which is good in measure.
That will have to change somehow unless the government finds
some revenue either by raising taxes, and we hope it does not do
that, or cutting expenses and we know it is not doing that.
(1320)
The Canada pension plan is the contributory portion of
pension for Canadians where the employer and the employee
contribute.
To address old age security and CPP and future changes we
must look at how the government manages its current pension
plans. We know what they are. They are the MP pension plan, the
military pension plan, the civil service pension plan and the
RCMP pension plan. There are a number of them. Those plans
should be covered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
This act sets standards for pension plans in this country on the
financing and the fund management. It was introduced in 1967
and amended by the Conservatives in 1987. The plan has four
very good standards which actually should apply to all pension
plans.
The first one is that the employers must ensure that dollars are
held in trust. This is very basic and necessary for any pension
plan. A pension fund administrator shall be put in place
managed by a board, an organization that is charge of the fund.
The administrator must be responsible for appointing somebody
for accountability and then the fund must be prudently invested.
It
7386
stands to reason that is the only way a good pension plan could
be managed.
However, these standards that were in the standards act were
intended to protect the interests of the plan members. Not
surprising, however, Parliament exempted the federal
government from these rules. Here we go with this kind of
sanctimony. We will look after everybody else but ourselves.
When this act came in and was modified in 1987, Parliament
said that is okay for everybody else but we will not get involved
in that portion, we will exempt ourselves from it. It did, with the
military, civil service, RCMP and MP pension plans.
Consequently, there are problems with those plans. I am going
to illustrate from these four plans what is wrong with the
management and the ability to fund old age security and CPP.
The problem with that particular exemption is that total
pension payments exceed the contributions. When you exempt
yourself from these rules you start to go into the hole. You start
into deficits. That we know is where we stand today. Today we
have total liabilities for RCMP, military and civil service
pension plans of $94 billion, unfunded. It is carried in an
account on the books of the government as an SPA, I believe, a
special purpose account. It is a liability. It is not funded in trust
as the Pension Benefits Standards Act so directs everybody else
to do.
We pay out about $6 billion to these three organizations, the
military, civil service and RCMP. That comes directly from
general revenues paid by the taxpayer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret that at this stage
in debate on this particular piece of legislation members are
entitled to 10 minutes without questions or comments.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, that is too
bad. I just got warmed up. I have not even had an opportunity to
tell the government what I think of it today. I only did that
yesterday.
We have to work on old age security and CPP, make no
mistake about it with this government, and RRSPs as well.
(1325 )
I am advising the government now to keep away from taxing
RRSPs. It may be the one very good livelihood senior citizens
have in this country. After 20 years of spending money
carelessly by both Liberals and Conservatives there are very few
dollars left in those pots to fund other pensions.
If that bank is broke, which it is, what has to happen here is
that old age security and CPP must be the number one priority
for funding. That means the government should attend to the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, try to get these in trust and try
to get them funded.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made on
Thursday, October 27, 1994, a recorded division on the proposed
motion stands deferred until Tuesday, November 1, 1994, at the
end of the period provided for Government Orders.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you will find unanimous consent to proceed immediately to
private members' hour notwithstanding the couple of minutes
left.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent to proceed to Private Members' Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7386
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-210, an act to provide for the recall of members of
the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
7387
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and speak in support of
Bill C-210, a bill introduced by my colleague from Beaver
River.
To my mind this is one of the most important bills that we may
be discussing in this Parliament because it is a very small but
important step in restoring confidence in the system and
restoring trust in politicians.
I am particularly pleased to rise and speak on this bill today
because I recall it as being one of the major reasons why I joined
the Reform Party in reading over its policies and positions on
political reform and on freer votes, referenda, citizens'
initiative, recall.
Back in 1990 when I first was exposed to those policies they
rang very true with me. I said yes indeed that is what is wrong
with this country of ours today. Politicians have lost touch with
the people they are representing and the system is in great
disrepute.
(1330)
Recall is one part of political reform, but as I said earlier, it is
a very important step in the direction to make politicians more
accountable to the people who voted them into office.
Referendums can encourage the common sense of the common
people to be brought to bear on some of the major issues we are
and will be facing in this 35th Parliament.
Canadians have lost faith in the system. They have lost trust in
the politicians. The results of the last election in having 205 new
members of Parliament elected to this House speaks very clearly
to the feelings of the Canadian voters that there must be change.
They are not happy with the status quo and we have to have some
new directions.
Consider Meech Lake, followed by the Spicer commission,
followed by the Charlottetown accord. During that period these
things indicated very clearly that Canadians were saying: ``We
want change; we are not happy with the direction governments
have been going in''.
This applies particularly when I reflect on the Charlottetown
accord. All major governments were supporting it; all of the
major press were supporting it. However, the Canadian people
saw through it and said: ``No, this is not a good idea. This is not a
good move''. They rejected it. It was to the utter disbelief of the
parties that the Canadian voters would stand up, see through the
smoke-screen being presented to them and say: ``No, this is not
what we want. We have not had a voice in this process''.
That was a turning point in Canadian politics and it was a
turning point for the better. Politics in Canada will never be the
same. The problem is that once credibility is lost, it is extremely
difficult to get it back. Talk is not enough. It takes action. This
bill is going to provide some action, a step in that direction.
Changes must be made.
I recall when I was campaigning. The door to door experience
I have described was frightening. At door after door I am sure
other members as well as myself were being met with the same
reaction: ``I am absolutely fed up with what has been going on
up there in Ottawa. Why should I believe you? You are here at
the door telling me what you want me to believe, what you think
I want to hear. But you will go to Ottawa and you will do exactly
as you are told, just as has been going on for years. I am fed up
with it''.
I encountered that at door after door. That level of cynicism
really was disturbing. In a way it reinforced my desire to get
involved in the system and hopefully bring about the change
needed to restore the level of confidence that has been so sadly
lacking.
I am building a case for the mistrust and the cynicism that is
out there with the voters. I want to read some quotes from the
very famous red book because it has been played so often during
this first sitting. There are those who would suggest that the red
book should have started out with the phrase once upon a time,
but it does contain the odd pearl of wisdom.
I would like to take this opportunity to quote some of them.
They will reinforce exactly what I am saying today in support of
recall. On page 91 under ``Governing with Integrity'':
Canadians have always prided themselves on the quality of their democratic
institutions. Yet after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about public
institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time
high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and
integrity in our political institutions must be restored.
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable
dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the
people and institutions of the public sector.
This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with
the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of
political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not
consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of
public business behind closed doors.
(1335 )
On page 92 under ``Parliamentary Reform'' it states:
In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role
in drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees. These
committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures.
More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons, and individual
members of Parliament will be involved in an effective prebudget consultation
process. We will establish mechanisms to permit parliamentary review of some
senior order in council appointments.
7388
A lot of talk so far but little in the way of action.
Let me now go to page 93 under the title ``Perspectives''. This
quote that is in the red book was actually taken from the Public
Policy Forum, 1993:
Given the sustained and often angry criticism that has been widely expressed
by the public in recent years, it is remarkable how little has been done by way of
reform. Of all the grounds on which successive governments, together with MPs,
could be charged with being unresponsive, none is more striking than the lack of
response to unmistakable expressions of public dislike of the manner in which
Parliament goes about its business. If Canadian parliamentarians are unwilling to
effect changes, they must be prepared to accept a further loss of public regard. If,
however, they are now ready to embrace reform, there are a number of avenues
open to them.
The last quote is from page 93 of the red book. The source is
the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing
of 1992. It is entitled ``Political Cynicism in Canada''.
I will read out the quote and the percentage who agree with the
statement: ``I don't think that the government cares much what
people like me think''; 72 per cent agreed with that statement.
``Generally, those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the
people''; 79 per cent agreed with that statement. ``Most
candidates in federal elections make campaign promises they
have no intention of fulfilling''; 82 per cent. ``Most members of
Parliament care deeply about the problems of ordinary people'';
62 per cent. ``Most members of Parliament make a lot of money
misusing public office''; 64 per cent.
The problems we have had with the Minister of Canadian
Heritage this week illustrate there is a problem. Unfortunately,
the government missed a great opportunity this week to show it
meant to restore integrity and honesty to government. By not
taking fast and appropriate action it has lost the credibility that
is so heralded in its famous red book.
Let us get back to recall. Is there identified support for recall?
There is a very definite yes in answer to that question. In
October 1991 the province of British Columbia had a vote on
whether to support recall and 81 per cent of the voters in that
province responded in favour of recall. In the March 1994
Gallup poll 75 per cent of Canadians said yes to recall. In the
province of Quebec 70 per cent supported recall. In the province
of Ontario 78 per cent supported recall.
Let us go now to the question of party affiliation relative to
the question of supporting recall. Liberal supporters, 76 per cent
endorsed recall. BQ supporters, 76 per cent supported recall.
Indeed, there is very strong support for recall.
In the first week of Parliament the need for recall was
demonstrated by what happened in the riding of
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. The member was not
good enough for the Liberal Party and was thrown out. The
people in that riding now have no member or no way of getting at
their member. Just this morning I presented another petition in
the House with hundreds of names on it requesting that
Parliament do something about this inability for constituents to
get at a member who is not representing them.
I cannot understand this reluctance toward recall. I can only
assume it is because members have not received the message
that the voters want change. That has been demonstrated so
clearly. They are still out of touch with voters. The people who
pay our wages, our bosses, are telling us and demanding that
change be made.
I spoke about the Spicer commission because it reinforces a
lot of what I was saying. The final chapter in that report was not
written by Mr. Spicer or any of his commissioners, but by one of
the Canadians who was interviewed. What he said was: ``No
hyperbole or political hedge can screen any member of any
legislature who thwarts the will of the people on this matter. The
voters are watching and waiting''. I think they are waiting for
recall.
(1340)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate
on the proposed act to provide for the recall of members of the
House of Commons. This bill is a good example of an idea that
has its merits but does not quite make it. The purpose is to ensure
that the member is worthy of the mandate he received from his
constituents. The problem has been with us since the beginnings
of the democratic system. We have seen this in the past in many
countries, and though people have tried to find a solution, they
have failed to come up with satisfactory answers. In countries
where recall exists, it very seldom occurs, but there are also
some outlandish situations.
If we consider the bill before the House today, I will explain
why I said it does not quite make it. It is certainly not attractive
in its present form because, among other things, it opens the
door to all kinds of political intrigue. I will give an example. If
this bill is passed, it would give more power to party
organizations. Take for instance, a riding where a member was
elected with less than 50 per cent of the vote, or the case of an
independent member, like, for instance our colleague here in the
House who represents the riding of Beauce. I am not saying that
politicians might actually do this, but the parties might get
together and decide to start a petition to challenge a seat held by
an independent member, who would not have the same political
clout as these parties, and a new election would be called, not to
challenge the performance of the member but just to win another
seat. And this may have important repercussions, one way or
another.
What started out as a good intention expressed by the Reform
Party could have unacceptable consequences like giving even
more weight to the party machine at the expense of the member
representing his or her riding. In addition, according to the
current legal interpretation of the political party financing
7389
legislation, if this act providing for the recall of members of the
House of Commons went into effect, it would become an
appalling form of lobbying for those who finance political
parties, and who are not necessarily individuals. For example,
companies, banks or unions on the other side of the fence could
decide in a given situation to make a member lose his seat, not
because of poor performance but because his ideas are different
from theirs. In this regard, our legislation governing political
party financing is not tight enough at the present time to allow us
to put in place a concept such as the recall of members.
Another perverse element which is not in the legislation must
be avoided, namely the systematic use of recall to remove
members from the House. This bill provides that such petitions
can be accepted 18 months after an election. Politicians could
easily make systematic efforts to question the mandates of
members from the other party, from the other side of the House,
thus creating instability which is totally inconsistent with the
goals and objectives of our parliamentary system. We cannot
afford to transfer to a parliamentary system such as ours ideas
which may have been successful in a different type of system but
which would not have the same effect here. I think that these
perverse effects must be avoided at all cost.
Something else to keep in mind is that we must not
over-legislate, and in this regard I think that the Reform Party is
contradicting itself. You do not solve a problem by passing a law
and damming every little stream. In this Parliament, if the
mandate of one or two individuals should be reconsidered
because of something they did, I think that it is not necessary to
pass a law that would have a major effect on the parliamentary
system and the electoral system and unpredictable negative
effects.
(1345)
My colleague from the Reform Party just gave the example of
Charlottetown. If we had had such a law when the Charlottetown
Accord failed and all of Canada started to recall all the members
who had spoken in favour of that horrible agreement, I feel that
we would have had a constitutional crisis and an even more
obvious parliamentary crisis, especially since about a year
passed between the Charlottetown Accord and the next federal
election, the same time it would have taken to come up with
something to challenge the mandates of the people who had been
elected.
So, this solution does not seem viable, in my view. It does not
seem like an appropriate solution to the problem which may be
created by a member of Parliament who does not properly fulfill
his mandate. Other forms of representations can be made and
actions can be taken by the constituents, without jeopardizing
someone's mandate because of his ideas.
Let us not forget too that we sometimes have free votes on
moral issues and on bills. Some pressure groups could
conceivably resort to the recall process because of just one issue
representing a very minor part of the work done by a member.
I also want to say a word on the short text-some 200
words-to justify the application for recall. We are in politics.
We see the same reality from different perspectives. That text
could take different forms and be subject to various
interpretations, thus generating an instability which is not
appropriate, considering that, in the next few years, Parliament
will have to consider major constitutional changes.
It is because of the strength of our parliamentary
institutions-and this must be recognized-that a party seeking
a radical transformation of our country's political structure, can
come here and express its views. We must ensure that this
democratic process continues to exist. Indeed, that institution is
still the best democratic tool available.
Let me mention a few issues which I consider more urgent
regarding MPs' mandate. I already said it, but I will repeat it
now: We must first ensure that we have a political party
financing process act which is airtight. We must ensure that only
individuals, and not corporate entities, can make contributions
to a political party.
When you look at the list of the people who are presently
contributing to the financing of political parties like the one
currently in power or, in the past, the Conservative Party or any
other party that is satisfied with following the letter of the law,
you realize why their hands are tied in so many situations. You
understand why, in the social program reform for example,
government action is much more limited and softer than what
the public expected. This is because this party's financial
backers, if not handed control, at least exercise moral influence
over it. When these backers are banks, unions, corporate bodies,
the voters are not a priority and, in that sense, the intent of the
Representation Act is distorted. Therefore, it appears to me that
legislation to that effect is much more urgently required.
The second element on which I believe it appropriate to move
very quickly is to make sure that when people are elected, they
come here with a clear, well-defined mandate and that they
respect it. In politics, people are always right in the end. We live
in a society in which-the Conservative Party of Canada can
attest to that-if political parties retreat in their ivory tower and
forget about the people who brought them to power, they
eventually pay dearly for it. In our political system, a four- to
five-year term of office seems very reasonable.
7390
Each one of us, the 205 new members, knows it to be true. If,
after 18 months in office, we were asked to perform as
efficiently as those who have been fortunate enough to be here
for two, three or four years, it would render the system less
efficient. Contrary to the Reform Party's objective, this would
further diminish voter confidence in the institutions which
represent them.
(1350)
To conclude, I would say that what we have here is the age-old
problem of democratic representation by delegation. It has been
with us for a long time. The solution we are being offered is not
the right one. I believe that we should give it some more thought.
This bill should be dropped and instead we should start a
reflection on a priority issue, the financing of political parties.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the
debate on Bill C-210 proposed by the member for Beaver River
respecting the recall act.
In trying to find why we would need a bill such as this one in
place in Canadian politics, I asked the Library of Parliament to
do some research and give me examples of corruption and
situations that may have been prevented if we had recall
legislation like the one before us. I was amazed. My fax machine
burned up for about a half hour with all the examples the library
was sending me.
A December 30 article in the Ottawa Citizen refers to 18
members and ministers on the Liberal side of the House and on
the Conservative side of the House who were implicated in such
corruption. There was also more evidence in a June 28 article
that reads: ``Two PC MPs leave caucus pending probe, an RCMP
investigation into the misuse of federal funds''.
Another article that caught my eye states: ``Prime Minister
Kim Campbell has inherited the mandate of one of the most
corrupt governments in Canadian history. Seldom have so many
been caught doing so much for themselves''.
These are examples of some of the things. I found it totally
outrageous that the Canadian public has put up with nonsense
like corruption charges against members, forged documents,
shoplifting, kickback deals, ministers accepting $2.5 million in
loans from a friend who just happened to be a government
contractor, questionable land deals, lavish spending while on
government trips abroad financed by the taxpayer and conflict
of interest charges. The Canadian public demands more from
elected representatives.
Recall is the power of the people to petition for the holding of
an election on the recall, the removal of a member of
Parliament. It was first used in the American Articles of
Confederation of 1777 and recall currently exists in 15
American states. We hear criticism that if recall were in place
we would have massive amounts of tie-ups in the process
because of all the numbers that would be coming forward to the
House.
From the best count I have been able to make of recall in the
United States, I could only find seven state representatives, one
state senator, two elected state cabinet officials and one
governor. They are rather low figures and nothing to get too
concerned about.
With accountability and open government high on the
Canadian taxpayers' agenda, recall is direct popular
participation in the administration of the law. No position
should be considered too lofty or too dignified for this type of
action. The position of a member of Parliament exists for and is
financed by the people of Canada. The people should be able to
remove any incumbent whose performance they consider
unsatisfactory. The people should be able to remove any
unsatisfactory MP or minister without turfing the whole
governing party out of office.
One hon. member just mentioned a few minutes ago the red
book. There are certain quotes in the red book that are pertinent
to this. The red book on page 91 states:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and
integrity in political institutions must be restored.
This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with
the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of
political leadership.
(1355 )
It would seem in principle that the Liberal Party is supportive
of direct democracy in government.
Adopting recall is a way of introducing into the
administration of the law the kind of democratic control that
citizens' initiatives and referenda could bring to the making of
law. Recall introduces a deterrent to and, as a last resort, a cure
for arrogance, bias, corruption or incompetence among elected
officials.
If the people had the power of recall we would not have an
abusive MP pension plan. We would not have patronage. We
would not have outrageous perks. We would not have an ear for
special interest groups. We would not have cabinet ministers
abusing their power as we have seen in the last couple of days.
If the people had the power through recall legislation we
would have a higher public opinion of elected officials. We
would have more accountability in government. We would have
MPs representing their constituents instead of toeing the party
line.
By passing Bill C-210 history will show that we did restore
public confidence in government. To restore confidence in this
place we must move toward a truly democratic system. We must
be accountable in supporting Bill C-210 and introducing recall.
Thereby we will establish the power of the people.
7391
Let us examine the democratic option of recall and discuss its
potential impact on the Canadian system of government and its
electorate. Recall is a procedure that allows the voters to call
their representatives to account before the end of their normal
term, at a time of the voters choosing.
This has been criticized in some arenas but before the House
affairs committee on September 7 there was testimony by Dr.
Peter McCormick, a political scientist from the University of
Lethbridge, as follows:
I think we have to reject the argument that voters would be discarding
representatives every second week, that there would be recalls going on endlessly
and constantly. In a democracy it should not be necessary to belabour this point. If
we can trust the electors to show some wisdom and some judgment in electing
people in the first place, surely it is not unreasonable to say that they will exercise
similar wisdom and judgment in how often and to what purpose they use recall. If
we cannot trust them to use recall then it is not clear why we trusted them to do the
electing in the first place.
The recall process outlined in Bill C-210 essentially involves
three stages: an application for recall, a recall petition and
finally a byelection. I do not want to spend too much time on the
actual workings of the bill because I do not have that much time.
However I would like to talk a bit about the safety valves that are
included in the bill.
First, the Clerk of the House will not accept a recall petition
until the grace period of 18 months has passed since the last
election, which applies both to newly elected and re-elected
MPs. In the case of newly elected members, they would have a
reasonable chance to establish a record of representing and
serving their constituents.
Second, a recall petition can only be made once in a
constituency during the life of an elected Parliament. This
would prevent an MP being repeatedly harassed by an organized
special interest group.
Third, the petitioners' official agent must report all
contributions and expenditures related to the group's recall
campaign, including a list of all people who made financial
donations, thus limiting the lobbyist factor.
Fourth, the safety valve is the time limit for collection of
recall petition signatures. This ensures that the issue that
triggered the petition remains alive and significant for the later
stages of the process.
Fifth, as an added precaution Bill C-210 incorporates several
clauses that would ensure the official agent is operating above
board by instituting an offence punishable on a summary
conviction.
In closing I quote the words of Edmund Burke in his 1774
speech to the electors of Bristol:
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the
strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved
communication with his constituents.
Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect;
their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his
pleasure, his satisfaction, to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer
their interests to his own.
(1400)
I urge all the members of this place to support Bill C-210.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to stand in support of my colleague's bill
today.
I want to say that I am very dismayed that none of the
government members opposite has the courage to stand and talk
about the concept of recall in this House.
As my colleague from Simcoe Centre has already stated, this
is a measure that has very high support among the Canadian
electorate. In other words, Canadians want us to be subject to
recall. The members of this government will not even talk about
it and that is a shame and not in the interests of Canadians.
Really the purpose of a recall mechanism is that Canadian
democracy would benefit from the increased accountability of
elected officials. Once again this week we have seen how very
unaccountable elected representatives really are.
This government talks so loudly about integrity in
government and how it was going to put a watchdog in place that
would be accountable to Parliament. What has it done to provide
for accountability of elected officials? What it has done is
appoint a lapdog that is answerable only to the Prime Minister
and is now being used as kind of a Delphic oracle when the
Prime Minister needs some words of wisdom from a deep source
to justify his actions.
Canadians are not satisfied with the level of accountability
that their elected officials have. It needs to be corrected.
This idea of holding elected representatives accountable by
some recall mechanism is certainly not something that has just
been dreamed up by a few strange people in this country. The
whole concept originated in ancient Athens which was the
birthplace of democracy.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want
to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that
the member speaking has commented on the participation of the
government in this debate, suggesting it is some kind of
cowardice that prevents us from speaking on this bill.
In this hour of debate we have chosen to leave the debate to
the Reform Party hoping that it will display through it speeches
how foolish an idea this is.
7392
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With the greatest
of respect I do not believe at this point that we have a point of
order.
I was attentive to the remarks of the hon. member with regard
to the issue raised by the government deputy whip but I conclude
that there is no point of order and I ask the member for Calgary
North to resume her intervention.
I do not know that there was a point of order. It is a matter of
debate. At this point the floor has been granted to the hon.
member for Calgary North.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will
engage in debate on this issue as time goes on.
In the birthplace of democracy in Athens, the accountability
of elected officials was through a process of recall which was by
way of ostracizing wayward politicians. Wayward politicians
were ostracized and not allowed to participate in public life and
they were also sometimes exiled from the country.
I think a lot of Canadians would feel that we should go right
back to original democratic principles sometimes.
Also recall has been a facet of the Swiss system since before
its formal adoption in the 19th century. In the 19th century recall
was by another name.
(1405 )
It was known as the imperative mandate. It is a device
whereby elected officials can be subjected at any time to the
review of the people who put them in office and I would suggest
that this makes eminent sense in light of what democracy really
is.
I remind Canadians again that democracy is rule by the
people. We are simply the representatives of the people here in
this Chamber. We are here because they have chosen us, given us
the honour and the responsibility to represent their concerns,
their wishes and their interests and carry them out on their
behalf.
A lot of times Canadians feel that once elected,
representatives simply disconnect from the people who put them
in place, pay the bills and whose future is affected by their
decisions.
I would also point out that recall is truly democratic because
citizens can only recall their own representative, not someone
else's. It is the people who put a representative in place, who
have the wisdom to elect that representative in the first place,
who should be able to have the say as to whether that
representative continues in the position where the electors have
put them.
I want to point out to members of this House that every other
Canadian is subject to recall. If you are in a job or a position and
you do not do it properly you will be booted out. You will be
replaced. You will be given a pink slip. Yet somehow 295
Canadians who have a very important job, a very critical job, a
job on which hangs the future and the well-being of thousands
and thousands of Canadians, feel that somehow they should not
be subject to the same type of representation and accountability
and recall as every other Canadian. This simply does not make
sense and it should be rectified.
People are cynical and disrespectful of politicians because
they do not open themselves up to this evaluation. It is an axiom
that if you want trust from others you must trust them in
response. We hear this all the time when we are counselled about
dealing with our children, dealing with staff in management
situations and in all facets of human relationships. Mutual trust
is so important.
Yet it appears that members of this House are not prepared to
entrust their future and evaluation of their performance and of
the adequacy of what they are doing to the Canadian public. This
does not make sense and we need to re-examine our belief in the
common sense of the people who elected us in the first place.
When we asked the Prime Minister of this present government
about his support for the concept of recall his response was that
Canadians have the ability to recall their representative in an
election.
Canadians know well that a general election is not the most
effective time for a performance review because that is the time
when so many issues are at stake with not only individual
representatives but really the party and the leadership. Other
kinds of programs and policies are on the table. A performance
review is such a very small part of all of the factors that electors
have to weigh at the time of an election that it is not fair to say
that is the definitive moment when electors should be deciding
whether a particular candidate is satisfactory.
MP recall, I believe, would dramatically change the
sensitivity of MPs to issues by shifting the balance from parties
to people and that is where it really belongs. If a backbench MP
could say to the government whip and to the front benches ``I am
sorry, I would like to support this measure. I know you are
telling me to but if I do I am going to get turfed out back home
because this is simply not supported by the people I represent'',
think of how much healthier it would be and how much more
meaningful real legislation would be if it had to have the real
support of the people we speak for and vote for.
That would be one of the healthiest changes we could bring to
do something to really address the issues of the country in a
meaningful way, in a way that meets with the approval of the
people we represent.
(1410 )
There are so many reasons why we need to have the courage
and the faith in the Canadian public to bring forward these direct
democracy measures that I urge this House to reconsider,
especially members on the other side, their resistance to moving
in this direction and to support my colleague's bill on recall of
representatives.
7393
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
accept your ruling on the point of order. However inadvertently I
do believe that the member who just spoke has provided some
incorrect information to the House and I do want to put on record
a correction in the context of speaking on the motion of the
member for Beaver River.
The member has suggested that Liberal members of
Parliament are somehow avoiding this debate. To this point an
equal number of Liberal and Reform Party members have
spoken in this debate. It is an ongoing debate. It is not just this
particular hour. Four Liberal members of Parliament spoke on
the issue and four Reform members of Parliament spoke on the
issue.
I think that indicates clearly our interest in this debate.
Nonetheless, this issue of a recall is a matter of Reform Party
policy and so today we did feel that we wanted to leave the floor
to the members of the Reform Party to explain their policy to
Canadians.
However, having been challenged to enter the debate I am not
going to by any means give up that opportunity.
I have spoken on this issue before in this House but I am
pleased to do so again if the Reform Party members do not wish
to use the full-time we wanted to accord them the courtesy of.
I have compared this legislation to a kind of instantaneous
divorce and suggested that when I chose a spouse and I think
when most people choose a spouse they do so very carefully and
with great forethought, and they make a long term commitment
to that relationship. Because it is a long term commitment, they
tend to choose very carefully and take their choice very
seriously and recognize that there will be in any relationship, a
marriage or an elected representative, some good times and
some bad times.
As I said at that time, I am sure that in 33 years there have
been many times when had instant divorce been available either
my husband or I would have taken advantage of it. Looking back
on 33 years we will conclude that all in all the good times
outweighed the bad and we are glad we stuck with it.
Participatory democracy is more than paying a buck to pick up
the phone and register your opinion without the responsibility to
engage in dialogue with others who perhaps have different
opinions, or to consider other interests involved in the opinion
you are expressing.
It is very easy to selfishly say ``this is my opinion''. It is not so
easy to say ``I have an opinion but I also want to know what the
impact of that opinion is on other people. I want the opportunity
to engage in dialogue with them about the pros and cons and the
effects this will have on our society as a whole and, the bottom
line, what is good for the country''.
Members express a lot of concern about special interest
groups. Frankly, one of my concerns about this legislation is that
it does very much put members of Parliament at the mercy of
very special interest groups that have both the social standing
and the economic means to organize to unseat a member of
Parliament because they do not like a decision that member of
Parliament made. This has happened in many jurisdictions
around the world. Sometimes that special interest group is the
military which manages to unseat a whole government with
disastrous results for its society.
(1415)
Recall in fact has the potential to produce a very selfish
citizenry who look at every vote from the point of view of what
is in their interest and whether the member is serving their
interest. It is not: Is this member serving the interests of the
community or the country at large? Is this member sensitive to
interests that are not his or her own? Are they concerned not only
about today but about tomorrow and the next generation? That is
what we are here for. It is not to please people in the very short
term. We are here to try and listen to our constituents and do
what is best for them, for our country and for all citizens.
This government has taken significant measures to ensure that
in fact democracy is not simply a question of what happens at the
ballot box and then go away and forget your constituents and
they forget you. We have done our best to introduce ongoing
participation in the democratic process.
I want to say one final word about caucus. I do not know how
the Reform Party caucus operates. I do know that every
Wednesday morning we in the government caucus have the
opportunity to freely and openly express our point of view to our
Prime Minister and to one another. Together we resolve those
differences of opinion we have. When we come in here we do
what we believe is in the interests of the country.
Finally, we made a commitment as a government. We made
numerous commitments to the country during an election
campaign. We want to be able to keep those commitments. We
are working at that day in and day out. We need to have some
solidarity of caucus to do that because that is what Canadians
expect of us.
Let me just return to my main point in rising today. In the first
hour of debate on this bill on April 29, 1994 there were four
Liberal speakers and one Reform speaker. There have only been
three Reform speakers today.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to
clarify a lot. First of all I would like to just say that this bill was
debated in February, not April. February was the beginning of
this debate-
7394
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, order. If the
member has a point of order relating to another matter of which
she has given an indication, would she please get to that matter
quickly.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask to speak briefly
under the right of reply under Standing Order 44(2). I believe we
have time as we go to about 28 minutes after the hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me just see if I can be
helpful. The debate when it began earlier this day had 45
minutes left on it. Now the request from the member for Beaver
River is under a standing order concerning which is commonly
referred to as right of reply. Where a member of the House
moves a substantive motion the House of course recognizes that
that person under right of reply is the last one to speak on the
debate which closes the debate.
I believe the hon. member for Beaver River is asking the
House for unanimous consent to have, I will arbitrarily select a
figure, two minutes to close the debate and then I must put the
question.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the member for Beaver
River who moved the motion to close the debate?
Ms. Catterall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, then the debate closes
without unanimous consent?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes, the debate will close
two minutes from the time the member for Beaver River begins
to speak and I will put the question forthwith. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to just close off this debate by saying how much I
appreciate members who have spoken in favour of this bill. The
member for Ottawa West called it a foolish idea when she rose in
her place. They may think it is a foolish idea but I am here to say
that the Canadian public, even Liberals who have been polled
across the country, hardly think this is a foolish idea.
What the Canadian public thinks is foolish are the people in
this Chamber who are completely immune to job security,
completely immune to being put forward to somebody who
would say: ``You are not doing your job, you are not acting
responsibly''.
The member for Ottawa West spoke about good times and bad
times in a marriage. She likened this bill to an instant divorce.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many
provisions in this bill to be safeguards for that.
This is something that is going to carry on over a period of
days, weeks, even months. A person who has been a member of
Parliament for 18 months has had a chance to prove themselves.
That is hardly an instant divorce.
This bill calls for 50 per cent plus 1 of the number of voters
who voted in the last election. That is not something that can be
obtained instantly to call for this instant divorce.
I will wrap up my comments by saying how sad I find it that
people on the government side refer to this whole thing as just
something that is foolish, that they have spoken about it more
than we have. May I draw the House's attention to the fact that
the Liberals said today they have no more speakers on this. The
member got up without knowing her facts about the bill, making
comments about it.
I would urge this government to support-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Pursuant to
Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made
Thursday, October 27, 1994, the division stands deferred until
Tuesday, November 1, 1994, at the expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders.
This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.22 p.m.)